Partly allowed

D. Agam Reddy v. J. Muralidhar Reddy and Another

Telangana HC8 Sept 2023MACMA/3345/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court allowed an appeal enhancing compensation for future medication and attendant charges from Rs. 2.50 lakhs to Rs. 2.75 lakhs. It dismissed an insurance company's appeal challenging the award without considering contributory negligence, confirming the Tribunal's decision otherwise.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs. 2,50,000/- to Rs. 2,75,000/-; Respondent insurance appeal dismissed.

D. Agam Reddy Vs J. Muralidhar Reddy and Another — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶5

MACMA NO: 3345 OF 2012 AND 1013 OF 2014

¶6

MACMA NO 3345 0F 2012

¶7

Appeal Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in O.P.No.1219 of 2009 dated 2710612012 on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Xl Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

¶8

Between;

¶9

D. Agam Reddy, S/o. Linga Reddy, Occ Agriculture, Ryo. Ravalkole Village, Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶10

...APPELLANT/PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

J. Muralidhar Reddy, S/o. Venkat Reddy, Occ Business, Rt/o. Ari Surya Transport Srirangapura, Microvave, ST, Kodada District Nalgonda.

¶13

Sriram General lnsurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its tvlanager, # 2-174, Sti Plaza,Sainagar, Gajuvaka, Visakhapatnam District.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶15

Counsel for the Appellant: MR. V. KRISHNA RAO

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: MR. C. BUCHI REDDY

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: NONE APPEARED

¶18

MACMA NO 1013 0F 2014

¶19

Appeal Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in O.P.No.1219 of 2019 dated 27lOGl2O12 on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Xl Additional District Judge^(FTC), Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

¶20

Between:

¶21

M/s. Sriram General lnsurance Company, Rep.by Manager, D.No.2-174, Sri Plaza, Sainagar, Gajuvaka, Visakhapatnam.

¶22

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.2

¶23

I I I I I I I I ! I ! I I t;Ill I ! i I l

¶24

AND

¶25

1 . D. Agam Reddy, S/o. Linga Reddy, Occ Agriculture, R/o. Ravalkole Village, I Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy Diskict.

¶26

.RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶27

Muralidhar Reddy, S/o. Venkat Reddy, Occ Busin€ss, R/o. Sri Surya Transport, Srirangapuram, [Vlicrovave, S.T.Kodada, Nalgonda District.

¶28

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT

¶29

Counsel for the Appellant: MR. C. BUCHI REDDY

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: MR. V. KRISHNA RAO

¶31

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: NONE APPEARED

¶32

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶33

It r : '|.

¶34

i.i:

¶35

i ll: ! '4. .t-. | :. :::; il.:j ..

¶36

R R Ii,I COMMON IUDGMENT^IN MACMA^{NOS.33450F 2012 & 1013 0F 2014}

¶37

¶38

THE HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPURAJESHWARRAO}

¶39

M.A.C.M.A No. 3345^{0F 20L2}

¶40

¶41

M.A.C.M.A No.1O13^{OF 2Ol4}

¶42

cOMMON JUDGMENT:

¶43

Both these Motor^{AccidentsCivil Miscellaneous Appeals are} being disposed of by^{way of this common judgment as both these} appealsaredirectedagainsttheorderanddecreedated2T.06.2012 in o.P No. l2l9^{of 2oo9 on the file of the Chairman,Motor Accident} Claims Tribunal-cum-Xl^{AdditionalDistrict Judge (FTC), Ranga} Reddy District.^{(Hereinafter referredto as 'the Tribunal')'}

¶44

In M.A.C.M.A^{No.3345 of 2012, the Appellant/petitionerhad} challengecl the order^{and decree with regard to the quantum of} compensation and^{prayed to enhance the same' InM'A C'M'A} No.1013 OF 2014,^{the RespondentNo'2/InsuranceCompany had} challenged the^{order and decree by contendingthat the Tribunal} failed to consider^{the contributorynegligence leading tothe} accident and^{prayed to set-asidethe same'}

¶45

For convenience,^{the facts in M'A'C'M'ANo'3345of 2Ol2a.re} discussedhereunder,andtheBprtiesarehereinafterreferredtoas they are arrayed^{before the Tribunal'}

