Partly allowed

Sangam Jagan v. Mohd Moizulhaq and Anr.

Telangana HC7 Nov 2023MACMA/3234/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble High Court of Telangana allowed a motor accident appeal partly. The court enhanced the compensation from Rs. 1,12,277 to Rs. 1,92,277, considering the petitioner's injuries, occupation as an RMP doctor, and loss of earnings for three months.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs. 1,12,277 to Rs. 1,92,277; Respondent-2 to deposit the amount within one month; claimant entitled to withdraw on deposit.

Sangam Jagan Vs Mohd Moizulhaq and Anr. — Medical Negligence | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁰⁸ ] IN THE HIGH^{COURTFOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, THE^{SEVENTH DAYOF NOVEMBER} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENryTHREE}

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE^{SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA}

¶5

MOTOR ACCIDENT^{CIVIL MISCE LLANEOUSAPPEAL NO} :3234 0F 2011

¶6

Appeal filed^{under section 173 of M'V Act} '^{againstthe Judgment and} decree dated^{19.12.2006 p".."J i" O.p.trto.ZZZ ot zOOi on the file of the Court of} tn" ftloto,^{n"cident ClaimsTribunal, Vlll Additional Judge' Nizamabad'}

¶7

Between:

¶8

i3lsiiil,,i:fl?sr^?"",)fr^{:'fiJlflf :il?"i.%?10'['Jffi i;8"S"RMPDoctorcum-}

¶9

...CLAIMANT/APPELLANT

¶10

AND

¶11

Mohd Moizulhaq,^{S/o.ZahadulH"gr qqgg} .Q5.^{years' Occ:Busine^ss-cum-} owner of .leep eearinlii.lF^{r r-o-os6"R/o'H'No3-1-97' Kazigally' Bhainsa'} Adilabad Diskict.

¶12

Dismissed^{for default vide C'O dated15 11'2010}

¶13

2.TheNewlndiaAssuranceCo,mpanyLtd'repbvitsDivisionalManagerThe Divisionat^{tr,trnrg.r,"Nei=tnOia'nsduranbeboftpanyLtd.,Divisional Office} orjp. Z.F.ori"",^{"Subashnagar,Nizamabad'}

¶14

...RESPONDENTS'RESPONDENTS

¶15

Counsel for^{the Appellant:SRI' P RADHIVE REDDY}

¶16

Counsel for the^{Respondent No'2:Ms P SATYAMANJULA}

¶17

The Court made^{the following:JUDGMENT}

¶18

THI} HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶19

M.A.C.M.A.N0.3234 of 2O11

¶20

JUDGMENT:

¶21

This appeal is filed against the Order dated 19.12.20O6 in O.P.No.7lt7 of 2OO2 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (VIII Additional District Judge), Nizamabad.

¶22

The appellant/ petitioner fited O_p.No.72T of 2OO2, claiming ,)ompensation of Rs.4,OO,OOO/_ for injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident occurred oo LO.O4.2OO2 and was shiftr:d to Govt. Headquarters Hospital, Nizamabad and thereafter he was shifted Amruthalaxmi Multi Specialty Hospital, lrlizamabad. The petitioner is RMp doctor and he was also doing cultivation of lands and was earning Rs.10,OOO/_ per month. There is no dispute regarding the negligence.

¶23

As 6,61 the evidence of p.W.2, he sustained five injuries out of whir:h, three are grievous in nature and two are simple in nature. The Trial Court after considering the nature of injuries granted Rs.48,O0O/- for injuries and the petitioner also filed the prescriptio es, pathotogical report and medical bills 29 in

¶24

¶25

¶26

number shows that the petitioner spent Rs.54,2 ZZ / - towards medical expenses.

¶27

Learned counsel for appellant/petitione r stated that the three injuries are grievous in nature. The Trial Court considering the oral and documentary evidence granted Rs.I,12,277 /- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition to till the date of deposit. Challenging the quantum of compensation as meagre, the petitioner has filed the present appeal.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner underwent surgery and was in hospital for 22 days. Considering the nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner, this Court finds it reasonable to grant Rs.15,OOO/_ towards pain and suffering, Rs. 15,0OO/- towards loss of amenities, Rs. 10,OOO/ for transportation, Rs.10,O0O/- for extra nourishment and Rs. 10,0OO/- towards attendant charges. The petitioner was working as RMp doctor and also doing cultivation. The Trial courf assessed his income at Rs.3,OOO/per month. Considering his occupation and he is having agricultural lands to an extent of 3 acres as per Ex.A 12-patta pass book, this Court hnds it reasonable to take his income as

¶29

, ,

¶30

¶31

Rs. 10,OC0/- per month and due to the injuries he might not have dorLe any work for a period of three months, as such he is entitled to Rs.3O,O00/ (Rs 1O,00O/- x 3) rowards loss of earnings

¶32

Th:refore, the appellant/ petitioner is entitled for the

¶33

compensation in t he following lerms:

¶34

1	Injuries	Rs.48,OO0/-
2	Painand Suffering	Rs.15,O0O/-
J	Loss ofAmenities	Rs.r5,OO0/-
4	Loss ofearnings	Rs.30,OO0/-
5	MedicalExpenses	Rs.54,277l-
6	TransportationCharges	Rs.iO,OOO/-
7	Extra nourishment	Rs.l0,OOO/-
8	AttendantCharges	Rs.1O,OOO/-
	TOTAL	Rs.L,92,2771-

¶35

In^'-he result, the appeal is partty allowed by enhancing the comp:nsation amount from Rs. 1,12,277 /- to Rs.l,92,2ZZ /- (Rupees ()ne Lakh Ninety Tr.to Thousand and Tu.o Hundred and Seventy Seven only) with interest at the rate of 7.So/o per annum from the date of filing the petition till date of realization. Respondr:nt No.2/Insurance Company shall deposit the entire anrount within a period of one month from the date

¶36

¶37

of order. On such Deposit, the appellant is entitled to withdraw the said amount. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶38

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

closed.

