Allowed

J Hari Venkata Vaddi Babu, Ranga Reddy Dist v. R.Shekhar, R.R. Dist 7 Anr.

Telangana HC23 Jun 2023MACMA/2820/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court enhanced the compensation award in a motor accident appeal. Finding the Tribunal under-awarded loss of income, for injuries, and extra nourishment, the Court increased the total amount from Rs.1,12,979/- to Rs.2,61,479/- with interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.1,12,979/- to Rs.2,61,479/- with interest at 7.5% p.a.

J Hari Venkata Vaddi Babu, Ranga Reddy Dist Vs… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰⁴ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FORTHE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY^{THIRDDAY OF JUNE} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTY THREE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO}

¶6

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVI^{L MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2820OF 2015}

¶7

AppealfiledunderSectionlT3ofMotorVehiclesActagainsttheorder and decree in M.V.O.P^{No.2900f 2010, Dated 03-08-20150n the file of the} court of the chairman^{Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum-XVAdditional} Sessions Judge at^{L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.}

¶8

Between:

¶9

J.Hari fenkata^{Vaddi Babu, Sio SubbaRao,Aged 35 years,O.cc: Private Employee} R/oH.No.4-2-s4,Chinthal,JeedimetlaRangareddyDistrict,TelanganaState

¶10

...APPE LLANT/PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

R.Shekhar, S/o. Narayana^{Aged : Major,} .Occ:^{Business Fl/o Plot No 23,} n.r.r". i-2-'aae9/2/E SiinivasiColony,-Hydernagar,^{KukatpailyRangareddy} District, Telangana State

¶13

The New lndia Assurance^{Company Limited, Rep by its Divisional Manager} Off: Tirumala Towers,^{MalakeptHyderabad.}

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Counsel for the Appellant^{: SRI KASIREDDYJAGATHPALREDDY}

¶16

Gounsel for the Respondents:^{Ms.P-SATYAMANJULA}

¶17

The Court made the^{following:JUDGMENT}

¶18

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR^RAO

¶19

M.A.C.M.A.N 0.2820 Ot 201 5

¶20

JUDGMENT:

¶21

Aggrieved by the order ond decree doted 03.08.2015 possed in O.P.No.290 of 2010 by the XV Additionol Sessions Judge. Rongo Reddy District if or short "the Court below"),^the oppellonl/petitioner^preferred the^present oppeol^seeking enhoncement of compensciion

¶22

2 For the soke of convr--nience, the^porties hereinofter will be referred to os they ore orro'yeC before the Court below.

¶23

3 Brief focts of the ccrse ore thot on 09.'l 0.2009 ot obout 10.00 o.m. while the petilioner w(rs going by the side cf the rood from the Bhogyonogor bus stop torvcrrds Yellommobondo side, the rider of the Hero Hondo motorcyc e beoring No.AP-28-CP-7465 drove ihe motorcycle in o rosh ond negligent monner ond doshed ogoinst the pelitioner from behind, os c result of which, the petitioner fell down ond sustoined froctures onC grievous injuries. lmmediotely ofter the occident, the petitioner wos shifted to Anupomq Hospilol, Kukotpolly, where he wos lreoied os on inpotienl ond underweni

¶24

.:.y=

¶25

2 RRN,J M.A.C. M,A. No.2820 of 2015

¶26

surgery for ihe fociure of his leg ond rods rvere inserted. Therefore, he filed the O.P. cloiming compensotion of Rs.2,00,000/-

¶27

4 After considering the orol ond documentory evidence ovoiloble on record, the Couri below hos oworded on omount of Rs.1 ,12,979/- with inlerest @ 75% per onnum from the dote of pelition till the dote of reolizotion to be poid by respondent nos.l ond 2 jointly ond severolly. Chollenging the soid oword, the petitioner hos filed the present oppeol seeking enhoncement.

¶28

Leorned counsel oppeoring for lhe pelitioner contended thqt the Court below ought to hove token into considerotion the disobilily certificote issued by PW.4, which wos supported by the orol evidence of PW.3, who treoted the peiitioner. The court below ought to hove fixed the disobility of the petilioner os 100%. ln support of his contenlion, leorned counsel relied upon o decision reported in CHARAN S,NGH Vs. G.VfflAL REDDy,.

¶29

Leorned counsel for the petitioner further contended thot the court below erred in fixing the monthly;ncome of the petitioner os Rs.4,000/- in spite of filing of Ex.A-8-oppoiniment Ietter ond Ex.A-9bonk stotemeni ond oworded on omount of Rs.24,000/- towords loss

¶30

'^{2oo3(4) ALD r83 *DB)}

¶31

_) RRN,J M.A. C. M. A. No.2820 0f 2015

¶32

of fulure eornings. As the petitioner hos sustoined six injuries, the court below ought 1o hcve oworded just compensotion under vorious heods os cloimecl by the petitioner ond therefore, ihe omount oworded by the court below is very meoger ond u n^jus tif io ble

¶33

On the other hond, lecrned counsel for the respondenls hos contended thqi the courl below ofter considering the noture of injuries sustoinecl by the peritioner ond bqsed on the evidence, hos rightly oworded compensolion qnd the some needs no interference by this Court.

