Partly allowed

Ambekar Shankar v. Syed Ahmed Ali Pasha and Another

Telangana HC25 Sept 2023MACMA/2876/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal partly, enhancing compensation from Rs. 17,000 to Rs. 45,000 awarded to an auto passenger injured in a road accident, along with interest at 7.5% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 45,000 with 7.5% interest per annum from petition date until realization.

What the court decided

Ambekar Shankar Vs Syed Ahmed Ali Pasha and Another — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

MONDAY, THE TWENTY^{FIFTH DAY OF} SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND^TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWARRAO}

¶5

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUqAPP^{EAL NOi 2876 0F 2011}

¶6

Appeal filed under section 173 of Motor^{VehiclesAct against the order and} decree in O.P.No.1951 of^2OO2 dated^{18.01.2006on the file of the Court of the} Chairman Motor Accident Claims^{Tribunal-cum-Vll Additional District Judge (FTC)} Nizamabad at Bodhan.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Ambekar Shankar, S/o Gangadhar, Cloth^{Merchant,R:/o. Banswada, Nizamabad} District-

¶9

...APPELLANT/PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

'1. Syed Ahmed Ali Pasha, S/o Syed Sha Ali pasha,.Occ: Owner of auto No. AP 25-T-91 19 RJo. H.no. 6-1-148,^{Police Line,YellammaguttaNizamabad} District.

¶12

(Dismissed for default vide C.O. dated 15.1¹ .2010)

¶13

M/s. Oriental insurance Company^{Limited, Throughits BranchManager,} Branch Office, Godown^{Road, Pratap ReddyComplex, Nizamabad District.}

¶14

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶15

Counsel for the Appellant:^{SRl.VONJARIRA"IASHEKARREDDY} VENKAT RAM REDDY

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.2:SRIKOTA SUBBARAO}

¶17

The Court made the following:^JUDGMENT

¶18

THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE NAMAVARAP'U RAJESHWAR RAO

¶19

M.A.G.M.A.No.2876 of 201 I

¶20

JUDGMENT:

¶21

The appellant/petitioner l-rled the present appeal against the Judgment and decree passed in M.V.O.P.No. I951 of 2OO2 dated, f8.O1.2O06, by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (VII Additional Judge (FTC), Nizamabad (hereinafter referred to 'Tribunat').

¶22

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

¶23

The brief facts of the case are that on O7.O9.2OO2 at about 4_0O P.m., the petitioner and others were proceeding towards Bichkunda Village in Auto bearing No.AP-25-T-91 19, and wheir it reached the outskirts of the Bichkunda Village, the driver of the auto drove it in a rash and negligent manner, due to which the auto turned turtle. As a result, the petitioner sustained fractures and other injuries. The petitioner was treated at Government Hospital, Bichkunda and later was shifted to Government Hospital, Nizamabad. The petitioner took further treatment in a private hospital. For the above said accident, the petitioner claimed Rs.2,OO,O0O/- towards compensation.

¶24

RRN,J MACMA_2476_201 1

¶25

)

¶26

Before the Tribunal, the respondent^{No.1 was set ex-parte.} Respondent No.2 hled a counter and denied^{all the allegationsmadein} the petition

¶27

After hearing both sides, the Tribunal^{partly allowedthe OP and} granted Rs. 17,000/- in all.

¶28

l,earned counsel for the^{petitioner submitted that the Tribunal} failed to appreciate that^{duc to the accident, the petitioner sustainedone} grievous injury and one simple injury.^{To supportthe same,an Injury} certificate issued by the Hospital^{was placcd and was marked as Ex'A3'} The Tribunat, without considering^{the same,granteda meageramountof} Rs. 15,0OO/- towards^{Painand Suffering. It is further submitted that the} petitioner was treated in a^{priva[e hospital, andthe Tribunalhad granted} Rs.2,OOO/- towards incidental^{expenditure, which is very 1ow' l'earned} counsel for the^{petitioner prays this Courtto enhance the compensation} amount.

¶29

Per contra, learned counsel^{for respondent No'2 submittedthat the} Tribunal after, examining^{[he records,had rightly granted an amountof} Rs.17,OOO/- in all and^{no interferenceis required by this Court'}

¶30

Heard both sides.^{Perusedthe materialavailable on record'}

¶31

RRN,J MACMA 2876 2011

¶32

¶33

( \

¶34

The Tribunal had granted Rs. 15,00O/- towards pain and Suffering. Sinqq thq petitioner Sustqined one glievous injury and one simple injqry, this Court is inclined to grant an amount of Rs.2O,OOO/_ for grievous injury and for simple injury Rs. IO,OOO/- and due to the above accident, the petitioner suffered pain, for that Rs. 1O,O0O/- is granted. The Tribunal had granted an amount ol Rs.2,OOO/- towards incidental expenditure. This Court is inclined to enhance the amount to Rs.5,O0O/_. The differences in amount are as follows:

¶35

Head'	Amount arrivedat by theTribunal	Amount arrivedatby thisCourt
Painand suffering Incidentalcharges	Rs.15,OOO/- Rs.2,OOO/-	Rs.5,OOO/- Rs..lO,OOO/- [2O,OOO+^{IO,OOO+lO,OOOt}
Total	Rs.17,OOO/-	Rs.45,OOO/-

¶36

The Tribunal, while awarding the compensation, granted interest at the rate of 7.5Vo per annum from the date of the petition, and this Court is granting the same rate of interest i.e., Z.5o/o per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶37

In the result, the appeat is allowed in part by enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs. l7,OOO/- to Rs.45,OO0/_ with the interest of 7 .5%" per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till the date of realization. The respondents shall deposit the said compensation amount together with interest and cosLs after

¶38

RRN,J MACMA_2876_201 I

¶39

¶40

I I i

¶41

giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within two months from re ceipt of a copy of this^{judgment.On such deposit, the} petitioner is permitted to withdraw lhe same. There shail be^{no orderas} to costs.

