Partly allowed

Divya v. M. Rama Chari and Another

Telangana HC20 Sept 2023MACMA/3092/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this motor accident appeal, the High Court set aside the lower court's dismissal which contradicted its own award of compensation. The appeal was partly allowed, granting Rs. 30,000 with interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation of Rs. 30,000 with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization; respondents to deposit the amount.

Divya Vs M. Rama Chari and Another — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰⁴¹

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶6

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 3092 OF 2011

¶7

Appeal filed under Order 173 of M.V.Act., against the^judgment and decree daled 24.06.2010 passed in O.P.No.552 of 200'l on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal V Additional District Judge at Mahabubnagar.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Divya, D/o Vinod Kumar, aged about 22 yearc, Occ: Student R/o Mahabubnagar.

¶10

...APPELLANT

¶11

AND

¶12

M. Rama chari, S/o N.Narsimha Chary, age major Owner of Scooter No. AP 22D 5342 Plot no.59, Sarovar Enclave, [Bhagirathnagar] Bhoothpur Road, Mahabubnagar.

¶13

The United lndia lnsurance Company Limited, Rep.by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Opp S.B.l. Railway Station Road, Kurnool

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. MOHD ABDUL HALEEM

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent NO.l: None Appeared

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent NO.2: SRI CHALLA SRINIVASA REDDY

¶18

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶19

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAP'U RAJESHWAR RAO

¶20

M.A.C.M.A.No.3092 of 20l I

¶21

JUDGMENT:

¶22

The appellant/ petitioner frled the present appeal against the order and decree passed by the Motor Accidents Clairns Tribunal cum-V Additional District Judge at Mahabubnagar (hereinafter reffered to as 'Court below') in O.P.No.552 of 2O01 dated 24.06.2010

¶23

The brief facts of the case are that on 25.04.1,999, at about 9.00 a.m, while the petitioner, along with her father Vinod Kumar, was proceeding on a scooter from Amistapur to Mahabubnagar and on the way, near Konda Reddy poultry farm, Christianpally sivar, a scooter bearing No.AP 22D 5342 cane in the opposite direction at high speed and dashed the petitioner's scooter. As a result, the petitioner sustained multiple injuries. The petitioner's scooter was also damaged. The petitioner was treated at Government Hospital and thereafter shifted to Private Hospital. For the above said accident, the petitioner claimed Rs.1,00,000/- towards injuries.

¶24

ii' '-t \

¶25

RRN,J MACMA_3092 2011

¶26

¶27

Before the Tribunal, the respondent No. 1 was set exparte. Respondent No.2 filed a counter and denied all the atlegations made in the petition.

¶28

After hearing both sides, the Court below dismissed the claim petition. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner frled the present appeal.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to the accident, the petitioner sustained fracture to the right leg and various other injuries all over his body. The Court below, without considering the same, had dismissed the claim petition and prayed this Court to consider the peLitioner's case and grant compensation of Rs. 1,00,0OO / - for injuries sustained by the petitioner.

¶30

Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the Court below had rightly dismissed the petition.

¶31

Heard both sides.

¶32

Upon perusal of the order dated,24.06.2010, it is noticed that the Court below, after making observations in Para Nos.21 atd 22 had passed the order in Para No.23, which reads as under:-

¶33

RRN,J MACMA 3092_201 I

I I

"21. Claimant thus entitled to claim compensation of Rs.3O,0OO/- for the injuries sustained bg her in the accident uhich amount in mA uieu is Tust and reasonable.

¶38

Claimant is entitled to claim interest at 7.5o/o per annum on the satd compensation amount. This issue is accordingly ansutered holding that respondents I and 2 are not liable to paA anA compensation to the claimant, since claimant failed to establish that uehicle owned by respondent No.l and insured uith respondent No.2 met tuith accident.

¶39

In uieu of mg findings on issue No.l and issue No.J the claim petition i.s liable to be dismissed."

¶40

¶41

Firstly, the Court below had made an obsewation in Para No.2 I that the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation of Rs.30,000/- for the injuries sustained. In Para No.22, the Court below had fixed the interest rate at 7 .Soh per annum, and thereafter the Court below had erroneously dismissed the claim petition, which is liable to be set aside. Since the Court below, in the order dated 24 .06.2O 10 had observed that the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation of Rs.30,0O0/-, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, is inclined to allow the appeal in part and grants Rs.30,000/- towards compensation to the petitioner with the interest of 7.5V. per annum.