¶34

The finding of the Colr1 below with regorC to the monner in which ihe occident took ploce hos become finol, os the sqme is not chollenged by the respondents.

¶35

lnsofor os lhe quonlurn of compensotion is concerned, the Court below fixed the income of the petiiioner os Rs.4,000/- per month ond oworded on omount of Rs.24,000/- lowords loss of income for the r)eriod of six rnonths. To prove the income of the pelitioner, ihe pelitioner hos eromined pW.5, who deposed thot the petitioner wos oopointed os euolily control chemist ond he wos

¶36

¶37

RRN, J M.A.C.M. A. No.2820 of 2015

¶38

poid Rs.2,500/- per month for one yeor ond he wqs relieved from service ot his request ond he worked till 12.08.2009. At the lime of relieving. the solory of the petitioner wos Rs.9,30Ol- Oq month Considering the evidence of PW.5, this Court feels it just ond proper to fix the monthly income of the petitioner os Rs.Z,5OO/- insteod of Rs.4,000/- os owqrded by the Court below ond occordingly the petilioner is entilled to o sum of Rs.45,000/- towords loss of income.

¶39

,l0. lnsofor os the disobility is concerned, the petitioner contended thot he hos susloined 100% disobility ond he is unoble to do ony work. To prove the disobility, the petitioner hos exomined PW.4, who deposed thot he did not perform surgery on the petitioner ond he hos exqmined the petitioner on 29.01 .2012 ond found thoi the petitioner hos sustoined o frocture of left femur ond underwent surgery by inserting steel rod ond he estimoted the disobility ot 30%. The court below hos noi considered the disobitity.

¶40

li Leorned counsel oppeoring for the petitioner hos contended lhot the court below ought io hove ossessed the disobility of the petitioner ot 100%. ln support of his contention, he

¶41

RRN,J

¶42

M. A. C. M. A. No,2820 of 2015

¶43

relied upon the decision reported in CHARAN S,NGH Vs. G.V|TIAL

¶44

REDDY2, whereir the Hon'ble Apex Court held os iollows :-

¶45

" . Any quolified (lo.tor con ossess the loss of disobilily vis-o-vis eorning copoc ty. tt is not neressory thot he should be the some doctor who treoted lhe injLred.

¶46

Section 4{l)(c) does nol slipulote o requirement of ossessment of ossessment by the mcdicol pr.clitioner who hod treoted the workmon concerned ol rhe tirsl nslonc r_,. I is olwoys open for the quolified medicol proclitioner lo ossess lhe loss of disobillty vis-o-vis loss of eorning copocity with reference to the injuries susloirrcd by him ond if the employer or the lnsuronce Compony wos not sotisfiecl wl-h ihe ossessment mode by lhe medicol proctitioner. whose evicl€rnce wos produced contro evidence ought to hove been odduced by the lnsuronr;c ,lompony lo rebut or impeoch the evidence of the medicol officer odduce:l cn beholf of lhe workmen. In lhe obsence of such evidence we connot fird foult wilh the order ot the leorned Commissioner.'

¶47

A peruso/ of the evidence of^{pw.3-Orthopedlc} Surgeon goes to show thoi the petiiioner hos recovered moximum ond if onything hoppens wrong subsequenlly, t is only on occount of the foult of the petitioner ond for which, ihe petilioner connot pleod ond cloim compensoiion on thot ground. ln the instont cose, the occident took ploce in the yeor 2009 ond pW.4 hos exomined the petitioner in the yeor 2012 ond issued disobilily Certificote-ExA-lO. Hence, the decision relied on by the peritioner does not oppry to the cose on hond. Thei'efore, this court ccnnot occept the contention of the 'zoo: 1+;^At-D l8t (l)t)

¶48

¶49

RRN. J M.A. C.M.A. No.2820 of 20t 5

¶50

peiitioner thol he susioined l0o% disobility ond the court below hos rightly rejected the conlention of the petifioner.

¶51

The Court below gronied o sum of Rs.15,000/_ towords poin ond suffering, Rs.48,979/- lowords medicol expenses ond Rs.Z,SOO/towords lronsport chorges ond the some needs no interference by this Court.

¶52

14 The Court below hos oworded on omount of Rs.l0,0OO/_ towords miscelloneous expenses ond this court is incrined to enhqnce the soid omount from Rs.l0,000/- to Rs. i S,OO0/_

¶53

The Court below hos oworded on omount of Rs.Z,SOO/towords extro nourishment ond this court is incrined to enhonce the soid omount from Rs.2,500/- to Rs.l0,000/_.

¶54

ln the instont cose, the petitioner hos submitted thot he hos sustoined six grievous injuries. The court below hos not gronred ony omount towords injuries. This court feels it just ond proper to groni on omount of Rs.20,000/- for eoch injury, which comes to Rs.I ,20,OOO/_.

