Partly allowed

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

Telangana HC23 Jun 2023MACMA/2820/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bench allowed the appeal partly, granting Rs. 70,000 towards compensation for injuries sustained in a motor accident. Despite the appellant failing to examine doctors for wound certificates and medical bills, the court deemed the claims reasonable and directed the insurance company to deposit the amount within one month.

What did the court decide?

Appellant granted compensation of Rs. 70,000 with interest at 7.5% per annum. Insurance company to deposit the entire amount within one month.

Shaik Yakub R/O Dichpally Mandal, Nizamabad Dist… — Execution and Attachment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT I{YDERABAD

¶2

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

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶5

MACMA No.2820 0F 2008

¶6

Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V. Act, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 31 .01 2oo5 made in MVop No.45 or t bg7,-on the fire of the court of the chairman, Motor vehicre Accident craims Tnbunar-cum- Ir Additionar District and Sessrons Judge (Fast Track Court), Nizamabad.

¶7

Between.

¶8

Shaik Yakub S/o Shaik Mahaboob

¶9

.. AppellanUpetitioner

¶10

AND

¶11

1 li.rllteq-llqia tnsurance Company Limited, Aditabad (vide cover note No. MC/H/65375)

¶12

2 V Ganesh s/o Narayana occ: Driver R/o Bhudwarpet Nirmar, Adirabad Distnct

¶13

3 Syed Hasan pasha s/o Syed Aqbas Ari occ: owner of vehicre Ap-1-T-1 902 R/o No 1-2, Jakyagafii Boath, Adifabad Oistric[

¶14

(Respondent No. 2 not necessary in this petition) .

¶15

.. Respondents/Respondents

¶16

Counsel for the Appellant(s): Sri Ch. Janardhan Reddy, Advocate

¶17

Counsel for the Sole Respondent: G. pramod Kumar, Advocate

¶18

The Court delivered the following JUDGMENT:

¶19

THE H fNOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.iSREE SiUDHA

¶20

M.A.C.M.A.No.2820 of 2OO8

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

'I'his rrl ,pezrl is lilt'd ;rg:rrnst the judgmerrt anc (locrec clated 31.01.200Ii Lr: O.P.No.45 ot 1997 passe(t lt], 1^-r. lcarned Chairm rn, lr o,or Accidcnts Claims Tribunal-cr.rrn,l A<lditional Distrrct ar'r( St ssions .Iudge, Nizamabai (for short 'the Tribunzrl'.

¶23

Hr:itr--l e,rnted counsel lor the appcll:rnt. F,:rused the nraterial avair rtrle on rccord.

¶24

Prior 1r passing the above order, O.P. u'as disl:osr:d of on 04.O4.2O()3.^,\ppcllant claimcd compensatior of Rs. t,Orl,0O0/on accoullt r: njuries sustained by him in the accident that occurred orr 11.11.1996 and the entire amoutrt ll,a; rlranted by the said^(}[-r t. but thr. 1st respondent - Insurartr:c- Ccmpany remainecl e-( t,arte. l.t respondent - Insurance Clcrlpany filed an applic:atiol t,) set aside the ex parte order anct c,)ntested the matter. On ctntest, this O.P. was again disp::;ed of on 31.01.200.5. llLe Tribunal mainly contended that llrough the appellant ha s 11:d docurnents, he has not exa;nine:c I he Doctor to prove tl-re c ot:urnents and accordingly, disrnissr:<[^.he above

¶25

¶26

¶27

O.P, Aggrieved^{by the said judgme nt anddecree this appealwas} preferred by the^aPPcllant'

¶28

The insurance^{policy was in existenceby the date of} .accide^{nt and there is no dispute regarding the extent'} 5. While dismissing^{the claim-petition'the Tribunal has} observed that^{the appellant has not examinedthe Doctorto} prove wound certificate^{and also did not examine the authorsof} discharge^{cardcoveredby Ex'A6as well as the medical bitls} covered^{bY Exs.A7 to A 12.}

¶29

As per Ex.A3-wound^{certiflcate, the appellant stated that} she sustained^{the followinginjuries:} (i) teft humerus^{of the petitionerreceived a compoundfracture} ii) multiple abrasions^{were caused to his right hand as well as} both knees,^{on forehead near right eye and also on his nose'} 7. Considering^{the nature of the injuries' this Court finds it} reasonable to^{grant arr amountof Rs'25,o00/- for fracture'} Rs.5,OOO/- towards^{operation,Rs' 1O'000/- forpain and} suffering,^{Rs. 1O,OOO/- for loss of amenities' Rs'5'000/-for} transportation,^{Rs.S,OOO/- towards extra nourishment and} Rs. 1O,Oo0/ -^{towards medical expenses' Thus' in all'the} for the compensation^{in the following} appellant is entitled heads:

¶30

¶31

l i I I

¶32

I	Ont	rircturcInjutr,	Rs.2i;,000.00
2.	Oprr:r	rrion	Bs.:,OOO.OO
2	['air.r	rndSul-lt:n ng	Rs.tOO3.0O
4	f,oss	,tA-e"ic"i	Rs.COOI.OO
3	'i*i"	plrtationCharees	Rs.50O,l.0O
4	tri,,:,	nourishment	Rsll00t).OO
5	IVIedi,	aExpenses	Rs.C00l.OO
		TOTAL	Rs.?'O.OO0.OO

¶33

In tht:^-csult, the appcal is partly z lloweC and the petitioner is L ntitlccl to the compensati tn zut ou.rt of Rs.7O,OO()1- (I upees Seventv thousand only) with ir.rerest iit the rate r,1' 7.5 6 per annum from the date of f ling tlrt pctition till date of rea ization. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are iointl.r and severally liablc rr; pay thc compensation amour t. Rr:s:ondent No.1/Insura.n^.e Company shall deposit the enlire arrount within a oerio I of one month from the date of rr c:ript of a copy of this .Ir rdgment. On such deposit, tlte appr:llant is entitled to wit t(lraw the said amount. The.e shall be n<r order as to cos I s.

¶34

Miscellar.r, or_rs petitions pending, if an'r, st all srtancl closed.

¶35

To,

¶36

SHCTION OFFICER

¶37

The Chairn-,an I totor VehicLe Accident Claims Tribunal cr_rm_ Il Additional District and Sessr rns ;udge (Fast iirtr bolr.tl, r.tirjni"oro"r:"iir, 2. One CC to lvlr Oh lanardhan n"OOy, nOuo.rt" topUCl reco rds ) d( 1. ff: 33 t"#:.,,^{t a rod Kumar Aovocate}

HIGH COUR T

DATED:23.0;.2023

JUDGMENTI DECREE

MACMA.No.l1820 of 2008

¶42

=:-
/
s
t'
2 lt Aljri ZUl
, -
- :l
,/
._;. -

¶43

PARTLY ALL C)WING THE MACMA, WITHOUT C( )STS

¶44

Ib
"h.*-

¶45

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶46

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

¶47

PRESENT

¶48

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶49

MACMA NO.2820 0F 2008

¶50

Between:

¶51

Shaik Yakub S/o Shaik Mahaboob

¶52

AppellanUPetitioner

¶53

AND

¶54

United lndia lnsurance Company Limited, Adilabad (vide cover note No, MC/H/65375)

¶55

V.Ganesh S/o Narayana Occ: Driver R/o Bhudwarpet Nirmal, Adilabad District

¶56

Syed Hasan Pasha S/o Syed Abbas Ali Occ: owner of vehicle AP-1-T-1 9o2^{R/o No} 1-2, Jakyagalli Boath, Adilabad District

¶57

(Respondent No. 2 not necessary in this petition)

¶58

.. Respondents/ResPondents

¶59

Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V. Act, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 31.01.2005 made in MVOP No.45 of 1997, on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- ll Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Nizamabad.

¶60

This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the^grounds of appeal, the Order and Decree of the Court below, the material^papers in the Original^{Petition and} upon hearing ihb arguments of Mr. Ch Janardhan Reddy,Advocate for the Appellant and Sri G.Pramod Kumar, Advocate for the Sole Respondent^.

¶61

This Court doth order and Oecree as follows:

¶62

1, That this Appeal be and here by^partly allowed in MACMA;

¶63

2 That the pet oler is entrtled to the compensation amoult of ts.7O,O00/- (Rupees Seventv thor]s,nC only) vv th interest at the rate of 7 5y" pe.:nnLm from the date of filing the p€tit )n till date of reallzation.

¶64

That Respold nt Nos.1 to 3 are lointly and severally lialrle to pa,/ the compensation amount. Re;p( nclent No.1/lnsurance Company shall d€posit th(r entire amountwithin a period of :re ' ,orth from the date of receipt of a copy of th is lL jgment.

¶65

That on ;uch d prrsit, the appellant rs entitled to withdraw the s,:id arount.

¶66

That the.€.sra b: no order as to costs.

¶67

SrJ/- T. JAYASREE ASSISTI\NT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY'

G,t.'.,

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1 The Chairmar l/otor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribr_rrr:rt-cum- ll Additional District a_nd Se;srons Judge (Fast Track Court), Nizamatra,J (,ith records)

¶72

2 Two CD Copres

CHIL

HIGH COUR T

DATED:23.01i.2023

JUDGMENTT DECREE

MACMA.N oJ'820 of 2008

¶79

PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA, WITHOUT C(^ISTS

¶80

@os-r#

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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.

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

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

Mohd Afzal Hussain Vs Tirukkevluri Prashanth Kumar and 2 Ors.