¶42

As a sequel, miscellaneous^{petitions pending if any, shall stand} closed

¶43

Sd/- G. SIREESHA ASSISTANT REGIST R //TRUE COPY//

¶44

SECTION O ICER

¶45

To, SECTION O ICER l The chairman Motor Accident craims Tribunar-cum-v, Additionar District

¶46

^^{{udge(FTC) Nizamabad at Bodhan. lWittr RecorOsif any)} , oot",ff,y,j5j"yoro, RAJA sHEiGR nEo-oiveruxnr RAM REDDY, 9. 9n" 9g^{to SRt. KbTA SUBBA RAO,} Advocate [OpUC] 4. Two CD Copies

Pt \rt(

i I t

! l I I I i ; l

HIGH COURT .RRN. :l'^., J ti,t

¶51

DATED: 2510912029 J.&t i

¶52

JUDGMENT fUACme.ru 0.2876 ot 2011

¶53

L sTAr€
1
t
q
f, o
r 2 ttB ?ut
or)
.D ),
* .-.r(
DES r1/r-I r.

¶54

PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA

¶55

iP<br>

¶56

¶57

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

¶58

MONDAY, THE TWENTY^{FIFTH DAY} OF^SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE

¶59

PRESENT

¶60

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU^{RAJESHWAR RAO}

¶61

..MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2876 OF 20¹¹

¶62

Between:

¶63

'"!A.b.kr Shankar, S/o Gangadhar, Cloth Merchant, Ryo. Banswada, Nizamabad District

¶64

...APPELLANT/PETITIONER

¶65

AND

¶66

Syed Ahmed Ali Pasha, S/o Syed^{Sha Ali pasha, Occ: Owner of autoNo. AP} 25-T-91 19 R/o. H.no. 6-1-148, Police^{Line, YellammaguttaNizamabad} District.

¶67

M/s. Oriental insurance Company^{Limited,Through its Branch ltrlanager,} Branch Office, Godown Road,^{Pratap ReddyComplex, Nizamabad District.}

¶68

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶69

Appeal filed under section¹⁷³ of^{Motor VehiclesAct against the order and} decree in O.P.No.1951 ot^{20O2dated18.01 .2006 on the file of the Court of the} Chairman Motor Accident Claims^{Tribunal-cum-Vll Additional District Judge (FTC)} Nizamabad at Bodhan.

¶70

ORDER: This appeal coming^{on for hearingand upon perusingthe grounds of} appeal, the Judgment and^{Decreeof the LowerCourt andthematerialpapers in the} MVOP and upon hearing the arguments^{of Sri. VONJARI RAJA SHEKARREDDY} VENKAT RAM REDDY, Advocate^{for the appellant and of SRI KOTA SUBBARAO'} Advocate for the^{Respondent No.2}

¶71

This Court doth Order and Decree^{as follows:}

¶72

1 . That the appeal be^{and herebyis allowed in part by enhancing the} compensation awarded by^{the Tribunalfrom Rs.17,000/- to Rs.45,0001 with} the interest of 7.5%^{per annum on the enhanced amount from the dateof} petition till the date of realization;

¶73

That the respondents shall^{deposit the said compensation amount together} with interest and costs after^{giving due creditto the amount already deposited,} if any, within two months from^{receiptof a copy of this judgment;}

¶74

¶75

deposit, the petitioner be and hereby is permitred to wirhdraw t ,H"fffich .i: 4. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Lower Court shall stands

¶76

,,; - 99n1iTd^{in ail otherrespecls;} and ,lm,r9.i5. that there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. T$J fl ,

¶77

//rRUE copy//^{Ass'srT{}Gi3{tEfiXA} e, rTol sEcTloN oFftcER ki

¶78

rribunar-cum-v, Additionar District ; i[{%%'+'3ill,,H:"J"f:i'S8ll"::",,'

¶79

pr tdr

¶80

sf.;iIt i{94 #$? #l

¶81

fi'i gL.4 tf*'t rlI ,t' i

.l.l

i i

i t.'

i^.HIGH COURT , .it .D,: ? , :RRN, J r..t DATED: 25l}gt2l23 r{,i.r ?',r {,{:i r.' i .l DECREE }'j., 'MACMA.No.2876 of 2011 t.

¶89

-{
i1"t
[sl
i:t
..1.,1
d..{l
, r3sl
i$+i
f;t
,4{i.
#..i
PARTLY ALLOWING
THE MACMA
\q\ il,^
A{

Ambekar Shankar v. Syed Ahmed Ali Pasha and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Ambekar Shankar v. Syed Ahmed Ali Pasha 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

R.Venkataiah Vs B.Venkat Reddy and Anr.

The United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt.S.Vijaya Laxmi,Sri Latha and 5 Others

Abu Sufiyan, S/o.Md.Israil, Aged 15 Years Student Vs The Depot Manager

Omprakash Dodiya Vs Ravindra Sai and Another

Puttapaka Srinivas Vs M/S.Sirpur Paper Mills Limited and Anr.

G. Srinivas, Vs The State of Telangana