¶55

The court berow hqs righfly oworded the rote of interest clr 7.5% per onnum ond the some needs no interference by ihis Court.

¶56

1 RRN,J M.A. C. M.A. No.2820 of 2015

¶57

I I

¶58

ln oll, llre petilioner is entitled to Rs.2,6l ,4791- os shown

¶59

below:

¶60

Heod	Amount oworded by Tribunol	Amount enhonced /oworded^bythis Court
Lossof	Rs.2r,OO0/-	Rs.45.000/-
-9lrryqs! Medicol Ex enses	Rs4t,979l-	Rs.48,9791-
Poinond sufferin	Rs15,000/-	Rs.I5,000/-
In^juries	nil-	Rs.1,20,000/- (forsi>lgrievous tn unes
Miscelloneous EX enses	Rs.lO,0O0/-	Rs.l5,000/-
Tronsportotion chor ES	Rs.7,500/-	Rs.7,5CO/-
Extro nourishment	Rs./,500/-	Rs.10,000/-
Totql	Rs.1,12,979/-	Rs.2,61,479/-

¶61

Though the cloimerl cmount is Rs.2,00,000/- invoking the principle of just compensotion ond in view of the low loid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Cour. rn Rojesh vs. Rojbir Singh3 , ond in o coteno of decisions, th s Court is empowered to gront compensotion beyond the clorrned omount.

¶62

'^{MAN u/sc/o.t8oi2o} l^r

¶63

-_ a- ,, .'/'

¶64

8 RRN,J M.A. C.M.A. No.2820 of 2015

¶65

ln the result, lhe M.A.C.M.A is ollowed ond the

¶66

compensotion omount oworded by the court below is enhonced from Rs.l ,12,979/- to Rs.2,6l ,479/- (Rupees two lokhs sixly one thousond four hundred ond sevenly nine onry) with interest @7.5% p.o. from ihe dote of petition till the doie of reolizotion. The respondents ore directed to deposit the soid omouni with cosls ond interest, ofter giving due credit to lhe omount olreody deposited, if ony, within o period of two months from ihe dote of receipt of o copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the petiiioner is permiiled to wiihdrow the some. However, the petirioner is directed to deposir the deficil courr fee on rhe enhonced omount. There sholl be no order os to costs.

¶67

As o sequel, miscelloneous petilions, if ony ore pending, sholl

stond closed

To,

SD/-V.KAVITHA ASSISTAUT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/I (]^ SECTION OFFICER

¶72

The XV Additional Sessions Judge at L.B.Nagar, R.R.District. (Enclosing records if any) 2. One CC to SRI KASIREDDY JAGATHPAL REDDY, Advocate. [OPUC] 3. One CC to MS.P.SATYA MANJULA, Advocate. [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies. 5. Two spare copies. BSK

I t I I

HIGH COURT

DATED:2310612023

)

_:::::-.-
-ii, '' :..
r', '.
.', '<br>'\t [u8lffi ,.. '|
'.,, r ,r. ,r.., i Q': -
'-.: !- _,.'.i;'a

¶79

JUDGMENT

¶80

MACMA.N o.2820 of 2015

¶81

ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS

@br,"'4
r,$ \aB

[³³⁰⁴¹

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶86

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

¶87

PRESENT

¶88

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO MoTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2820 OF 2015

¶89

Between:

¶90

J.Hari Venkata Vaddi Babu, Sio Subba Rao, Aged 35 years, Occ: Private Employee Fl/o H.No. 4-2-84, Chinthal, Jeedimetla Rangareddy District, Telangana State

¶91

...APPELLANT/PETITIONER

¶92

AND ,

¶93

t. ft.Snemar, S/o. Narayana Aged : Major, Occ: Business Rlro Plot No. 23, H.No. 1-2-3889/2/E Srinivasa Colony, Hydernagar, Kukatpaily Rangareddy District, Telangana State

¶94

The New lndia Assurance Company Limited, Rep by its Divisional Manager Off: Tirumala Towers, Malakept Hyderabad.

¶95

...RESPONDENTS

¶96

Appeal filed under Section^'1 73 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and decree in M.V.O.P No.290 ol 2O10, Dated 03-08-20'15 on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XV Additional Sessions Judge at L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.

¶97

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 Kasireddy Jagathpal Reddy, Advocate for the Appellant and Ms.P.Satya Manjula, Advocate for the Respondent.

¶98

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows :

¶99

That the compensation amount awarded by the court berow is enhanced from Rs.1,12,9491 to Rs 2,61,4791 (Rupees Two Lakhs Sixty One Thousand Four hundred and Seventy Nine onry) with interest @ 75% p.a from the date of petition till the date of realization,

¶100

That the respondents are directed to deposit the said amount with costs and interest, afier giving due credit to the amount already deposite4d if any, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment,

¶101