Partly allowed

K.Venkata Narayana v. Smt.N.Saroja

Telangana HC6 Sept 2023MACMA/3025/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court partly allowed the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, holding that the driver was not negligent. It enhanced compensation for medical bills, loss of academic year, and amenities, setting a revised total of Rs. 4,58,365/- with 7.5% interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs. 1,25,000 to Rs. 4,58,365 including interest at 7.5% per annum from date of original filing.

K.Venkata Narayana Vs Smt.N.Saroja — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²¹⁶ ]

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH^{DAYOFSEPTEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICE M.LAXMAN}

¶6

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL^{MISCELLANEOU S APPEAL NO: 3025 OF 2007}

¶7

Appeal filed under section^{173 of M.V.Act aggrieved by the Decreeand} Judgment dated 04-06-2007^{in o.P.No.844of 2OO4 on the file of the lv Additional} District & Sessions^{Judge (FastTrack Court) Ranga ReddyDistrict}

¶8

Between:

¶9

K. Venkata Narayana^{S/o.Madhusudhana Rao,Aged about 28-years, Occ:} Siudent, C/o.^Sri V.^{Gouri Shankara Rao, S-1 , SreeApartmetns,Durganagar,} Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad.

¶10

...APPELLANT/PETITIONER

¶11

ANO

¶12

" Smt.N.Saroja W/o. P.^{Natesan,Aged Major,Occ: Bus Owner R/o'74,} Ramatingaihetty Street,^{DharmapuriTown and District.TamilnaduState- 636} 701.

¶13

The New lndia Assurance^{company Limited, rep by its Divisional Jvlanager} O/o. Motor Thrid Party^{Claims Cell, 4O1, 402, Alkarim Trade Centre, Ranigunj'} secunderabad - 3

¶14

...RES'.NDENT./RES'.NDENT'

¶15

Counsel for the Appellant:^{SRl. VEMULAYADU KRISHNA SAINATH}

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent^{No. 1: NONEAPPEARED}

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent^{No. 2: SRl. V. AJAYA KUMAR}

¶18

The Court made the^{following:JUDGMENT}

¶19

THE }ION,BLE SRI JUSTICE M. LAXMAN MOTOR ACctDENT cIVIL MIscEL No. 3025 OF 20o7 EOUS AP L

¶20

MENT:

¶21

l. The prese. Misce,aneous Appea, is n,ed ;:,:. ;. ;"::::.,": #:ff. in o'PNo'844 of o' the IV Additional 104'06'2ooz Fast Track and Sessions Judge' "or.' Ranga Reddy Distriiistrict rererred ro as Tribr-rnar ), "".urrt s^enhanceme", ", ""_r'",1:::::*-

¶22

The main gn ,evance of the appellan I t-injured is that he suffered injuries to spreen liver' for r'vhich he splenectomy uro "tno dtre ro the said,,;,::':orliver' "".,i::;,:":#;.:,:": tes' he lost one acade; has not considered year' but the Tribunal the expenses u,-'a rutl academic lear, whir s earnings due to loss of he must havc got' engrneering within nuo he been complcted stipulated time appellan t-injured is "' grievance of the tnut no compensot'o"'n"t' Tribunal for pain "" awarded by the ''-'o suffcring and othcr nl The medical bil'ls were arso ,.,o, ,.oo..l consiciered o' tn" compensation and the Iower side. The orheJ: awarcled "J:;:rffX; ""0" r,vro ns in h o rd ing con rri b u ro ry " "_1,u,*-^.,,' :r:ffi:::::::"r:""

¶23

¶24

¶25

3.jtiscontendedbythelearrredcor,insclfcrrtheapllellant-injure:i that l.hc Triburral^{was lvrong in holciingt lrer't ihet c !'as cont, ibutory} rregligence on the^{part of appellanl--iniuretl}

¶26

Lea.rned couusel for^{the insurance c:"Jm} Ilan-v-^{respond ent No 2} contendcd thst^{the compensationgranted b1, thc Tribtrnarlis jtrst and} proper ancl there is^{no requirement of interferencc of this Coltrt He} alsojustifiedthefindirrgsoftheTribunalwithregardtoContributory negligence.

¶27

I-tezrd both sides.

¶28

The evidence on record^{clearlv shou's that the acciderrt} occrrrred^{w.hen the inj ured-appellantancl his lricndswere crossing} road. The evidence^{alsoshou,s that the vehicle was in high speed} and driver drove^{the vehiclein rash and negligent manner''l'l-rc} ,lribunal also found that there is no mechanical failure. whcn the driver of the^{vehicle has seen the pedestriall crossing road high} degree of care^{is required. He shouldhave reducedthe speeciof the} vehicle to avoid the accident.^{Hence, thc ncgligenceon the part of} driver of the^{vehiclecannot bc attributed to the appellant-injured.} Therefore, the findings^{of the I'ribunalin this regard are hereby set} aside.

