Partly allowed

Yerla Edikondaloo, v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation

Telangana HC22 Aug 2023MACMA/2809/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the High Court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal from Rs. 1,20,000 to Rs. 1,29,000 by adjusting amounts for loss of earnings, extra nourishment, and attendant charges, with interest and costs.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed in part; compensation enhanced from Rs. 1,20,000 to Rs. 1,29,000 with interest at 7.5% p.a.; respondents directed to deposit amount within two months.

Yerla Edikondaloo, Vs Maharashtra State Road… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

TUESDAY -^_- ,THE^{TWENTY SECONDDAY-OFAUGUST} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTYTHREE}

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWARRAO}

¶5

MOTOR ACCIDEN T^{CIVILMISCELLANEOUS} APPEAL NO: 2809^{oF 2011}

¶6

Appeal Under^{Section 173of MotorVehiclesAct againstthe order and decree} in O.P.No.119^{of 2009 dated28t01t2010on the file of the Court of the Chairman} Motor Accident^{ClaimsTribunal-llAdditional District Judge(FTC)'Nizamabad'}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Yerla Edikondaloo,^{S/o' Gurumurthy' Mgtg!'. B.rickManufacturer'Supplier of} C""!t,i"tr""^{Worfs, nyo. DichpallyM-andal' Dist Nizamabad'} ...A',ELLANT

¶9

AND

¶10

1 Maharashtra^{State Road Transport Corporation' Rep by its Managing} Director,^{Mumbai, Maharashtra State'}

¶11

2 Maharashka 'fl"nJ", ftl"n"r"shtra^{State Road} State^{fr"*pottCotporation,Rep' by its DepotManager'}

¶12

...RES'ONDENTS

¶13

Counsel for^{the Appellant: SRI' LAKKADI DAYAKERREDDY}

¶14

Counsel^{for the Respondents:SRI' T'S' RAYALU}

¶15

The Court^{made the following: JUDGMENT}

¶16

¶17

(

¶18

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶19

M.A.C.M. A No.28O9 of 2O11

¶20

JUDGMENT:

¶21

This appeal hled by the appellant/petitioner under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, aggrieved by the Order and decree dt.28.01.2010 irr O.p No.119 of 2009 on the file of the Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-ll Additional District Judge (FTC), NizamaLrad. (for short, the Tribunal').

¶22

For convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

¶23

Brief facts of the case are that on 02.06.200g, the petitioner and one Vemula Seetaramaiah proceeded on motor cvcle bearing No.AP-25-A-648 from Kamareddy to Dichpally on their left side of the road, and when they reached near Rooplanaik thanda, on I.l.I{.No.T at a distance of 10ms towards South from p.S.Dichpally, at about 6.30 p.m., mealwhile an MSRTC bus, its ciriver drove the bus bearing No.MH-20-D-8690 in a raLsh and negligent manner at high speed and lost his controi over the Bus and dashed against

¶24

¶25

RRN,J MACMA No.2809 OF 2011

¶26

the motor-cycle, due to which the petitioner sustained fracture of left side 4th, sth, 6th grievous head injuries and other multiple and grievous injuries all over the body and P.S. Dichpally registered FIR and Charge Sheet as in Ex.A1 and A2. Hence the claim petition.

¶27

Respondents filed a counter denying the allegations made in the petition regarding the ociurrence of the accident and injuries sustained by the petitionel

¶28

To prove his case, the petitioner examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Ex.Ai to A7. On behalf of the respondents, RW-l was examined, and no docrlrnents was marked.

¶29

On considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal partly allowed the O.P. by 'awarding compensation of Rs.l,2O,OOO l- with interest @7.soh p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the petitioner.

¶30

Heard both sides and perused the record.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal awarded less compensdion under^a-11 heads did not

¶32

RRN,J MACMA No-2809 OF 2011

¶33

¶34

consider the amount of future treatment and tailed to grant any amount under pain ancl suffering. He further submitted that the petitioner was wori<ing as a Mason worker and as a brick manufacturer and used to supply construction material such as bricks, stone metai, sand etc., and was earning more than a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to 15,000/- per month. Accordingly, prayed to allow the appeal.

