Partly allowed

A. Paulu v. P. Anjanaeyulu and Another

Telangana HC16 Aug 2023MACMA/3660/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against a lower court decree fixing compensation at Rs. 19,500 for injuries sustained in a motor accident, the High Court held that the award was meager. The Court enhanced the compensation amount to Rs. 63,500 comprising expenses, loss of income, pain and suffering, and grievous injury.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs. 19,500/- to Rs. 63,500/- with interest at 7.5% per annum; respondents directed to deposit amount within two months.

A. Paulu Vs P. Anjanaeyulu and Another — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

i i

¶3

i ii ! Llr

¶4

a t r*,iI.r.tli

¶5

,f:. 1

¶6

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶7

WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶8

I PRESENT

¶9

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RA.JESHWAR RAO

¶10

M.A.C.M.A. NO: 3660 OF 2011

¶11

j Ii

¶12

Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and Decree passed in OP. No. 1083 of 2008 dated 12.05.2010 on the file of the Court of the Xl Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶13

Between:

¶14

A. Paulu, S/o. Bheemaiah R/o. H.No. 8-2-293l82lMRCl30/A,/25 Maganti Ravindranath Chowdary Colony, Road No. 7, Film Nagar, Jubilee Hills,

; iI I P

I I

*It

t t t i t I l I i!

...APPELLANT/PETITIONER

¶20

AND

¶21

P- Anjanaeyulu, S/o. P. Buchaiah, Business Rl/o. H.No. 1-7-656/1, Ramnagar, Secunderabad.

¶22

2, The Reliance General lnsurance Company Limited, Represented by its Regional Manager 6-3-666/8, Deccan Chambers, Somajiguda, Hyderabad500082.

¶23

...RESPONDENTS/RESPDTS

¶24

Counsel for the Appellant: SRt JAGATHPAL REDDY KASI REDDY

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI S. HARINATH REDDY

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

,l t i It j I I I I

¶28

IV1

¶29

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESIIWAR RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.3660 0F 2011

¶30

JUDGMENT:

¶31

Aggrieved by the judg4nent and deeree dated 12.05.2010 passed in O.p.No.1O83 of 2008 bv the XI Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short "the court below"), the appeliant/ petitioner preferred the present appeal seeking enhance ment oI compensation.

¶32

2 For convenience, thc parties hereinafter will

¶33

be referred to as thcv zuc arrayed before the court belou..

¶34

Brief facts of the case are that on l9.O2.2OOg at aborrt 10.30 p,m. the petitioner and others were travelling in Auto bearing No.Ap_2g_X_9g49 from Jubilee check post tou,ards Ameerpet slowly on the extreme left side of rhe road, and when they reached near Chiranjeevi Blook bank eurd eye bank, Jubilee Hills, one Tata Indica Car bearing No.Ap_9_Ay_2171, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came in the opposite direction on the wrong side and

¶35

¶36

RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.3660 of 201¹

¶37

dashed against the Auto, as a result of^{which,th e} petitioner fell down from the Auto and sustained injuries. After the accident, the petitioner was shifted

¶38

to Apo-tlo Hospital. Jubilee l{ills, Hyderabad,^for treatment. Tl-re Police J rrbilee Hills, Hyderabad, registered a case in Cr.No.S9 of 2008 for the offence punishable under Section 337 IPC. At the time of the

¶39

accident, the petitioner was aged 40^years and he used to do mason work and earn its.li.000/- per rlonth.^The petitioner spent a con.-sidcr':1ble :rrnoL!I)t on medical expenses. Therefore, tl',c^pctltroncr iilcd the O.P claiming compensation of Rs. i,00,000/-.

¶40

4 The l"t respondenl. rernained cx-parte. The 2"d respondent filed a counLer derrl,ing the ailegations made in the claim petition

¶41

5 On behalf of the peLitioner, P.Ws. I to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6^,'r,cre markt:d. On behalf of respondent No.2, no oral or documentaty evidence was produced.