¶29

¶30

¶31

The evidence of p.W.2 coupled with Ex.A_4 and A_S clearly demonstrates that injuries sustained by the apperant are spleen and liver injuries. For treating the same, he had to undergo splenectomy and suturing r,r,as done to liver. He underwent treatment lor long period and that is the reason he lost one academic year. Ex.A_ I I medical bills indicate expenditure of Rs.90,365.63/-, but the Tribunal has granted only Rs.8O,0OO/_ towards medical expenses. Therefore, this Court ls inclined to grant baiance amount of Rs 1o,365/- toq'ards medicar expenditure in addition to Rs.go,0oo/_ already granted

¶32

The Tribunal has granted arr amount of Rs.S,OOO/_ towards transport charges and no amount was granted for extra nourishment and attendant charges The duration of treatment indicates there is prolongation for healment of injuries. During this period, the appellant must have visited various hospitars ror several times a,d incurred expenditure for extra nourishment and attendant charges. Hence, this Court grants an amount of Rs.25,000 / _ for extra nourishment, attendant chargcs and transportation charges, which includes Rs.5,OOO1_ granted !f yr. Tribunal towards transporration charges.

¶33

¶34

Tl're Tribr.rnal has not grzinted an.' ar.ount tou,ards loss^of acadernic year of the injured-appellan t orl^{accounttlf injuries.The} appeltant u,as engineering student studvirrg in third .year.^On account of injuries, he lost one acadernic )'(:ar and conrpletioii^of degree was postponed by one^year. Had he been^completedhis degree n'ittrirr original timr:. he r,vould hetve been^employed immediaLely and he would have ea-r'n erd nlone'F, but tln account^of injuries, he could not attend exams arld education^{^,as postponcd for} one year. This means, one ,vear of futurc^{employment was lost. ln} ordcr to calculate the income, if notional^itrcome is^{considered the} income oi the appellant can be deterrnined at Rs,6,5O0/^{- per month,} w'hich comes to Rs.78,OO0 l- per .veat^(Rs.6,500/- X 12).^{Hencc. t1-ris} Court is inclined to aq,ard an amount of^{I?s.78,O00/-tow-ards lossot'} income for one year to the inj ured-appellant.

¶35

I0. Thc Tribunal has granted an a.mount of Rs.^{1,65,000/ - [or.t'ards} pain and suffering. The appellant suffered spleen injury and tcar^of liver and undenvent splenectomy and suturing of^iiver.He '"r'as under treatment for nearly one^{year. The injuriesalso caused loss of} one academic year. Therefore,^{grant ofRs. 1,65,O00/ -by the} 'I'ribr-rnal is verv reasoaable and the same is confirmed by this Court

¶36

)

¶37

I 1. Further, no compensation is granted towards loss of amenities and impact of injuries on remainder of tife and arso reduction in marital prospecrs. Therefore, this court is inclined to grant an amount of Rs. 1,00,00O/_ ur-rder the said heads.

¶38

The injured-appellant u,as granted a,, amount of Rs.2,50,000/by the Tribunal, but after deducting 50% towards contributory negligence an amount of Rs. l,2S,OOO/_ was awarded as total compensation. After setting aside the findings with regard to contributory negligence and enhancing the compensation under various heads by this Court, the total amount of compensation granted to the inj ured appellant comes to Rs.4,58,365/- [medical expenses : Rs.9O,365/ + transportation charges, extra nourishment and attendant charges Rs.2S,0O0/ + temporal/ Ioss of earnings : Rs.78,000/- + pain and sul-fering : Rs.I,65,OOO/_ + loss of amenities and impact of injuries on rcmainder of life arld loss of marital prospects : Rs. 1,OO,OOO/_1.

¶39

, t

¶40

In the result, the Moror Accide nt Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed by enhancing the cornpensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs. j,2S,OOO/_ to Rs.4,Sg,365/_. The enhanced amount shall carry interest aL 7.5 %o pe r annum from the date of filing of the O.p. till the datc o[ reali;r:ition. Respondents are directed

¶41

¶42

to deposit the enhanced amount to l-he credit of O.P. eriong wrt.h accrued intercst rvithin a period of trvo months from the d:rtc ol receipt cI a copy ot this judgmcnt. Or.r such deposit, the appellan'. is permitted to urithdrarv the cntire amount in the proportions, as fixerj by the T'ribunerl. The appeilarrl. is directed to i:ay dcficit Court fee, if any, orr cnLrance<l amount over and above the claimed amount There shall be no ordcr as to costs. Miscellaleous petitions pending. il any, shall stald closed.