¶46

¶47

RRN COMMON JUDGMI i ] MACMA NOS.3345 CF 2012 & io73 0F 2t14

¶48

Brief facts of the case are that on 24.02.2009, the petitioner was going on a motorcycle bearing No.Ap2gDJ6B32, as a pillion rider from Alwal to Ravlkole, and when they reached near Shameerpet Lake, the petitioner,s Motorcycle got involved in an accident with a Iorry bearing No.24w420g and received injuries. The petitioner submitted that the lorryr bearing No.24W42OB was parked on the main road rvithout parking Iights at night time. When the petitioner reached near Shameerpet Late, it was about 7.45 P.M., arrd at the same time, one heary vehicle was coming from the opposite direction' The motorcyclist dashed into the crime Iorry, which was parked near the bridge road without a parking light, and sustained injuries. The police Shampeerpet had registered a case in Crime No.l3 1 of 2OOgunder Section 304_,{ IpC. The accident occurred due to negligent parking of the lorry by the driver of the said vehicle. Hence, the petitioners filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.S,OO, OOO/_.

¶49

The l"t respondent remained ex_parte, and the 2.d respondent Iiled a counter denying the petition a,egations and contested the matter

¶50

¶51

¶52

RRN,I COMMON JUDGMENT IN MACMA NOS.3345 0F 2012 & 1013 0F 2014

¶53

I I I I I I j I

¶54

To prove his claim, the petitioner examined as PWl to PW3 and got marked Exs. Pl to P10. On behalf of respondent No.2, no evidence was adduced and Ex.Rl is marked.

¶55

On appreciation of the evidence on record, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition, granting a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeals are filed as stated supra.

¶56

Heard both sides. Perused the record.

¶57

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal ought to have considered that the petitioner had sustained multiple fractures, including a head injury in the accident which occurred due to negligent parking of the crime lorry belonging to respondent No.l. He contended that the Tribunal ought to have considered the deposition of the doctor who treated the petitioner, and observed that due to the injuries, there is a possibility of the petitioner getting fits at a later stage, due to which he has to take antiepileptic drugs regularly. He also observed that there is a possibility of his memory decreasing in the future and he may get random headaches and giddiness. l,earned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Tribunal ought to have considered all

'**o

' a

,o.ro ror.r.o. l?Yffi i:?:H:;l .

¶62

the aforementioned facts and passed ar.t ard as claimed by the petitioner, ald prayed to a-liow the appeal by enhancing the compensation under various heads as per the present law.

¶63

10.^per contra,learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted the Tribunal rightly awarded amounts under different heads and further submitted that the accident occurred only due to the fact that the rider of the Motorcycle drove the same at a high speed in a negligent rna_nner, ald ignoring to notice the parked lorry, dashed into the same. He contended that the negligence of the petitioner contributed to the said accident. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶64

I 1' Learned counser for the petitioner submitted that the Tribuna-l did not grant any amount towards future medication. As per the doctor evidence pwl, Dr. Rohit Kumar Naik was examined as pW3 and narrated the nature of injuries caused to pW I in the road accident and also advice for follow up treatment. Based on the evidence on record as per Ex.p6. Medical bills, pWl has incurred an amount of Rs.2,00,OOO/_ towards his medical expenditure arrd the Tribunal has rightly considered the same amount and further awarded Rs.25,0OO,z_ towards injury. The Tribunal also awarded Rs.1O,O0O/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.2,0OO/_ towards repairing of his motorcycie, Rs.3,OOO/_ towards transportation

¶65

¶66

RRN,I COMMON^IUDGI/ENTIN MACMA N05.3345^{0F 2012 & 1013 0F 2014}

¶67

charges^{and also Rs' 10,000/- towardsextranourishment'The} above^{mentioned heads need no interferencefrom this Court'}

¶68

Learned^{counselfor the petitioner submitted that in view of} the injury^{and as per the statement of the petitioner' the injury is} grievous in^{nature, alld thereis a possibilityof getting fits at a later} stage due^{to which he has to take antiepileptic drugs regularly'The} Tribunal^{did not grant any amounttowardsfuture medication'This} Court is^{inclined to grant Rs'20'0OO/- towards the same' Further'} theTribunalalsofailedtograntanyamounttowardsattendant charges.^{The petitioner was admitted in hospital on 24'O7'2OO9} and discharged^{on 03'08 2009'He was in hospital for l1 days in} all, and^{the serious nature of the injurieswarrantedthe availing of} the services^{of an attendantThis Court is inclinedto grant} Rs.5,00Ol-^{towards the same'}

