Partly allowed

Vemula Seetaramaiah, Nizamabad v. Maharashtra State Road Transport and Another

Telangana HC22 Aug 2023MACMA/2811/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed this appeal partly. The Court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal from Rs. 1,20,000 to Rs. 1,29,000 by recalculating loss of income and adding extra amounts for nourishment and attendant charges.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs. 1,20,000 to Rs. 1,29,000 with costs and interest at 7.5% p.a.; respondents directed to deposit the amount.

Vemula Seetaramaiah, Nizamabad Vs Maharashtra State… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰⁴ I

¶2

HIGH COURT '^{FORTHE STATE OF TELANGANA} ATHYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY ,THE^{TWENTY SECONDDAYOF AUGUST} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTYTHREE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICENAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO} MOTOR ACCID NT CIVIL MI CE E US P NO:2⁸¹¹ 0F²⁰¹

¶6

Appeal Under^{Section173 of Motor VehiclesAct against the Orderand Decree} .rl;i;i.V.o.p.No.^{tzo or zoos dated 28'01 2o10 on the file of the court of the} chairman^{Motor Accident -ci"i*iTribunal-cum- ll Additional DistrictJudge,} (FTC), Nizamabad

¶7

Between:

¶8

Vemula Seetaramaiah'^{S/o Venkateshwarlu'Age33- years'Ocrc: -Mason'} il;k firili;;il;"i^{srppii., tj'ConJ"Ctio'i w"orks'R/-oDichpallvMandal'} Dist. Nizamabad

¶9

...APPELLANT

¶10

AND

¶11

1 Maharashtra^{StateRoadTransport, Rep. by its Managing Director.Mumbai} Maharashtra^State

¶12

2 Maharashtra^{State RoadTransport Corporation, Rep. by its DepotManager,} Nande, Maharashtra^State

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Counsel for^{the Appellant :Sri LAKKADI DAYAKERREDDY}

¶15

Counsel for^{Respondents :Sri T'S' RAYALU}

¶16

The Court delivered^{the following:JUDGMENT}

¶17

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTrcE NAMA.VARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶18

M.A.C.M.A No.2811 of 2O11

¶19

JUDGMENT:

¶20

This appeal is filed by the appellant/petitioner under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, aggrieved by the Order and decree dt.28.01.2010 in O.P No.12O of 2OO9 on ttre file of thb Chairmah;^',Motor A,ccidents Claims . ,Tribunal-cum-Il Additional Dislrict Judge (FTC), Nizqmabad.. (for short, the Tribunal).

¶21

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

¶22

Brief facts of the case are that on 02.06.2008, the petitioner and one yeria Edukondaloo were proceeded ona motor cycle. bearing No.AP-25-A-648 from Kamareddy to Dichpally on their left side of the road, and rvhen they reached near Rooplannik thanda on N.H.No.7 at a distance of lOms towards South from P.S.Dichpally, at about 6.30^p.m., meanwhile a MSRTC Bus bearing No.MFI-20-D-869O^was driven by its driver in a rash and^negligent manner at high speed and lost his control of the bus and dashed against the motorci'cle, due to which the^petitioner sustained crush injuries to right foot, fracture of left side 6th and 7tr, ribs, fracture of firth leg

¶23

¶24

RRN,J MACMA No-2811OF 2011

¶25

grievous head injuries all over ,;he body and p.S. Dichpally registered FIR and Charge Sheet asin Ex.Al and A2. Hence, the claim petition.

¶26

Respondents filed a counter-denyrng the allegations made in the petition regarding rhe occurrence of accident and injuries sustained by the petitioner.

¶27

To prove his case, the petitioner was ixamined as pWs. 1 and 2 and got marked Ex.A1 to A7. On behalf of the respondents, RW-1 was examined, and no document was marked.

¶28

On considering the oral and documentar5r evidence available on record, the Tribunal partly allowed O.p. by 'awarding compensation of Rs. 1,2O,OOO1-,with interest @ZS% p.a. from the date of petition tilt the date of realisation. Aggrieved by the same, the preserit appeal is filed by the petitioner.

¶29

Heard both sides and perused the record.

¶30

l,earned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal awarded less compensation uhder all heads, did not consider the amount of future treatment and failed to grant aly amount under pain and suffering. He furthel submitted that the petitioner was working as a Mason worker and as a brick

¶31

¶32

¶33

RRN,J MACMA No.28tr OF 2011

¶34

manufacturer and used to supply construction materials such as bricks, stone metal, sand etc., and was earning more than a sum of Rs. 1O,O0O/- to l5,OOO/- per month. Accordingly, prayed to.allow the appeal.

¶35

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the Tribunal has rightly au,arded the compensation against respondent No. 1, this Court requires no interference. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the appeat.

¶36

A perusal of the impugned order goes to show that the Tribunal awarded the following amounts:

¶37

For one simple injury Rs.5,0OO/, compensation for operation charges Rs.3O,OOO/-, compensation for medical expenses Rs.5,OOO/-, compensa.tion for loss of earnings Rs.S,OOO/-, transport charges Rs.S,OOO/, extra nourishment Rs.5,OOO/-, and attendant charges Rs.S,OOO/_, granted by the Tribunal.

¶38

1 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner had taken treatment for two months due to the accident still the Tribunal granted a very meagre amount towards loss of income. Hence, the petitioner is also entitred to more compensation.

¶39

... .,../

¶40

¶41

RRNJ MACMA No.2811 OF 2011

¶42

L2. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that there is no evidence to prove to loss of inconle, so the claimant is not entitleC for loss of income.