\ \

//TRUE COPY//

SD/- P. CH. NAGABHUSHAMBA ASSTSTANT RTTSTRAR

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Chairman, Motor Accidents C|aims Tribunal-cum-VIll Additional District Judge, Nizamabad. (With Records if any)

¶47

One CC to SRl. P RADHIVE REDDY, Advocate IOPUC]

¶48

One CC to Ms P SATYA MANJULA, Advocate IOPUC]

¶49

Two CD Copies

Pr/jak

HIGH COU^RT

DATED: 07'11112023

STATE oA
1
r()
foo 1g ti'i 1k\ .[-
:.{:,
o i:9

¶56

JUDGMEI\IT MACMA.N o.3234^{ot 20'11}

¶57

PAR] LY ALLOWING^{THE MACMA}

¶58

@qq G I ze

¶59

oF TELANGANA rN rHE HrGH ""xfl.i3E-til=^BtArE

¶60

TUESDAY,^{THE SEVENTH DAYOF NOVEMBER} '-*rwo iHousAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶61

PRESENT

¶62

THE HONOURABLE^{SMTJUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA}

¶63

MOTOR ACCIDE^{NT CIVILMTSCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO:3234 oF 201'l}

¶64

Between:

¶65

Doctor+um'

¶66

i3fisiiil,,i:fl?sr^?;,)ft:'fiJlft,i:ft?,il%eb'"filJ'i;flli;?"3r'['iil

¶67

...CLAIMANT'APPELLANT

¶68

AND

¶69

3 3$l'.,Xij'"ti"r';"il?'*"ifi',1"30.3nfi1"^{f,'*llfl:i,,T?'31'iii?'n""'i$'} Adilabad^District.

¶70

Dismissed^{for default vide C'O' dated151 't '2010}

¶71

4.TheNewlndiaAssurancecompanyLtd,repbyilsDivisionalManagerTheDivisionat^{Manager,rilji,irXi"''nidr,"ntebodlp,nvLtd',Divisional office} 5lli,.'Z i;.oit"r'^{"subashnasar, Nizamabad'}

¶72

...RESPONDENTS'RESPONDENTS

¶73

Appeal^{filedunder section1 73 of M 'V'Act'} '^{aoainstthe Judgment and} decree dated^{1s.12.20o6p;;;;'i" 6'p'rlo'zzzof 200ionthe file of the Court of} the Motor^{Accident Cf,i"iliO'n"l' Vlll Additional Judge' Nizamabad'}

¶74

ORDER:^{This appeal comingon for hearingand upon perusingthe grounds of} aooeal. the Judsment^{rno dtl'J;iih;;;;'} Er1t.ld^{ihe material papers in the} uitop anu^{upon hearing ,#:;;;;i;;iiitt} f^{RADHIvEREDDY' Advocateror} the appeilants^{and of Ms p s"nifn rr/lnruJUtA,Advocate for the Respondent No.2'}

¶75

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

¶76

'H*'i**UTlu#"tiii#:li5,,"s#,ff i"iLi"'.t I't in"^{i it" t} 's"t'^{per annum from the da} M,}ffi :ifi of realization;

¶77

That the^{Respondent No'2/lnsurance Q9mq11V shall-} -deposit^{the entire} p"noO oi on"^{month fromthe dateof order;}

¶78

amount^withln '

¶79

That^{on sttch Deposit,the appellant be and hereby is entitled to withdraw the} said amount;^and

¶80

That^{savo as aforesaid,the decree of the LowerCourt shallstands}

¶81

confirmed^{in all other respects; and}

¶82

That ther€^{shall be no order as to costs in this appeal}

¶83

SD/- P. CH.^{NAGABHUS HAMBA} ASSISTANT^RE ISTRAR

,/TRUE COPY//

SECTION FFTCER

To,

1 TheChairman,MotorAccidentsClaimsTribunal-cum-VlllAdditionalDistrict Judge, Nizamabad'

¶88

Two CD^OoPies

¶89

Pr/j ak

HIGH COUIRT

DATED: 0711112023

DECREE

MACMA.N^{o.3234 of 2011}

¶95

PARTLY^{,ALLOWING THE MACMA} @o*"'* s, e

Sangam Jagan v. Mohd Moizulhaq and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangam Jagan v. Mohd Moizulhaq and Anr.

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

Challa Hanumanthu Vs Bathula Veera Babu

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Elpula Butchalu and 3 Ors.

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mastry G Narayana Swamy and Another

Masjid Managing Committee Vs Ahmed Sharif (Since Deceased per LRs)

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Maraboina , Gudese Veeraiah

Talla Narasimha Goud Vs S.Ravi Kumar