¶42

6 After considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, tlre court belo'a, has

¶43

RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.3660 of 201 I

¶44

¶45

awarded an amount of Rs. l9,5OO/- u,ith interest @ 7 .5o/o per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization to be paid by respondent Nos.l and 2 jointly antl severally. Challenging the said awafd, th€ petitioner has filed the present appeal seeking enhancement

¶46

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the court below has not granted any amount for the injuries sustained by the petitioner. The court belou' ought to have awarded just compensation under various heads as claimed by the petitioner. Therefore, the amount awarded by the court below is very meager and unjustifiable

¶47

8 Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 contended that there is no proof regarding the injuries the peiitioner sustained. The court below, after considering the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner and based on the evidence, has rightly awarded compensation and the same needs no interference by this Court

¶48

¶49

RRH,J l.i. A. C.lrt. A, No. 3 6 60 of 20'l l

¶50

I The hnding of f-he court belorv rvith regar-d to the manner in w-hich the accident took place has become hnal, as the respondents do no( challenge the salne.^-

¶51

lO. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the court belov.. has arvardeo an amount of Rs.13,000/- towards transport to the hospital. mcdicines, treatment and extra rtr:urishment, which is velv meagcr. TtLr:relbr-<:. [.ris 6,,,-r., is incijncd r.r ai,r,ard an amount of Rs.20,00O/ toi,r,a;-d s lransport to hospital, medicines, treatmen+_ and cxtra nclur-ishmr:nt. Learned ccunsel for the petitioncr. submit_tcci ihal in Vicr.r, o[ the injury sustained by the pctitione r. rhe petitioner took bed rest for three months, The court below hxed the petitioner's income at Rs.3,OCrO,/ per month and arvarded an atnount of Rs i,SO0; towarcls loss of income for 1 5 days, n hich is verv meaqer because the Apex Court in Ro,macho,ndrappa Vs. Rogat Sund.aram Alliance Insuro;nce Co. Ltd..l has considered the incorne of a coolie as Rs.4,500/- per rnor-rth even in the '^(2o11! ls scc 2ss

¶52

)

¶53

RRN,J M. A.C.M.A. No.3660 of 2011

¶54

) )

¶55

, )

¶56

absence of documentary eviclence. Since the petitioner claimed that he is working as a mason and earning Rs.5,000/- per month, this Court is inclined ro fx the petitioner's monthly income at Rs.4,500/. Therefore, for three months, the petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs. 13,500/- towards loss of income. The court below has awarded an amount ol Rs.5,0OO/ towards pain and suffering, which is very meager, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs. l0,O0O/ towards pain and suffering. The court below has not granted ary amount for the injury sustained by the petitioner. In general, this Court grants Rs.2O,0O0/- for the grievous injury. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to Rs.20,000/_ for the grievous injury he sustained.

¶57

The court belou, has rightly awarded the rate of interest at 7 .5o/o per annum and the same needs no interference by this Court.

¶58

t2. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A is allowed in part and the compensation amount awarded bv the court belor,r, is enhanced from Rs. 19,500/_ to Rs.63,500/- with interest(ci,7 .S^o/rr p.a. from the date of

¶59

RRN, J ,rr.A.C.M.A.No.3660^{0f 2011}

¶60

()

¶61

¶62

petition till the date of realizalion.^{T'ire respondents arc} directed to deposit^tl-re saicl^{amount with costsand} interest., after giving duc credit^{to the amount alreadv}

¶63

deposited, if ar:ty, wrlhln a^{perjod of two mouths from} the datc of receipt^r.l[ a coPY ol this.judgment.^{On such} deposit, the petitioncr is^pennitted to^withdtawthc

¶64

sarne. There shall be no order as to^costs.