¶43

In view of the above submissions made by both counsels, the petitioner took treatment for tw,o months. This Court is inclined to consider the noLionaj inccrne of the petitioner at Rs.5,000/- per montli, an<j icr r:wo months, it comes to Rs. 10,OOO/- i.e., Rs.5,0Oi) x 2 = IC,OOO/, which is awarded for loss oi incomr:. The Tlibr-inal arvarde<i Rs.5OOO1 tou,ards extra nourishment. But ihis Ccurt is lnclined to add the extra amount of R-s.2,OOO7_ and petiticner: is arvarded Rs.7OO0/- in total tovi,ards extra nourishment. The Tribunal awarded Rs.500O/- towards attenciant charges. This Court is inclined to add an additional amount of Rs.2,OOO /_ and petitioner 1S awarded Rs.7,OOO/- in total towards attendant charges. 14. This Court enhanced the amounts from that of the

¶44

Tribunal under different heads as under:

¶45

Head	Amountarivedat by theTribr,rnai	"Am^{ount arrived}at bythisCourt
compensationfor two grier.ous injuries	Rs.6C,OOO.i-	Rs.60,000/_
compensationfor simpleinjury ,	s,o00/-	Rs: 5,OOO/-
compensation for	.ta,ooci-	Rs.3O,OOO/-

¶46

¶47

RRN,J MACMA No.2811OF 2011

¶48

¶49

0 I

¶50

operationcharges
compensationfor medicalexpenses	s,ooo/-	Rs.5,OOO/-
compensationfor lossofearnings	s,0oo/-	Rs.1O,(XX)/-
compensationfor transportcharges	s,o0o/-	Rs.5,0OO/-
compensationfor extra	s,o0o/-	Rs.7,OOO/-
nourishment
compensationfor attendant charges	s,0oo/-	Rs.7,OOO/- il
Total	Rs.1,2O,OOO/-	Rs.1,29,OOO/-

¶51

However, the tribunal rightly awarded interest at 7.5oh p.a. on the enhanced amount

¶52

Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed in part by enhancing the compensation amount of Rs. 1,2O,OOO/to Rs.1,29,(XX)/- (Rs. One Lakh and Twenty Nine Thousand only) with costs and interest at 7.5o/o from .the date of petition till the date of realisation. Respondents are directed to deposit the above amount along with interest 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

¶53

¶54

RRA',I T ACMA r{o.28118F 2011

¶55

As a sequel, miscelizrneou.; appiications, if any are

¶56

¶57

pending, shall stald cicseu'.

¶58

¶59

Sd/. P.CH. NAGABHUSHAMBA ASSTSTANT REG|9/RAR //TRUE COPY// .., / $/

¶60

sEcTloN oFFtcER

¶61

To,

¶62

1 ' The chairman Motor Accident craims Tribunar -cum- [ Additionar Diskict Judge, (FTC), Nizamabad. (with records- if anvr

¶63

one cc to Sri. LAKKADIpRyI1(ER REqqi 'Advocate lopuc] 3. One CC to Sri. One CC to Sri. Sri. T.S. RAYALU, nOvocate-lOeijij-'nOvocate-lOeijij-'

¶64

One CC to Sri. One CC to Sri. Sri. T.S. RAYALU, nOvocate-lOeijij-'nOvocate-lOeijij-'

¶65

Two CD Copies

Usr/njb

HIGH COURT

DATED:2210812023

JUDGMENT⁺ DECREE

MACMA.No.2811 ot 2O11

¶72

1 gE STArF
(
u
jtl FEB 2021 C)
.E
* o +
IS rl, i c

¶73

PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA

¶74

:rb
a

¶75

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶76

TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGI.'ST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶77

PRESENT

¶78

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶79

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 281l OF m11

¶80

Between:

¶81

Vemula Seetaramaiah, S/o Venkateshwarlu, Age: 33 years, Occ: Mason, Brick Manufacturer, Supplier of Construction Works, Rlo Diclpally Mandal, Dist. Nizamabad

¶82

..APPELLANT

¶83

AND

¶84

'1. Maharashtra State Road Transport,^-Rep. by its Managing Director, Mumbai Maharashtra State

¶85

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Depot Manager, Nande, Maharashtra State

¶86

...RESPONDENTS

¶87

Appeal Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and Decree made in M.V.O.P.No. 12O of 2009 daled 28.01.2010 on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal <um- ll Additional District Judge, (FTC), Nizamabad.

¶88

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 LAKKADI DAYAKER REDDY, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri T.S. RAYALU, Advocate for the Respondents. This Court doth Judgment and decree as folkrws:-

¶89

That the MACMA be and hereby is partly allowed;

¶90

That the Compensation amount be and hereby is enhanced from Rs.1,2O0001 to Rs.1,29,0001 (Rupees One lakh tvrrenty nine thousand only) with costs and interest at 7.5o/o from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶91

That the respondents be and hereby are directed^{to deposit the above amount} along with interest and costs within two^{monthsfromreceiptof a copy of this} Judgment.

¶92

That the Petitioner is^permitted to withdraw^{the entire amount upon such} deposit.

¶93

That save as aforesaid, the^{decreeof the LowerCourt shall stands confirmed} in all other respects; and

¶94

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

¶95

Sd/- P.CH. NAGABHUSH BA ASSISTANT REGIS

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum- ll Additional District Judge, (FTC), Nizamabad.

¶100

Two CD Copies

Usr/njb

I I :

HIGH COURT

DATED:2210812023

DECREE

MACMA.No.2811 of 2011

¶108

PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA @cr*,8 %- rtr,*

Vemula Seetaramaiah, Nizamabad v. Maharashtra State Road Transport and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vemula Seetaramaiah, Nizamabad v. Maharashtra State Road Transport 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

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

Yerla Edikondaloo, Vs Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation

V. Haripurna Vs Siva NAgeshwara Rao Dharani