Partly allowed

Mohammad Gouse v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Hyd.

Telangana HC23 Jun 2023MACMA/2509/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court partly allowed the appellant's appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal from Rs. 62,000 to Rs. 95,000 with interest, covering medical expenses, fractures, pain, loss of amenities, transportation, and extra nourishment.

What did the court decide?

The compensation was enhanced from Rs. 62,000 to Rs. 95,000 with interest at 7.5% per annum; the respondent ordered to deposit the amount within one month.

Mohammad Gouse Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT^{FOR THESTATE OF TELANGANA} .AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY,THE TWENTY^{THIRDDAY OF JUNE} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENWTHREE}

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE^{SMT JUSTICE P.SREESUDHA}

¶5

MACMA NO.2509 o^{F 2008}

¶6

Appeal filed under^{Section 173 of M'V Act' aggrieved by the order and} decree iated^{18.06.2008made in MVOP No.744of 2OO7,on the file of the Court of} 16" Chrir.rn,^{Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge,at} Khammam

¶7

Between:

¶8

Mohammed Gouse^{S/o Mohd. Gulam Dastagir@ Dastagir} .. APPellanUClaim )

¶9

.. APPellanUClaim^Petitioner

¶10

AND

¶11

Andhra Pradesh^{State RoadTransport Corporationrep' by its Managing Director'} Musheerabad,^HYderabad

¶12

..ResPondenUResPondent

¶13

Counsel for the^{Appellant: Sri P.Prabhkar Reddy,Advocate}

¶14

Counsel for^{the Sole Respondent:None appeared}

¶15

The Court delivered^{the followingJUDGMENT:}

¶16

THE HONOURABLE^{SMT.JUSTICEP.SREE SUDHA}

¶17

M.A.C.M.A.N^{o.2509of 2008}

¶18

JUDGMENT:

¶19

This appeal is^{fileclergainst the order and decreedated} 18.06.2008 in^{M.V.O.P.No.744 of 2O07passed b1' the learned} Chairman,^{Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal(District Judge) at} Khammam^{(for short 'the Tribunal')'}

¶20

Heard the^{argumentsof learnedcounsel appearingon} behalf of appellant.^{Pcrused the materialavailable on record'}

¶21

The appellant^{fi1ed a claim-petition before the Tribunal'} claiming^{compensation c'rf Rs 1,5O,OO0/- for theinjuries} sustained^{by him in the accidentthat occurredon 14 11 2006} and the Tribunal^{has granted Rs 62,O00/- with interest@7 '5%} per annum^{from thc date of petition til1 the date of realization'} The particulars^{of the compensation granted by the Tribunalare}

¶22

as follows:

¶23

1	Medical^Bi11s		Rs.7,0OO.OO
2	Fracture of^RightFemur	and	Rs.30,0O0.00
	Fractureof^{Right Mandible}
	PermanentPartial^Disability		Rs.25,O00.00
	TOTAL		Rs.52,OOO.OO

¶24

!t ..-.:ii .ir

¶25

¶26

Aggneved by the said order and decree the appellant preferred this appeal.

¶27

karned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the right leg of the appellant was shortened,^{but the} Tribunal has not taken into consideration the^{same while} awarding compensation. He further contended^{that due to the} grievous injuries received by the appellant,^{who is aged 32 years} at the time of accident, he could not attend his^{duties as an} Auto Driver and requested this Court to enhance^the compensation.

¶28

During the course of trial, the appellant examined himself as PW I and also examined the Doctor as PW2. PW2-Doctor stated that appellant - PWl had been admitted and treated for fracture trochanteric region right femur with DHS plate and screw on 27.11.2006 and he was discharged from hospital on 16.12.2006. Though the appellant claimed that he spent Rs.70,OOO/ - towards medical expenses and hted medical bills worth Rs.22,0O0/- but PW2 has stated that he treated the appellant on charity basis and only collected Rs.7,OOO/- from him, therefore, the Tribunal has not accepted the medical bills filed by the appellant and awarded an amount of Rs.7,0OO/towards medical expenses. He further stated that he operated

¶29

I I { t

¶30

The Tribunal has grzrntcd a compcnsation of Rs.3O,0OO/- and Rs.25,000/- lor ll-acturcs of right femur and manclible which are grievous injuries and torvarrls permanent partial disabilitv respectively.