¶65

As a sequel, misceLlant:ous pctitions.^{if an1' arc}

¶66

pending. strall sta.n d closed

¶67

,' a' i

¶68

SD/.K.VENK AH ASSISTANT REGIS AR //TRUE COPY//

I II i

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Xl Additional Chief Judge (FTC) City Civit Court at Hyderabad 2. One CC to Sri Jagathpal Reddy Kasi Reddy, Advocate [OpUC]

¶73

One CC to Sri S. Harinath Reddy, AdvocatelOpuc]
I 4- Two CD Copies
t
TYH/plp
i )P.
,liI .,t,.
.l ut't * *:flr
t r lii(ri
I 1
II
I I
:I
:i
irr
Tft :
T
iII
i
i

! tt i : j'

HIGH COURT

l *ls i :1
[ ilDATED 1 6108t2023
*i
,-*I{
l"+ IH'P !l-,: r '; tg;.
t:j; :..f.l
t:
tl
['],.
r
t
I
I
{
i
,I JUDGMENT
I

¶78

.
{ f: MACMA.No.3660'ot 2011 , '
I
.&..';_tr',Itr',Ir',I,II $.
,i
il
.';_tr',Itr',Ir',I,II
t
a
i .I:I
i
tI
i
I
,,
ti
J APPEAL IS ALLOWED IN'PART.
if,I
l 11' 4 i i:.,; ;'
I :
It ir' t; L .':
t
-1
, .r.
t: ;i,i1
: r:.1
.l't il$^ .t
, A""

¶79

. { I .&..';_tr',Itr',Ir',I,II a i i tI

¶80

TATE Orr'
q
f, tt tt$ 1\1\ I
.J
+
t nE?fll':1

¶81

: 3 ,iJJ

¶82

t ,iJJ ,'| IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA r*.;:ir, ,,96 .^ATHYDERABAD n+ .iiji+ lt^'.' 1i WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST 1l' fi: : ( TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRE-SENT Ili . T+I ;.,!.E+ { THE HONOURABLE,SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RA'ESHWAR RAO trt, 1 ,i M.A.C.M.A. NO: 3660 OF 2011 1 ,. Between: c , B. Paulu, S/o. Bheemaiah^,F/o. H.No. 8-2-293l8ZMRCl3OlN25 Maganti Ita .I .^Ravindranath Chowdary^{Colony, Road No.} 7,^{Film Nagar, Jubilee Hills,} I,t i f It .lj ., h,.:,...APPELLANT/PETIIoNER { AN D i' { 'l f fiil .1*I 1', 1 1. P. Anjanaeyulu, S/o.,P. Buchaiah, Business Rl/o. H.No. 1-7-656/1, Ramnagar, Secunderaba'd. , , i, 'rlfi .r''l x+ 2. The Reliance Generil lnsurance Company Limited, Represented by its 't t+ ,.. .^{Regional Manager6-3666/8, DeccanChambers, Somajiguda, Hyderabad-} {- B Fi ;,, l soooez. :; 'vt' .r!:, ; rit-i: '; ...RESPoNDENTS/RESPDTS I {lII T I Appeal filed under Section filed under Section under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act Motor Vehicles Act against the Order andthe Order and , !Decree passed in OP. N,o. 1083 passed in OP. N,o. 1083 OP. N,o. 1083 N,o. 1083 1083 of 2008 dated 2008 dated dated 12.05.2010 on the file of the Courtthe file of the Courtof the Courtthe CourtCourt

¶83

Appeal filed under Section filed under Section under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act Motor Vehicles Act against the Order andthe Order and !Decree passed in OP. N,o. 1083 passed in OP. N,o. 1083 OP. N,o. 1083 N,o. 1083 1083 of 2008 dated 2008 dated dated 12.05.2010 on the file of the Courtthe file of the Courtof the Courtthe CourtCourt - of the Xl Additional Chief Judge^{(FTC), City CivilCourt, Hyderabad.}