¶35

Per contra, learne<i counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation against respondent No.l, no interference is required by this Court. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶36

A perusal of the impugned order goes to show that the Tribunal awarded the following amounts: for two grievous injuries Rs.6O,000/-, for one simple injury Rs.5,000/-, for operation charges Rs.30,0OO/-, for medical expenses Rs.5,000/-, for loss of earnings Rs.S,OOO/-, for transport charges Rs.5,000/-, for extra nourishment Rs.5,000/-, and for attendant charges Rs.5,0001-.

¶37

1 1. Learned counsel for l.hegetitioner further submitted that the petitioner had taken treatment for two months due to the

¶38

¶39

RRN,., MACMA No.2809 OF 2011

¶40

accident. But the Tribunai granted a very meagre amount towards as loss of income. Hence, the petitioner is also entitled to more compensation.

¶41

t2. Per contra, learned counsei for respondent No.2 submitted that there is no evidence to prove for loss of income, so the claimant is not entitled to loss of income.

¶42

In view of the above submissions made by both counsels, the petitioner took treatment for two months. This Court is inclined to consider the notional income of the petitioner at Rs.S,OOO l- p"r month, and for two months, it comes to Rs. IO,OOOl- i.e., Rs.5,000 x 2 = 10,000/-, which is awarded for loss of income. The^'Iribunal awarded Rs.5000/towards extra nourishment. But this Court is inclined to add an extra amount of Rs.2,000/- and the petitioner is awarded Rs.7O00/- towards an extra nourishment. The Tribunal awarded Rs.5000/- towards attendant charges. This Court is inclined to add extra amount of Rs.2,000 l- and the petitioner is awarded Rs.7,000/- towards attendant charges.

¶43

This Court enhanced the amounts from that of the Tribunal under different heads as under:

¶44

¶45

RRN,,, MACMA No.2809 OF 2011

¶46

¶47

f t

¶48

Head	Amountarrivedatby theTribunal	Amount arrivedatby this Court
Twogrievousinjuries	Rs.60,00O/-	Rs.60,0O0/-
Simpleinjury	Rs.5,oo0/-	Rs. 5,000/-
Operationcharges	Rs.s0,0oO/-	Rs.3O,OO0/-
Medicalexpenses	Rs.5.0O0/-	Rs.5,000/-
Lossofearnings	Rs.5,o00/-	Rs.10,00O/-
Tralsportcharges	Rs.5,Ooo/-	Rs.5,0Oo/-
Extranourishment	Rs.5,000/-	Rs.7,000/-
Attendantcharges	Rs.5,000/-	Rs.7,000/-
Total	Rs.1,20,000/-	Rs.1,29,oOO/-

¶49

15 However, the tribrtnal rightly awarded interest at 7.Soh p.a., this Court also grajlting the same on the enhanced arnount.

¶50

Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed in part by enhancing the compensation amount of Rs. I,2O,OOO/_ to Rs. 1,29,OOO/- (Rs. One Lakh Twenty Nine Thousand only) with costs and interest at 7 .s%o from the date of petition till the date of reaiisation, Respondents are directed to deposit the above amount along with interpst and costs within two months from receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount upon such deposit. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶51

¶52

RRN,.J

¶53

MACMA No.2809 0F 2011

¶54

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any are

¶55

¶56

pending, shall stand closed.

¶57

SD/- G. SIREESHA ASSISTNAT REGISTRAR

¶58

NOTE: On basis of the tetter da*d 27.01.2024, by Advocate for Respondents and by Orders of Registrar Judicial-ll, the name of the Counsel for Respondents in MACMA No.2g09 of 2011 has been corrected as .,Sri. T.S. Rayalu" instead of "sri vufla srinivasa Rao', which was inadvertenfly endorsed by court officer. This corrected Judgment substitutes the eartier Judgment dispatched on 18.01.2024.

¶59

SD/- G. SIREESHA ASSISTNAT GIST

//TRUE COPY//

To,

SECTION OFFICER

The Chairman, Motor Claims Tribunal-ll Additional District Judge (FTC), Nizamabad. 2. one CC to Sri. tAKq?!.D.IyA_KER REDDY, Advocate topUCI. 3. One CC to Sri. T.S. RAYALU, Advocate tOpijCt 4. Two CD Copies.