¶31

Considering thc naturt: o[ injuries suslained by the appellant, this Court finds it rcasonable to grant an amount of Rs.25,0O0/- to each fracturc i.c., Rs.5O,00O/- towards injuries, Rs. 10,000/- towards pain rrnd suffering, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities, Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 10,000/- Low:rrds transportation and Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment. Thus, in ail, the appellant is cntitled for

¶32

the compensation in tl-re follorving heads:

¶33

1	Fracturc Injurics	Rs.50,O00.00
2	PainandSullerins	Rs.1O,OOO.OO
J	Lossol Amenities	Rs.10,O00.00
4	MediczrlExpcnscs	Rs.1O,000.00
5	Transportatlon	Rs.10,0O0.0O
6	ExtraNourishment	Rs.5,000.0O
	TOTAL	Rs.95,OOO.OO

¶34

In the rt'sult, the appcal is partly allowed by enhancing the compensalion arnount liom Rs.62,0O0/- to I{s.95,00O/(Rupees Ninetr, Five t housand only) with interest at the rate of 7.5o/o per annum frorn thc drrte of l-rling the petition till date of

r;:,}il ?-

realization. Respondent/ Corporation shall deposit the entire amount within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such deposit, the appellant is entitled to withdraw the said amount. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶39

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, sha1l stand

¶40

closed

¶41

Sd/- T. JAYAS EE ASSISTANT REGIS AR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- District Judge, at Khammam. (with records)

¶47

One CC to Mr P.Prabhakar Reddy Advocate [OPUC]

¶48

Two CD Copies

6 /n,t t..

HIGH COURT

DATED:23.06.2023

gIATE 61
e- ( *r9
t
::)
[ut Ns
t1
)r' ,.,/
/t
tD r!:'-'.,:-;/
:5 ''

¶55

¶56

JUDGMENT

¶57

MACMA.No.2509^{of 2008}

¶58

PARTLY ALLOWING^{THE MACMA,} WITHOUT COSTS 4

¶59

8o -. ffiz

¶60

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶61

FRIDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶62

PRESENT

¶63

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶64

MACMA NO. 2509 0F 2008

¶65

Between:

¶66

Mohammed Gouse S/o Mohd. Gulam Dastagir @ Dastagir

¶67

.. AppellanVClaim Petitioner

¶68

AND

¶69

Andhra,Pradesh State Road rransport corporation rep. by its Managing Director, Mushedrabad, Hyderabad

¶70

..RespondenURespondent

¶71

Appeal filed under section 173 of M.V. Act, aggrieved by the order and decree dated^'18.06.2008 made in MVop No.744 of 2007, on the file of the court of the chairman, Motor Vehicre Accident craims Tribunar-cum- District Judge, at Khammam

¶72

This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appear, the order and Decree of the court below, the material papers in the original petition and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. p.prabhakar Reddy,Advocate for the Appellant and none appreared for the Sole Respondent .

¶73

This Court doth order and Decree as follows:

¶74

'1. That this Appeal be and here by parfly allowed in MACMA;

¶75

That enhancing^{the compensationamount from Rs 62'0001to Rs'95'0001} (Rupees Ninety Five thousand^{only) with interest at the rate of 7 5olo per annum} from the date of filing^{the petition till date of 4 realization;}

¶76

3.ThatRespondenUCorporationshalIdeposittheentireamountwithinaperiodof one month from the^{date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment;}

¶77

That on such deposit,^{the appellantis entitled to withdrawthe said amount;}

¶78

That there shall^{be no order as to costs.}

¶79

Sd/- T. JAYAS E ASSISTANT REGIST

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

TIL Chairman, Motor^{Vehicle Accident ClaimsTribunal-cum- DistrictJudge'at} Khammam^{(with records)}

¶84

Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED: 23.06.2023

DECREE

MACMA.No.2509^{of 2008}

¶90

PARTLY ALLOWING^{THE MACMA,} WITHOUT COSTS

¶91

@[,T'J frF'

Mohammad Gouse v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Hyd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Gouse v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Hyd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Project Dir, Dist Women and Child Devp Agency and Another Vs Bala Bhaskar Rao, Khammam and Another

Syed Meer , Syed Ameer Vs Abdul Waheed and Another

M.R.Chandra Shekar and Anr. Vs M/S.Road Carrier of India and Anr.

Shaik Yakub R/O Dichpally Mandal, Nizamabad Dist Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and 2 Other

Gandela Padma and Anr. Vs a. Sathyamaiah and Anr.

Mohd Afzal Hussain Vs Tirukkevluri Prashanth Kumar and 2 Ors.