Partly allowed

Krishnaiah v. Ramayya Tadiboina

Telangana HC14 Sept 2023MACMA/2696/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a motor accident civil miscellaneous appeal, enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Specific amounts were granted for extra nourishment, attendant charges, future medical expenses, increased pain and suffering, and loss of amenities, while confirming temporary loss of earnings.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs. 1,47,192 to Rs. 3,52,192 with interest at 7.5% per annum.

Krishnaiah Vs Ramayya Tadiboina — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

TIt 1I t 't i1*

13216I

it It ,I I I I {I

II I t I ! I I

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAO

¶6

THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE,

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN

¶9

MOTOR ACCIDENT GIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2696 OF 2007

¶10

Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act ageinst the Order and decree in O.P.No.1343 of 2005 dated 23.05.2007 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge Mahila Court-cum- XIX Additional Chief , Judge, City Civil Criminal Court, Hyderabad.

¶11

Between:

¶12

Krishnaiah, S/o. Venkataiah, aged 45 years, Occ:Police Constable Ri/o. 1611213152 SAR, Central Police Lines, Amberpet, Hyderabad

¶13

...APPELLANT/PETITIONER

¶14

AND

¶15

Ramayya Tadiboina, S/o. Chalapathi Rao, Aged Major, Occ: Business H.No.11-3-38, Kailash Bhavan Road Chenchupeta, Tenali, Guntur District

¶16

National lnsurance Companya Limited, rep., by its Divisional Manager, Swapnalok Complex, Sarojini Devi Road, Secunderabad

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. MOLUGU KRISHNA REDDY

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI MOHD GULAM HYDER

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI P SATYA MANJULA

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. LAXMAN

¶23

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2696 OF 2OO7

¶24

JUDGMENT:

¶25

The present Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is Iiled challenging the award and decree dated 23.05.2OO7 in O.P.No.1343 of 2O05 on the file of the V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court)-cum-XlX Additional Chief Judge, City Criminal Courts at Hyderabad, (hereinafter referred to as 'TribunalJ, seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶26

The main grievance of the appellant-injured is that Tribunal while fixing the compensation has not considered the physicaL disability sustained by the appellant-injured on account of amputation. Thc nature of profession and the affect of the injuries on the professional career of the appellant-injured were not considered by the Tribunal. It is aiso contended that the Tribunal has not anvarded any compensation under the heads extra nourishment, transport charges and attendant charges. The Tribunal has also granted meager compensation under the heads loss of amenities due to injuries and pain and suffering. Hence, prayed to enhance the same.

¶27

¶28

Learned counsel for respondent No.2-insurance cornpal-ry has submitted that the appellant-injured was police constable arrd by virtue of disability, his employment rvas not terminated and he was alternatively employed without there bcing any loss of pay or reduction in cadre. Therefore, though there is disability, there is no loss of earnings. It is further contended that the compensation granted by the Tribunal under various conventional heads are^just and reasonable and requires no interference by this Court

¶29

Heard both sides.

¶30

It is not in dispute tl-rat the appellant-injured u,as^police const-able and he met with accident anC the injuries sustained^by him resulted in amputation of left leg above knee.^P.W.2 is^the doctor, who has done surger5z to the appellant- inlured and^his evidence supports the nature of injuiies and amputation.^The evidence also shows that the appeliant-injured was in hospital^for nearly 9 days. His employment was impaired^{temporarily on} account of rest taken bY^him.

¶31

The Tribunal has not^granted any amount to the^appellant- injured towards transportation charges, extra nourishment and attendalt charges during the period of treatment. The Tribunal should have considered such aspects while granting compensation.

¶32

-7

¶33

¶34

Hence, this Court feels that granting an amount of Rs.2O,OOO/would bejust and reasonable under the said heads.

¶35

There is no evidence on record to show that the appellantinjured availed long leave due to amputation of the left leg. The Tribunal without such evidence has taken notionally two months period and grarited temporar5z loss of earnings of Rs. 17,192/-. Such findings without any evidence are very reasonable and require no interference by this Court. Hence, the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has also granted an amount of Rs.10,OOO/- towards incidenta-l expenses and the same is hereby confirmed by this Court.

¶36

The Tribunal has not granted any compensation towards future medical expenses to the appellant-injured on account of amputation of left leg. The appellant-injured requires artificial leg and for that he requires changing of artificial limb for certain period recurrently and for such thing, he will incur certain expenditure. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant arr amount of Rs.30,0OO/_ towards future medical expenses.

¶37

Learned counsel for the appellant-injured contended that the appellant-injured sustained disability on account of amputation and such disability resulted in professionar disability and deprived the promotional benefit of the appellant-injured.

