Dismissed

Kadipe Jahangir v. Kompelly Chandra Sekhara Reddy

Telangana HC23 Jun 2023MACMA/2898/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal filed against a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal order granting Rs. 61,540 compensation. The court upheld the assessment based on medical evidence and loss of earnings, rejecting the driver's defense of no negligence.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order and decree dated 30.07.2007 are confirmed. The appellant shall deposit the awarded amount.

Kadipe Jahangir Vs Kompelly Chandra Sekhara Reddy — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

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

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶6

MACMA N 0.2898 0F 2007

¶7

Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V. Act, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 30.07.2007 made in op No.3o4 oF 2003:; the fire of the cou,t of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum_ | Additaoflal Disfrict Judge, at Nalgonda.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Kadipe Jahangir S/o Ramulu

¶10

AppellanVRespondent

¶11

AND

¶12

1 Komp_elly.Chandra Shekar Reddy S/o Narasimha Reddy Occ: RTC Driver, Staff No. 255339, Narketpalty Depot, R/o Veliminedu vittage 6tbhoutuppal Maridal, Nalgonda District

¶13

.. Respondent /Petitioner

¶14

MACMA MP No . 7136 of 2007

¶15

Petition under section^'r 51 of c.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of petition, the High court may be preased to stay all further proceedings in op No.304 of 2oo3 on the file of chairman Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum- lAdditional District Judge, Nalgonda inctriing execution of order and decree dated 30.07.2007 pending disposal of the above CMA.

¶16

Counsel for the Appellant(s): Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao , Advocate

¶17

Counsel for the Sole Respondent: Ms. K.Rajitha, Advocate

¶18

The Court delivered the following JUDGMENT :

¶19

¶20

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA

¶21

M.A.CMA.N 0.2898 0F 2007

¶22

JUDGMENT:

¶23

This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is filed by the appellant aggrieved by the order and decree, dated 30.07.2OO7, passed in O.P.No.304 of 2003 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Nalgonda (for short, 'the Tribunal').

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

¶25

There is no representation for the respondent-claimant.

¶26

The facts of the case, in brief, are that the subject O.P. was filed by the respondent-claimant claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,0OO/- for the grievous injuries sustained by him in a motor accident. The Tribunal, considering the evidence on record, vide impugned order and decree, dated 30.07.2007, granted compensation of Rs.61,540/- with interest at the rate of 7.5o/o per annum from the date of petition till the date of

¶27

¶28

t,SS,J M.A.CMA.No.2898 ot 2Oo7

¶29

¶30

realization. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal rs filed by the appellant-owner of the offending vehicle.

¶31

Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant is the owner of the offending vehicle i.e., Bajaj Chetak Scooter bearing No.Ap-10-e-6487. There is no rash and negligent driving on the part of the appellant. Earlier, as quarrel took place between the appellant and the respondent, the respondent has filed a false case against the appellant. The Tribunal, without appreciating the same and without considering the evidence on record, awarded compensation ot Rs.61,540/- to the respondent-claimant and ultimately, prayed to set aside the impugned order and decree.

¶32

Admittedly, this appeal is filed by the owner of the offending vehicle. As seen from the material placed on record, the Tribunal, considering the documents filed on behalf of the respondent i.e., Exs.A8, A9 and A1O and the evidence of PW.4-eye witness along with the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, clearly held that the subject accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the appellant.

¶33

PSS,.J M.A.CMA.No.2898 of 20O7

¶34

¶35

Therefore, the contention of the appellant that there rs no negligence on his part cannot be accepted.

¶36

Further, the appellant has disputed the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal. The respondent claimed an amount of Rs.1,50,0OO/- for the grievous injuries sustained by him in the motor accident. Before the Tribunal, the respondent got examined PW.2-Dr. P. Raju, an orthopaedic surgeon. He stated that on 03.11.2002, the respondent was admitted in his hospital with commuted fracture, lateral condyle left leg tibia with compact mental syndrome. On the same day, surgery and fasciotomy were done under spinal anesthesia. Again on 14.11.2022, surgery for lateral condyle tibia was done. The respondent was treated as in-patient in his hospital from 03.11.2OO2 to 24.11.2002. After the injury, the left knee^joint of the respondent was fractured. The respondent developed secondary osteoarthritis, because of which he could not fold his knee like normal leg and he could not sit on the^ground. The respondent can walk with pain and lirnp, as the

¶37

)

¶38

¶39

PSS,J M.A CMA.No.2898 or 2OO7

¶40

jE-'

¶41

¶42

movements of the left leg are restricted and the physical disability can be assessed at 15olo. He further stated that Ex.A4 -discharge summary was issued by him. Thus, basing on the evidence of^pW.Z, Ex.A. 1O-Medico legal record, Ex.A4_ discharge summary and Ex.A7-X-rays, the Tribunal came to a conclusion that the respondent sustained comminuted fracture of lateral condyle left leg tibia and accordingly, awarded an amount of Rs.25,000/_ for the fracture injury sustained by the respondent. The respondent also got examined PW.3-Superintendent in personal Department in APSRTC, Narketpally Depot. He stated that the respondent remained absent from November, 2OO2 till February, 2004. The absence of the respondent was treated as a loss of pay and he sustained loss of Rs.77,474-50 ps. He has also stated that all the employees are given free treatment in RTC hospital and if the facilities are not available in the RTC hospital, the patients are referred to some other hospitals and the expenses are born by the Corporation. The Tribunal, basing on the evidence of pW.3 and the injuries sustained by the respondent, came to a conclusion that the respondent

