Dismissed

Syed Meer , Syed Ameer v. Abdul Waheed and Another

Telangana HC16 Jun 2023MACMA/2547/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Motor Accidents Claims Appeal, the High Court dismissed the appellant's challenge against the Tribunal's award of Rs.50,359/- for injuries. The Court held the award was just and reasonable as the appellant failed to adduce substantial probative evidence to support a higher claim.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; Tribunal's award of Rs.50,359/- upheld.

Syed Meer , Syed Ameer Vs Abdul Waheed and Another — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁰⁸ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

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

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶6

M.A.C.M.A. NO: 2547 OF 2007

¶7

Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and decree in MVOP No.702 of 2004 dated 2210612007 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal --cum- District Judge, at Nizamabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Syed Meer @ Syed Ameer, S/o Amen Ahmad Hussain Tailoring Business, Hyderabad. R:/o Maleypalli Ali Chambers, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONER/ APPELLANT

¶10

AND

¶11

f 49Ot ! Waheed, S/o Shaik Ahmed Owner of Lorry bearing No.Ap 25 T. 9979

¶12

Ri./o H.No.^'l-4711, lslampura, Perkit Village, Armoor Mandal, Nizamabad District.

¶13

The United lndia lns. Co. Ltd., Rep.by its Br. Manager, Br. office, Tammi Complex, Ambedkar Chowk, Nizamabd X Road, Armoor, Nizamabad District. ...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS

¶14

For the Appellant : SRI AZAR SRAVAN KUMAR, Advocate

¶15

For the Respondents : NONE

¶16

The Court delivered the following : JUDGMENT

¶17

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P. SRET) {;UI)HA

¶18

M.A.C.M.A. No.2547 0F IZOOT

¶19

JUDGMEN'I:

¶20

Tl-ris i poeal is preferred questioning thr_. eLward and decree datr d 22.06.2007 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Trit r-r eal (District Judge) at N zamzLL ad (in short Tribun;rl'), i I O.P. No.7O2 of 2OO4 whereby the l.ribunal has au,arded t.c compensation of Rs.45,323/ alorLg ivith interest (d) 7 .59h per a rnum from the date of pet tion ti 1 the date of realization 1 a',,able b-1, respondent Nos. I an r 2 - ointly, as against th,: lzrim ol' Rs.2,00,000/_ for thr: ir-tjtLries sustained by the c.r,: nant-appc-llant in the acc dent ,)ccurred on 06.06.200t].

¶21

2l Hea^'d the lcarned counsel for tltr: : Lppellant on 08.06.2o2ai. Learnecl <:ounsel for respondeni |lc 2 s absent. Perr-rsed thr: r r:Lterial on record.

¶22

LezLn e I counsel for the appellant ,ras co.rtended that the appe,llant 1-as sustained three grievou s in irrr es and also permanent cli ;ability. I.earned counsel has furt.t t: - slated that the claimar-r I l- as sustainecl fracture injtLries a ed multiple injuries. The e br.e, thc Tribunal ought to have 11r 1n1ed entire

/ I

i i

compensation of Rs.2 lakhs along with interest @^{24oh per} annum as prayed in the claim petition and requested^the Court to allow the appeal

¶28

A perusal of the material on record reveals that before the Tribunal, the claimant himself got examined as P.W. 1 and marked Ex.A.3-Medical Certificate, Ex.A.4-Discharge ticket, Ex.A.5-Discharge sheet, Ex.A.6-Prescriptions, Ex.A.7 and A. 1l-Medical Bills, Ex.A.8-Pathological reports and Ex.A. 1OX-ray Films. As per the said medical evidence, more particularly the evidence of P.W.2-Doctor and Ex.A.3 Wound Certificate, the claimant has sustained fracture of both bones of left forearm, which is grievous in nature, and abrasion on left side of chest, which is simple in nature. Therefore, taking into consideration the said evidence, the Tribunal has granted Rs.25,000/- for grievous injury, Rs.2,000/- for simple injury sustained by the claimant. Further, taking into consideration Exs.A.7 and A. 11-Medical Bills, the Tribunal^granted Rs.20,359/- towards medical expenses besides Rs.3,OOO/towards loss of earnings for a period of one month. Thus, tn all, the Tribunal has granted the . compensation of Rs.50,359/-, which is^just and reasonable. Even though the appellant claims that the amounts granted by the Tribunal

¶29

¶30

are ven, ntc :ger, but it is to be seen that :he. 't itinlijtt has not led anr. sltl- rrtantial evidence before the l-riltu-ti I f,tr grant of more c,lml)( n;ation. In fact, the Tribunril hul; rbs;erved that some of t I : bills submitted by the r:1airn ar rt u,ere only estimate bil s and thereby discarded the;rr fcrr , onsideration. That aprarl, he Tribunal aiso observed that th: petitioner did not choose o adduce an), kind of incorre procl. Therefore, this Courl ,loes not lind any justifiable reascr.r t,r interfere $,ith th(: in1, r-r11ned a',r.ard passed by the Tr.ibuna .

¶31

A.r:r rrdingly, the appeal is dismisseciL c, rnfrrming the aq,ard ;rnrl lr cree derted 22.06.2007 passecl [;y _he Motor Accidents C rims Tribur.ral (District Judge) at l,izamabad in O.P. No.702 n 2OO4

¶32

Miscell neous altplications pending, if ar -v sltall stand

¶33

closed.

¶34

Sd/.F. I'IAGABHUSHAMBA ASS S'TAIIT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶35

e=>SiECTION OFFICER

¶36

To 1. The lVotor Acc rle,nts Claims Tribunal (District Judge) at lli;.am rbad 2. One CC to Sri \zar Sravan Kumar, Advocate tOp[ C] 3. Two CD^(lopie l

s'J7--

HIGH COURT

DATED:16/06/2023

JUDGMENT

--t <br>,. "--o,.ilJ,
., {P
Iil
r.:
s
l, .) (5 ,i,
,4i,t
\ <br>",9"./
\t -a
r i-:.i,112 .1"?.,r:?tv'

¶43

MACMA.No.25 47 ol'.2007

¶44

DISMISSED.

¶45

.5.-i
f
\3

Syed Meer , Syed Ameer v. Abdul Waheed and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Meer , Syed Ameer v. Abdul Waheed and Another

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

Rathod Ganesh , Ganu Vs the State of A.P.

M/S. Pooja Corporation Vs M/S. Parameshwari Dall Mill and 2 Others

Mr.Mirza Saleem Baig Vs Smt.Sabira Begum

Kum Panden Bagya Vs K. Ganesh and Anr.

Suddala Parsharamulu Vs Nerella Kankaiah and 2 Ors.

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