Au-

HIGH COURT

DAIED:221O812O23

JUDGMENT

MACMA.No.2809^{of 2011}

¶69

i
g IAiE
'lri,<br>:l t'i i .
\l)
-1. ' ,,.".
...;.'... -,.,;

¶70

APPEAL IS ALLOWED^{IN PART}

¶71

z\zq
?
${ a-

¶72

HIGH COURT^{FORTHE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD}

¶73

TUESDAY,THE^{TWENWSECOND DAY O! AUGUST} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY THREE}

¶74

PRESENT

¶75

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTIGE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWARRAO} MOTOR ACCIDENT^{CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEALNO:2809 0F 2011}

¶76

Between:

¶77

Yerla Edikondaloo,^{S/o' Gurumurthy'Mason' B.rickManufacturer' Supplier of} Ci".tti"tr",^{W"rks,Rl/o DichpallyMandal' Dist Nizamabad'} ...A',ELLANT

¶78

...A',ELLANT

¶79

AND

¶80

1 . Maharashtra^{State Road Transport Corporation' Rep by its Managing} Director,^{Mumbai, Maharashtra State'}

¶81

Z. ilri"i""nir"^{Staie Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Depot Manager'} -' flinO", Mdharashtra State

¶82

..RES'ONDENTS

¶83

Appeal^{UnderSection 173of Motor VehiclesAct againstthe orderanddecree} ino.P.No.llgof200gdated2}loll2ol0onthefileoftheCourtoftheChairman MotorAccidentClaimsTribunal-llAdditionalDistrictJudge(FTC),Nizamabad.

¶84

ORDER:^{This appeal comingon for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of} appeal, the^{Judgment andDecreeof the Lower Court and the material papersin} the case and^{upon hearingthe arguments of Sri' LAKKADI DAYAKERREDDY'} Advocate for^{the Appellant and of Sri' T'S' Rayalu' Advocatefor the} Respondents.

¶85

This Court doth Order^{and Decreeas follows}

¶86

That the Motor^{AccidentCivilMiscellaneousAppeal be and hereby is} allowed in^{part by enhancingthe compensationamount of Rs'1'20'000/-to} Rs.1,29,000/-^{(Rs. OneLakh Twenty Nine Thousand only) with costs and} interestatT-So/ofromthedateofpetitiontillthedaterealization;

¶87

That the respondents^{are directed to deposit the above amount alongwith} interest and costs^{within two months from receipt of a copy this judgment;}

¶88

That the^{petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount upon such} deposit, and,

¶89

That there^{be no order as to costs in this appeal}

¶90

SD/- G. SIREESHA ASSISTNAT REGISTRAR

¶91

NoTE:onbasisoftheletterdated2T,0l.2o24byAdvocateforRespondents andbyOrderofRegistrarJudgment-ll,thenameofCounselforRespondents in MACMA No.2809^{of 2011 has been corrected as "sri. T.s. Rayalu" insteadof} .,sri vutla srinivasa Rao" which was inadvertently endorsed by^{court officer'} This corrected^{decree substitutes the earlier decree which was dispatchedon} 18.01.2024.

¶92

SD/- G. SIREESHA ASSTSTNATVPo

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

l.Thechairman,MotorclaimsTribunal-llAdditionalDistrictJudge(FTC), Nizamabad.

¶97

Two CD^CoPies.

,${K

HIGH COURT

DA'IED:2210812O23

DECREE

MACMA.No.2809^{of 2011}

¶103

APPEAL IS^{ALLOWEDIN PART}

Yerla Edikondaloo, v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yerla Edikondaloo, v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation

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

Smt. Jangam Anitha Vs B.Hanmandlu

Alladi Phani Kumar Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by District Collector and Agent

Namoju Eashwaramma , Rajeswari and Another Vs the A.P.S.R.T.C and Another

B.Venkateswara Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Vemula Seetaramaiah, Nizamabad Vs Maharashtra State Road Transport and Another

V. Haripurna Vs Siva NAgeshwara Rao Dharani