¶84

.: .i ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon^perusing the^grounds of a appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material^paper in the t case and upon hearing the argurn€nts of Sri Jagathpal Reddy Kasi Reddy, Advocate ta for the App el{ant and of Strit Harinatn ReddylAdvocate for Respondent No.2 * iS Court doth'Order ,ffi,;";Jl$#u ' i.' :i. f.it'. t'^g 1. ;That the Motor Accideht Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is allowed .'; ..:^.: - in part and the. #ffirtion r.ot fFrta?tEo byihe court below is irar. i lg.t '- enhanced from Rs.19,5001 to Rs.63,500/- with interest @ 7.5o/o^p.a. from the date of realization; &a ,;, .-l 2. That the respondenti are directed to deposit the said amount with costs aM ),. s- interest,.after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within

¶85

I
t
*,,
t-
!i
+
t,
T.
Ittit
;
It

¶86

,:i

¶87

¶88

: t ,L ! , :'r. {, :&''t,atar?

¶89

¶90

4
+t
i1

¶91

/.
ri-
:t 1 a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On
1 Ii i) such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the same; and
t i :if + That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal.
,
t ri;t its
4 +-''r
SD/-K.VENKAIAH
:-'Ji ASSISTANT REGIST
//TRUE COPY// I
1i*,I*,I
i:itit +1 ft+;l g?
,[ 'I ;.- ,, ,tf't't SECTION OFFICER
,:. $$,
.The Xl Additional Chief Judge (FTC) City Civil Court Xl Additional Chief Judge (FTC) City Civil Court Judge (FTC) City Civil Court at Hyderabad.
2. Two CD CopiesTwo CD Copies n
i B
.(kk
I
t(:
,;l-. -f. .g-tt.
;- l_
(i
|, t.
.r
:\1. 6
tt] :.i h
# ::
']-r ;i: i' .it
.rr i','
l- i'.
'ri
i.;i
'j,
,+
e*8"
it,
i :. !'1
...r:..
t
.l,l :
.l ,:q' r'i, ;tI:'
'11
. i-:i
iffi
ft
:..-l
t:
a:i
j -,,rt.
I

¶92

SD/-K.VENKAIAH ASSISTANT REGIST

¶93

:-'Ji ASSISTANT REGIST //TRUE COPY//^I 1i*,I*,I i:itit +1 ft+;l g? ,[ 'I ;.- ,, ,tf't't SECTION OFFICER ,:. $$, .The Xl Additional Chief Judge (FTC) City Civil Court Xl Additional Chief Judge (FTC) City Civil Court Judge (FTC) City Civil Court at^Hyderabad. 2. Two CD CopiesTwo CD Copies n i B .(kk

¶94

I i -:1
' ir! ;, .6<br>; ' '.* -! i'i, i . =it'-
=.$fl,
IG HiGOURT t
t-,:
sa rrl I Ii .,'i,u,ffi", ::' &
:1t
ATED 1610812023', : B.
i i,: -: ;,'tf
,;f
l{,
I
:J
I
2
,- - ;.
il,r{ il r 'a ,
!5& ,1.. , 11. .IJ .TJ " ?.'
ECR LL l-L,t rt' ;L
At GMA:No.3660 of 2011
* tt:i

t
'i
i
TII
t'
,J.: n
!i..:.;. tt
!-.ir .i
ii:
.{l:' '':.
I
-.;l I
.t:itI ,}'
'i "i, ):
ffiu. +.r '
- P IS IIOWED !N PARTI
li -i
t;'i' ffi
,+_'i li+' !E
'.i"':!". , r r +: 4' r'
.t,
.iq '-:
tlt ',rtz
fi
f, :ii
+-
1,
?

A. Paulu v. P. Anjanaeyulu and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A. Paulu v. P. Anjanaeyulu 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

A.v.N.Raju , Vs The State of Telangana

The Ap State Road Transport Corporation Vs Smt.Ayesha Begum and 5 Ors.

P. Naveen Kumar Vs The State of Telangana rep by its Principal Secretary

B. Shoba Rani, Vs the Apsrtc and Another

G. Indirabai Vs Director of Public Health and Family welfare

Tejavath Lalu and Another Vs Paladugu Venugoipala Rao and Another