¶38

l_t'_¹ I

¶39

¶40

Absolutely, there is no strch evidence on record either from the employer or from any co-employee, rvho is similarly employed as the appellant-injured, to show that such persons acquired any professional bcnefit over and above the appella.nt-injured, so as Lo have bearing on deternrining the compensation. Thr: evidence clearly dernonstrates that the appeliant-injured^-was not removed from senrice od account of amputation, but he rvers provided alternative duties without removing from employment. No cvidence is placed by hirn on record to show that he suffered professional disability on account of injures from the accident. Therefote, this Court feels that even though there is physical disability on the body resulting^into functional disability, there is no loss of earnings on account of such disability since lhe appellant-injured was continued to serve in the sarne cadre, in r,vhich he was working prior to accident.^The Tribunal has rightly ignored the disability and the said^hndings require no interference.

¶41

1t. The Tribunal has^granted a sum of^Rs.5O,000/- towards^pain and suffering. This Cor-rrt^feels that^the appellant-injured^underwent surgery and arnputation was also done. Hence, this Court^is inclined to grant an amount of Rs. 1.00,000/- towards^{pain and}

¶42

)

¶43

suffering which shall include Rs.50,000/- already granted by this Court under the said head.

¶44

The Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.70,OOO/- towards loss of amenities. This Court feels such amount is meager, considering the injuries and amputation of leg of the appellalt-injured. Therefore, this Court is inclined to grant an a-rnount of Rs. 1,25,000/-, which shall include Rs.70,000/- already granted by the Tribunal towards loss of amenities, which he used to enjoy prior to accident.

¶45

The Tribunal has not considered the impact of injuries sustained by the appellant-injured on the residual of life and shortening of life due to such injuries. Therefore, this Court is inclined to grant an amount of Rs.5O,0OO/- under this head.

¶46

14 . The injured-appellant was granted arr amount of Rs.l ,47 ,192 / - , by the Tribunal, the same is enhanced by Rs.2,05,000/- by this⁾ Court. The total amount of compensation granted to the injuredappellant after enhancement comes to Rs.3,52, 192/ -[transportation charges, extra nourishment and attendant charges: Rs.20,000/- + temporar5r loss of earnings : Rs.l7,l92/- + incidental expenses : Rs.10,000/- + future medical expenses : Rs.3O,OOO/- + pain and suffering:Rs.1,OO,O00/- + loss of future amenities:Rs.1,25,000/- + loss of residual of life and shortening of life : Rs.SO,0OO/-1.

¶47

¶48

¶49

l t ii T ,:1^t '. i ITI Jilt It { Tilt

¶50

In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaaeous Appeal is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation amount awarcled by the Tribunal from Rs. 1,47,192 I - to Rs.3,52,192/-. The enhanced amount shall cat'ry interest at 7 .5^oh per annum from the clate of filing of the O.P. till the date ol realization. Respondents are directed to deposit- the enhanced arnount to the credit of O.p. along with accrlred interest within a pel iod of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgmer-rt. On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to u,ithdrar,r, the cntirc amount in thc propcrtions, as fixed by thc Tribunal. The :rppellant is directed to pay cieficit Court fee, il any, on enl-ranced amount over ard abovc the claimed arnount. There sha1l be no ordel as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, sha1l stand closed.

¶51

Sd/. MOHD. SANAULLAH ANSARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SE ON OFFICER

To,

The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court)-cum-XlX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Criminal Court Hyderabad. , .;r.

¶56

One CC to SRl. MOLUGU KRISHNA REDDY, Advocate [OPUC]

¶57

One CC to SRl. P SATYA MANJULA, Advocate [OPUC]

¶58

One CC to SRl. MOHD GULAM HYDER, Advocate [OPUC]

¶59

Two CD Copies

ASR./pr

l: {t

1-L il, HIGH COURT I :It ML, J 'lt DATED: 1410912023 1 i 'i*t il'! ti# t,r' t.: ,$ i: t' ,l .{i, JUDGMENT {':;r MACMA.No.2696 ot 2007 *;, , I t : t I

¶64

1t\ 6 STArA
(
v
c 77 0Et 208 5o
t
t '"*.
D5go;.l C

¶65

I,ii l_i t.. ,r,jI :H, 'S-1g.".."*'a :+. PARETYAI]UOWING THE^.;; :h: : iai! :.r':;,:1'';',, ,' . .i )t4i1<.l, ..h ;liitMACMA WITHOUI COSTS ;r .ji i:t )..1 .' .. ! i lI

iliIi it St

\ In
f,

ri 1, : tt;i i{

j .l 1 : i I i ji I i ,1 J i,{} T :T :..I* tI

¶70

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶71

THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEI/BER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶72

PRESENT

¶73

i:r !i^{{, ..} IIrt'j -u^1: $ti t: r' .. $r ,a ." t il I :., !,'

¶74

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN

¶75

.,' . ,. , :.'rr:{., f .', ,,.1 MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2696 OF 2007

¶76

Between:

¶77

Krishnaiah, S/o. Venkataiah, aged 45 years, Occ:Police Constable R/o. 1611213152 SAR, Central Police Lines, Amberpet, Hyderabad

¶78

...APPELLANT/PETITIONER

¶79

AND

¶80

Ramayya Tadiboina, S/o. Chalapathi Rao, Aged Major, Occ: Business H.No.11-3-38, Kailash Bhavan Road Chenchupeta, Tenali, Guntur District

¶81

National lnsurance Companya Limited, rep., by its Divisional Manager, Swapnalok Complex, Sarojini Devi Road, Secunderabad

¶82

...RESPONDENTS

¶83

¶84

,)ItIt ,. .,. -{,.L .a^i. :l^i. ia :,1 it.