¶42

¶43

¶44

RRN,J MACMA_3092 201 1

¶45

In the result, the order dated24.06.2O10 is set aside and the present appeal is allowed in part by granting compensation of Rs.30,000/- with the interest of 7.5%o per annum from the date of petition tiII the date of realisation. The respondents Nos. 1 and.2, jointly shall deposit the said compensation amount together with interest within two months from receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner is permitted to withdraw the same. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶46

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶47

//TRUE COPY//

¶48

Sd/. MOHD. ISMAIL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Gs

¶49

SECTION OFFICER

¶50

To, 1 The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- V Additional District Judge at Mahabubnagar (With Records if any) 2 One CC to SRl. MOHD ABDUL HALEEM, Advocate [OPUC] 3 One CC to SRl. CHALLA SRINIVASA REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 4 Two CD Copies Pr kam

¶51

d\rr'

¶52

HIGH COURT DATED: 2010912023

¶53

JUDGMENT

¶54

MACMA.No.3092 ot 2011

¶55

1t\ E Si'Ai O,(-
(
1)
/q
t 5 Nlj'l 1u ID
s
*
. \i,'
----:=;:;-'

¶56

PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA

¶57

¶58

[³³⁰⁴ ]

¶59

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶60

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE

¶61

PRESENT

¶62

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RA.JESHWAR RAO MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 3092 OF 2011

¶63

Between:

¶64

Divya, D/o Vinod Kumar, aged about 22 years, Occ: Student R/o Mahabubnagar.

¶65

...APPELLANT

¶66

AND

¶67

1- M. Rama chari, S/o N.Narsimha Chary, age major Owner of Scooter No. AP 22 D 5342 Plot no.59, Sarovar Enclave, [Bhagirathnagar] Bhoothpur Road, Mahabubnagar.

¶68

The United lndia lnsurance Company Limited, Rep.by its Divisional lr,lanager, Divisional Office, Opp S.B.l. Railway Station Road, Kurnool

¶69

...RESPONDENTS

¶70

Counsel for the Appellant: Counsel for the Respondent NO.1: None Appeared Counsel for the Respondent NO.2:

¶71

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶72

Appeal filed under Order^'173 of M.V.Act., against the judgment and decree dated 24.06.2010 passed in O.P.No.552 of 2001 on the file of the lv'lotor Accident Claims Tribunal V Additional District Judge at Mahabubnagar.

¶73

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 SRl. MOHD ABDUL HALEEM, for the Appellant and of SRI CHALLA SRINIVASA REDDY, Advocate for the Respondent no.2 and None Appeared for the respondent No.1

¶74

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows :

¶75

That the Appeal be and hereby is parlty allowed by granting compensation of the Rs-30,0001 with the interest of 7.Sok per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization;

¶76

That the respondents Nos.1 and 2 Jointly shall deposit the said compensation amount together with interest within two months from receipt of a copy of this judgment;

¶77

That the petitioner be and hereby is permitted to withdraw the same;

¶78

That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Lower Court shall stands confirmed in all other respects; and

¶79

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

¶80

Sd/. MOHD. ISMAIL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// (-lr}

¶81

SECTION OFFICER

¶82

To, 1 . The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- V Additional District Judge at Mahabubnagar.

¶83

1. Two CD Copies pr

¶84

kam

¶85

\ox

¶86

HIGH COURT DATED: 2010912023

¶87

DECREE

¶88

MACMA.No.3092 of 2011

¶89

PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA

¶90

6'^N> 5sr

Divya v. M. Rama Chari and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Divya v. M. Rama Chari 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

D.Venkati Vs Bommakanti Divakar and Anr.

Apsrtc., Musheerabad, Hyd.,. Vs Smt. Vanampally Krishnaveni , Jayanthi and 4 Others

B. Anitha, Vs The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

Baddam Jangamma , Gangamma Vs P. Gopal Reddy and Another

Smt Rabiyaunnisa , Asiya and 3 Others Vs M.E.Sloman Raj and 3 Others

Smt. Bonagiri Venkamma , Venkatamma and 5 Others Vs R. Sridhar and Another