¶43

5 PSS,J M.A CMA.No.289E ot 2007

¶44

I t

¶45

-7

¶46

could not have attended to his regular work for six months, and taking into consideration Ex.A6-certificate issued by the Depot Manager, RTC, Narketpally Depot, wherein it is stated that the respondent was drawing salary of Rs.6,090/-, awarded an amount of Rs.36,540/- for the loss of earnings for six months. However, the Tribunal did not grant any amount towards medical expenses, since it is stated by PW.3 that the medical expenses of the employees working in RTC are born by the Corporation. Thus, the Tribunal, considering the entire evidence on record, has rightly granted an amount of Rs.61,540/- towards compensation to the respondent with interest at the rate of 7.5o/o per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order.

¶47

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and. the impugned order and decree, dated 30.07.2OO7, passed in O.P.No.304 of 2003 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cumI Additional District Judge, Nalgonda, are confirmed. The appellant shall deposit the awarded amount within a period of

PSS..I M A CMA No.2a98 of 2007

¶52

one (1) month from the date of receipt of a^{copy of this} order. On such deposit, the^{respondent-claimant is permitted} to withdraw the entire amount with interest^{accrued thereon} without furnishing any security.^{There shall be no orderas to} costs.

¶53

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any,^{pending in this appeal}

¶54

shall stand closed.

¶55

SD/. K. MMAJI ASSISTANT REG TRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION FFlCER

To,

The Chairmaa, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District Judge; at Nalgonda (with records)

¶60

One CC to Mr. V. Ravi Kiran Rao, Advocate [OPUC]

¶61

One CC to Ms. K: Rajitha,.Advocate [OPUC].

¶62

Two CD Copies

f , ,

,HIGH COURT

DATED:23106/2023

JUDGMENT

MACMA.No.2898 of 2007

¶72

.ii

¶73

i
1 g,E STAT€
(
q
o
.b
co $ \ lN\ 2t2\ .lt
+
*
^.-r?t.'

¶74

t ' -. ;,TdSMISSINGTHE.MAGMA,,V{:1 ,'!'rii':,wlTHouTcosTs- I,',i,,ir' :,ri:i. i;r?.-&#ffi*,;,#',;'i;i i :ii ; l,-i:1 ,:f.!rir'.i!?+qi*-bi | at,3 | {*ri .t:: t

¶75

¶76

.- ,..-^{jJj:.;i..4r].*} - ;.-- --.--

¶77

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶78

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THRIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry THREE

¶79

PRESENT

¶80

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶81

MACMA NO.28 98 0F 2007

¶82

Between:

¶83

¶84

Kadipe Jahangir S/o Ramulu

¶85

.. AppellanURespondent

¶86

AND

¶87

1 Kompelly Chandra Shekar Redd No. Nalgonda 255339, DiskictNarketpallv Deooi ffi 'vJ,i{flJT,li,[?"'I,o"ffi ,Ilfrl'iffi lo','f n

¶88

..Respondent/petitioner r/

¶89

Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V. Act, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 30 'o7 2007 made in op No.304 0F 2003, on the fire of the court of the chairman, Motor vehicre Accident craims Tribunar-cum- rAdditionar District , Judge, at Nalgonda. { ,/-

¶90

MACMA MP NO. 7136 of 2007:

¶91

Petition under section 151 0f c.p.c praying rhat in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all furttler proceedings in op No.304 0f 2003 0n the fire of chairman Motor Accident claims Tribunar-cum- r Additionar District Judge, Nargonda incruding execution of order and decree dated 30_07.2007 pending disposal of the above CMA.

¶92

This appeal coming on^{foi hearing and upon perusing the groundsof appeal,the} Order and Decree of the^{Court below, the material papers in the Original Petition and} upon hearing the arguments^{of Mr. V.Ravi KiranRao, Advocatefor the Appellantand} Ms. K. Rajitha, Advocate,^{for the Respondent.}

¶93

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

¶94

1 . That this Appeal be and here^{by is dismissed}

¶95

That there shall be^no order^{as to costsin thisAppeal.}

¶96

SD/. K. AMMAJI ASSISTANT RrcISTRAR I. //TRUE COPY// ,v/\L I _- SECTION OFFICER

¶97

To, 1. The Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident^{Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District} ,^iJudge, at Nalgonda^(with records)

¶98

2.. Two CD CoPies:.,''.^' i

HIGH COURT

DATEO:2310612O23 t ' t 1 ,:i I ,l

¶103

DECREE

¶104

:,. MACMA.No.2898 of 2007^.; . ti: iti i., ,ii t'. tr^.: t il'l:t DISMISSING THE MACMA, WTHOUT COSTS ,: ;4 1 ii:ir' ,ⁱ 'r @-di :l i-:i^,1 .j.i. .:.^i_r,.;i -_ ,E =.:,ii : j.: -lr. - 'a!'-JrL 1.^:rli I ' 'bi f: :..,.,,t^lb d. ..::{4- '! iP:t,il .u) #^. :L,, '.^{,,. i; {.} .a,t .,I:, ,ir Ji

Kadipe Jahangir v. Kompelly Chandra Sekhara Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kadipe Jahangir v. Kompelly Chandra Sekhara Reddy

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.

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

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