¶69

Therefore,^{this Court is inclined to enhance the quantumof} compensation^{as under:}

¶70

Sl.No	Nature^{of head}	Amount awarded^bY Tribunal	Amount^awar bythis^Court ded
1 2 J	Medical expenditure Grievous^Injury Pain and suffering	Rs.2,OO,O00 Rs.25,000/- Rs.10,000	Rs.2,OO,OOO/- Rs.25,o00/- Rs.rO,O00/-

¶71

¶72

.aR\

¶73

COMMON JIJDCMT N' ,\ MACMA NOS.334S Of ZOtZ a tOt.lOrUria

¶74

4	nourishment Extra	Rs.iO,0O0/-	Rs.10,00O7-
5 6 7	Repairing Transpori Future medication	Rs.2,00O/- Rs.3,000 Nil	Rs.2,000/- Rs.3,000/- s.2O,OOO/- R
8	Attendant charges	Nil	Rs.5,000/-
	Total	Rs.2,5O,OOo/_	Rs.2,75,ooo/_

¶75

Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A No. 3345 of 2012 is allowed in part, enhancing the compensation from Rs.2,S0,O0O to Rs.2,75,OOO/_ (Rupees Two Lakhs axd Seventy Five Thousand only) with interest at the rate of 7 '5%o p'a' from the date of petition tiil the date of realization. The respondents are directed to deposit the said amou.nt together with costs and interest within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after deducting the amount, if any, already deposited. Upon such deposit, the petitioner ls permitted to withdraw the entire amount. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶76

M.A. c.M.A NO. 101 30F 2014

¶77

In view of the findings in M.A.C.M.A No.3345 of 2Ot2,and the above observations, the M.A.C.M.A No.1O13 of 2014 filed by the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company is liable to be dismissed.

RRN,J

( t tl i il i I l,

li l I i

MACMA Nos 3345 3345 8?T#rt i,,?:ff lll)i,,?:ff lll)

¶84

MACMA Nos 3345 3345 8?T#rt i,,?:ff lll)i,,?:ff lll) 15. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A No.IO13 of 2Oi4 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶85

As a sequel, miscellaneous -_'q'L,,l{r app lications ucarlons, if any are pending, shall stand closed.

¶86

SD/- A.V.S. PRASAD ASSISTANT REGI

¶87

//TRUE COPY//

¶88

:..i i sEcrloN oFFlcER To, i r,+11. The Chairman, MACT-cum-Xl^{Additional District Judge, RangaReddy District} '! at L.B. Nagar (With Records)^,

¶89

Eri* ^!One'CC to Mr. V. KRISHNA^{RAO, Advocate} [OPUC]. ii Io' i_{.). One CC to Mr. C.^{BUCHI REDDY, Advocate} [OPUCI. ":in.I Two CD Copies .' :r

¶90

I,E ,{,:.

¶91

¶92

:L
ia !
iii'i: i i.i:
i:$ !1]-r:-.. Sl ,'( ' ,i'
ri
i
HIGH COURT
I l!' ;
i i r.':' .i ftr+:.
t
l
DATED:08/09/2023
t S AT E O,F
'1 |
:
* cl
tI'i.IG '$,xf{coMMONgUDGM:ia. +t-stS.- ,-q,: iirt* , r :!:t l ETit - i ! 1liirl,, ffi;ci.-'fii'!; .i:.1. .l . : T1i'! d9..oAr) tI $\ ttl\
I * P A1
t o 6
!
MACMA.N o. 3345ot2012 AND 1013 OF 2014
I
l
l
i
t , ',;'j'l ..'
MA3-i4s/2or2ti;'; 1i.-,, r .
E"' E;b' "0'. A101312014W|TH COSTS .
E,: :8. lf ,/ ..:1'.r! r: rgitS:i+ ib - i .,i"i
E. E r. .. a i,t. .+a :,.,
Ei a }i. ..:
t5L ,..1 .l
i. :, 1 rri - ...i j::1+
lr 1. I
..:
I .:t,
I
I
I
I
ii
I
.tr

¶93

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

¶94

FRIDAY,THE EIGHTH^DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE

¶95

PRESENT

¶96

¶97

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWARRAO}

¶98

MACMA NO: 3345 OF 2012 AND ',1013^{0F 2014}

¶99

Between:

¶100

D. Agam Reddy, S/o. Linga Reddy,^{Occ Agriculture, Rl/o.RavalkoleVillage'} Medchal Mandal,^{Ranga Reddy District.}

¶101

...APPELLANT/PETITIONER

¶102

AND

¶103

J. Muralidhar Reddy, S/o.^{Venkat Reddy,Occ Business, Rl/o. Ari Surya} Transport Srirangapura,^{Microvave, ST, Kodada District Nalgonda.}

¶104

Sriram General lnsurance Co.^{Ltd., Rep. by its Manager} ,^{# 2-17 4' Sti} Plaza,sainagar, Gajuvaka,^{Visakhapatnam District.}

¶105

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶106

MACMANO 10130F 2014

¶107

B'etween:

¶108

M/s- Sriram General lnsurance^{Company, Rep.by Manager, D.No.2-174,Sri} PIaza' sainagar' Gajuvaka' Visakhapatnam'..AppELLANT/RESpoNDENT No.2

¶109

AND

¶110

1 . D. Agam Reddy, S/o. Linga^{Reddy, Occ Agriculture,Ryo.Ravalkole Village'} Medchal Mandal, Ranga^{Reddy District.}

¶111

...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶112

Muralidhar Reddy, S/o. Venkat^{Reddy,OccBusiness, Fi/o.Sri Surya} Transport, Srirangapuram,^{Microvave, S.T.Kodada, Nalgonda District.}

¶113

...RESPONOENTS/RESPONDENT

¶114

Appeal Under Section 173 of^{Motor Vehictes Act againstthe order and decree} in O.P.No.1219 of 2019 dated^{2710612012on the file of the Court of the Chairman} Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Xl^{Additional DistrictJudge (FTC), Ranga} Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

¶115

ORDER: This appeal coming on^{for hearingand uponperusingthe grounds of} appeal, the Judgment and^Decree of^{the Lower Court andthe material papers in the}

¶116

case and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. V. Krishna Rao, Advocate for the Appellant and for Respondent No.1 in ITIACMA 101312014 and of [vlr. C. Buchi Reddy, Advocate for Respondent No.2 and for the Appellant in MACMA 1013 of 2014

¶117

While altowing the I\4ACMA 3345 ot 2012 in part and dismissing the MACMA 101312014 this Court of Common Judgment and decree as folloWs:

¶118

MACMA 1013 0F 2014

¶119

This Court doth Judgment and decree that this MAMCA be and hereby is dismissed

¶120

MACMA 3345 OF 2012

¶121

That the compensation awarded by the tribunal be and hereby is enhancing from Rs.2,50,0001 to Rs.2,75,000t with interest at the rate of 7.Soh p.a. trom

¶122

. the date of Petition on till the date of realization;

¶123

That the respondents are direct to deposit the said amount to together with costs and interest within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after deducting the amount, if any, already deposited;

¶124

That uBon such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount;

¶125

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

¶126

That there be no order as to costs in this appeal

¶127

SD/. AV.S, PRASAD ASSISTANT REGIS RAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Chairman, MACT-cum-Xl Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar (With Records)

¶132

Two CD Copies

L\2<

HIGH COURT

DATED:08/09/2023

COMMON DECREE

MACMA.No.3345 ol 2012 AND^{1013 OF 2014}

¶138

PARTY ALLOWING THE MACMA 3345/20{2 AND DISMISSING THE MACMA 1013/2014^{WITH COSTS}

¶139

i:..
il1"<br>\r{D

D. Agam Reddy v. J. Muralidhar Reddy and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D. Agam Reddy v. J. Muralidhar Reddy 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

Smt. Gudala Balamani , G.Shobha Vs the a.P.S.R.T.C., and Another

Syed Durwesh Mohiuddin and 2 Others Vs a.P.S.R.T.C., and 2 Others

Kilaru Tharaka Prasad, Khammam District Vs K. Ajay Babu and Anr, Khammam

Smt.Shaheda Begum and 4 Ors. Vs M/S.Psc Bose Automobilees and Anr.

M/S. Sriram General Insurance Company Vs D.Agam Reddy and Another

Shaik Yousuf and 6 Others Vs Shaik Meera Mohiuddin and Another