¶43

Sd/- MOHD. SANAULLAH ANSARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1 . The lV Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Ranga Reddy District (with records, if any)

¶49

One CC to SRl. VEMULA YADU KRISHNA SAINATH, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. V. AJAYA KUMAR, Advocate [OPUC]

¶50

Two CD Copies

? I

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0610912023

JUDGMENT

MACMA.No.3025 ot 2007

¶58

1t\ g 5T4T6
c)o 2 2 [Ec 2[21 a
.+
*
-f I'iI.q r; 1-( a

¶59

PARTLY ALLOWING MACMA WTHOUT COSTS @q"8 trf

¶60

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

¶61

WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE

¶62

PRESENT

¶63

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^M.LAXMAN

¶64

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL^{MISCELLANEOUSAPPEALNO: 3025 OF 2007}

¶65

Appeal filed under section^{173 of M.V.Act aggrievedby the Decreeand} Judgment dated 04-06-2007^{in o.P.No.844 oI 2OO4 on the file of the lv Additional} District & Sessions Judge^{(FastTrack Court) Ranga ReddyDistrict}

¶66

Between:

¶67

K. Venkata Narayana S/o. Madhusudhana^{Rao,Aged about 28years, Occ:} Student, C/o. Sri V. Gouri Shankara^{Rao,S-1,SreeApartmetns,Durganagar,} Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad.

¶68

...APPELLANT/PETITIONER

¶69

AND

¶70

Smt.N.Saroja Wlo. P.^{Natesan, Aged Major,Occ: Bus OwnerR/o.7-C,} Ramalingaihetty Street, Dharmapuri^{Town and District.TamilnaduState- 636} 701.

¶71

The New lndia Assurance Company^{Limited, rep by its Divisional Manager} O/o. Motor Thrid Party Claims Cell,^{4O1,4O2,Alkarim Trade Centre, Ranigunj,} Secunderabad^- 3.

¶72

...RESPON DENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶73

ORDER: This appeal coming^{on for hearing and upon perusingthe grounds of} appeal, the Judgment and Decree of^{the Lower Court andthe material papers in the} case and upon hearing the arguments^{of SRl. VEMULA YADU KRISHNA SAINATH,} Advocate for the Appellant,^{None appeared, Advocatefor the RespondentNo.1} and SRl.V. AJAY KUMAR, Advocate^{for the Respondent No.2}

¶74

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

¶75

That the MACMA No.3025 of^{2007 be and hereby is partly allowed by} enhancing the compensation^{amount awarded by the TribunalfromRs.}

¶76

¶77

1,25'o0ol- to Rs. 4,s8,365r)Rupees Four Lakhs Fifty Eight rhousand rhree Hundred and Sixty Five only)

¶78

2' Thal the enhanced amount shafl carry interest @ 7.so/o p.a. from the date of filing of the O.p. till the date of realization;

¶79

3' That the Respondents be and hereby are directed to deposit the enhance amount to the credit of o.p. arong with accrued interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment;

¶80

4' That on such deposit, the appeflant be and hereby is permitted to withdraw the entire amount in the proportions, as fixed by the Tribunal;

¶81

That the appellant be and hereby is directed to pay deficit Court fee, if any, on enhanced amount over and above the claimed amount;

¶82

6' That save as aforesaid, the decree ofthe Lower court shafi stands confirmed in all other respects; and

¶83

That there be no order as to costs in this appeal.

¶84

Sd/- MOHD. SANAULLAH ANSARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶85

(-l //TRuE copy// dz'

¶86

To,

¶87

SECTION OFF]CER

¶88

1 . The lV Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Ranga Reddy 2. Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0610912023

DECREE

MACMA.No.3025 of 2007

¶94

PARTLY ALLOWING MAGMA WITHOUT COSTS

¶95

C,ot8 C9

¶96

K.Venkata Narayana v. Smt.N.Saroja

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Venkata Narayana v. Smt.N.Saroja

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

Mr.R.Mallesh Vs a.Sanjeeva Reddy and Anr.

Vankidi Sujatha and Another Vs a. Samaiah and 3 Others

Syed Muqtadeer Ahmed Vs N.Siddappa and Another

T. Padma Vs T. Nagabhushanam(Died) per Lr Rr 2 to 4

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri Chennaram and 2 Ors.

Kadam Gangu Bai Vs Hazi Khan and Another