¶85

Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and decree in O.P.No.1343 of 2005 dated 23.05.2007 on the file of the Court of the lvlotor Accident Claims tTribunal-cum-V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge Mahila Court-cum- XIX tAdditional Chief^* Judge, City Civil Criminal Court,

¶86

ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon^perusing the^grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material^papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments:of Sri MOLUGU KRISHNA REDDY, Advocate for the Appellant and of SRI MOHD GULAM HYDER, Advocate for Respondent No. 2 and of SRI P SATYA MANJULA, Advocate for the Respondent No.1

¶87

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

¶88

1 That the rM.A.C.M.A.No.2696'of 2oodbe'andihereby is^partly allowed by

¶89

I l ,: r ,l

¶90

i. il!,: :i l.t':r'.r:, r:dr^';r r:. li:.ts:r,{.:,i

¶91

enhancing the.rcompensationri'amount;awarded by the Tribunal from^Rs. 1,47,192l(Rupees' One Lakh fourty seven thousand one hundred and Ninety

¶92

two only) to Rs. .3,52,192l-,(Rupees,Three Lakhs Fifty two thousand one
''i:iilklit"'':"ttt
-,r', hundred and Ninety. tiro only) rl '-.& .:
.4.
t
,'.:, k
1
) :.;
i'i'

¶93

i. t{ i.o I ii '.r.u ll)' ii ;i :, ,,fl,s {iiN'fr t' ,,' T 1'| 1 ! I :i { t lti l' i;i!: ii, 1. I {l^j, , tIi, ff't {i(ti" ! ', ,,il rila,:,l '{ :f; *, t{ j 'I lt

¶94

That the enhanced amount shall carry interest @ l.So/o per annum from the date of filing the'O.P..till the date of realizalion;

¶95

That the Respondents be and hereby,are directed to deposit the enhanced amount to the credit of O.P. along with accrued interest within a period of two months frorh the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment;

¶96

That on such deposit, the appellants be and hereby is permitted to withdraw the entire amount in the proportions, as fixed by the Tribunal;

¶97

That the appellant be and hereby is directed to pay deficit Court.fee, if any on enhanced amount over.and above the claimed amount;

¶98

That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Lower court shall stands confirmed in all other respects; and

¶99

7 That there shall be n6brder as:to costs in this appeal. ?- ?

¶100

; r, Sd/. MOHD. SANAULLAH ANSARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR - //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶101

To,

¶102

The chairman, Motor Accident claims Tribunar-cum-V Additionar Metroporitan SessionsJudge (Mahila Court)-cum-XlX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Criminal Court Hyderabad.

¶103

Two CD Copies

¶104

¶105

1
.l ].,'
t-
:$
1,l
s
,{
.ti
1'
l
'...::t

¶106

¶107

I :i
l_ I
t ..,,l.i*i
'i
l:r,1$ ..r&t
I s
,a.:t:,: l
l
'l

Ti1ttrt ti l i

HlGH COURT

ML, J

DATED: 1410912023

.i.,

,. ii: . l-rit-li :' .[ ri

¶115

E't'r trl ?{;'. fri r, I i: i- ,,,

¶116

:; 't,. I _,t :. 1 i

¶117

DECREE

¶118

MACMA.No.2696'of 2007

¶119

li :;i:i, ti; $i. hl; lr(UiI, i.l r, : \1^a- i"t it^.r. ,ti,{L,r ir 'r,-} $:i : I ..i.: l il..ra.l I 1

¶120

lr'
'ir'.1

¶121

¶122

.,',. PARLTY ALLOWING THE
MACMA WITHOUT COSTS .'.':{;
,.i
()
)
:'
.,i A-.'(-
' :r :..:.,:i-.. 1 , )'
-.. - ,Jr1i.rr.r..
.-, ..,l.l,-.'; | : ) <br>:.
ti
:

Krishnaiah v. Ramayya Tadiboina

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishnaiah v. Ramayya Tadiboina

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

Mr. Ramesh Kumar Bung and 2 others Vs The State of Telangana and another

Mr. Ramesh Kumar Bung Vs The State of Telangana

Kothuri Gundaiah, Adilabad Vs Kothuri Vijaya Kumar and 11 Others

V. Shankaramma, Vs B. Ramulu

Varsha Upadyaya and 4 Ors. Vs Mr.Prabhulal Gujjar and 5 Ors.

Andhra pradesh Industrial Infrastucture co., Ltd., Vs a.K.Sagar (died)