Allowed

Mohammed Yousuf v. Kakollu Nagalaxmamma and Another

Telangana HC9 Jun 2023MACMA/3826/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the motor accident civil miscellaneous appeal and enhanced the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal from Rs. 56,000 to Rs. 4,14,200, considering a 30% disability certificate and fixing the petitioner's income. The court directed respondents to deposit the enhanced amount with interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs. 56,000 to Rs. 4,14,200 with interest at 7.5% p.a.; directed to be paid by respondents.

Mohammed Yousuf Vs Kakollu Nagalaxmamma and Another — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰⁴ ]

¶2

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

¶3

FRIDAY, THE^{NINTH DAY OF JUNE} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTYTHREE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWARRAO}

¶6

MOTOR ACCID ENT^{CIVILMISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 3826OF2014}

¶7

Appeal filed under^{section173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order} and decree in M.V.O.P^{No.1560t 2014, Dated 05-2008 on the file of the courtof} the chairman Motor^{Accidentclaims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District Judge,} Mahabubnagar.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Mohammed Yousuf,^{S/o.MohammedSadiq} own & District. Driver Rl/o. Old Palamoor,^{MahabubnagarT, Age 24 years, Occ : Electrician & Auto}

¶10

...APPELLANT/CLAIMANT

¶11

AND

¶12

1 Kakollu Nagalaxmamma,^{W/o. Kondaiah,Age3B years,Occ : Business&.} O*no of L6rry bearing^{No.AP37U9819, R/o. MatteruVillage, Pennamantra} Mandal, West Godavari^District.

¶13

(Rl dismissed for default^{videC.O, dt.19'12'2011l.}

¶14

The Oriental^{lnsurance Company Limited', rep. by its- Divisional Manager,} - Oivisionif Office No.lll, ALKdree'm Trade Centre,'M.G.Road, Secunderabad.

¶15

..RESPONDENTS

¶16

Counsel for the Appellant^{: SRI K.VENKATESH GUPTA}

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.2: SRI N.SATHISH REDDY}

¶18

The Court made the following:^JUDGMENT

¶19

¶20

,":

¶21

THE HON'BI,i^{SNT JUSTICE NAMAVARAPURAJESHWARRAO} M.A.C.M.A.No.3^{a26 0F 20L4}

¶22

JUDGMENT:

¶23

Aggrieved by the^{auard and decree dated 05'02'2O08} passed in O.P.No.156^{of 2006 l;v the I AdditionalDistrictJudge'} Mahabubnagar^{(for short "the Court below")' the} appellant/ petitioner^{preferreclthepresent appea-l seeking} enhancement^{of comPensation}

¶24

For the sake of^{convenit:t-rce,the parties hereinafter will be} 2, referred to as^{they are arrayedbefore the Court below'}

¶25

Brief facts of the^{case are that on O8'i2'2005 at about} 11.00 p.m. the^{petitioner alorrg with others boardedthe Auto} bearing No.AP-22-8757^{to go to Jadcherlato attend personalwork} and when the^{Auto reached Appannapally Village water tank'one} AutobearingNo.AP-37-U-gslgwasdrivenbyitsdriverinarash and negligent^{manner and dashedagainst the Auto, in whichthe} petitioner was travelling,^{as a result of which, the petitioner} sustained several^{injuries and immediately he was shifted to} S.V.S.Hospital,^{Mahabubnagaron the salne night and was} discharged on 02.O2.2006^{after. undergoingtreatment and surgery.} After the accident, the petitior-rer is unable to work as a private

¶26

Zk"'

¶27

¶28

RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.1826 of 2014

¶29

electricial. Therefore, he hled^{the O.P. claiming compensationof} Rs. 1,50,000/-.

¶30

After considering the oral and^{documentaryevidence} available on record, the^{Court below has awardedan amountof} Rs.56,000/- with interest @^7.5o/o Per^{annum from the date of} petition tiIl the date of realization to^{be paid by respondent nos.1} and 2^jointly and^{severally. Challenging the said award,the} petitioner has filed the^{presentappeal seekingenhancement'}

¶31

Learned counsel appearing^{for the petitioner contended} that the Court below^{has not taken into consideration the disability} certihcate issued by^{the Medical Board. The court below ought to} have awarded^{just compensationunder various heads as claimed} by the petitioner and^{therefore, the amount awardedby the court} below is very meager^{and unjustihable.}

¶32

On the other hand,^{learned counsel for the respondentshas} contended that the^{court below after considering the nature of} injuries sustained^{by the petitioner and basedon the evidence,has} rightly awarded^{compensationand the same needsno interference} by this Court.

¶33

RRN,J M.A. C.M. A. No.3E26 of 2014

¶34

,d'<br>

¶35

7, The finding of the Court below with regard to the manner in which the accident took place has become final, as the same is not challenged by the respondents

¶36

lnsofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the petitioner submitted that he has sustained 30% disability and to prove the same, he has filed Bx.A-4-Disability Certificate issued by the Medical Board. But, the^(iourt below has not considered the said disability Certilicate an d not granted any arnount towards disability. In the instant case, Ex.A-4 was issued by the Chairman of Medical Board and it has to be taken into consideration. But the Court below erred in no1 taking into consideration Ex.A-4Disability Certificate issued by the Chairman of Medical Board. In the absence of contra evidencr,, this Court is inclined to take into consideration the disability ol 30% as assessed by the Medical Board

¶37

The Court below has fixed the income of the petitioner as Rs.2,500/- per month, which is very meager. In view of the decision of the Honble Suprerne Court in RAMCHANDRAppA Vs. MANAGER, ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE lrvtsuR]{lvcE

¶38

4 RRN,J M.A.C.M. A. No.lE26 of 2014

I I

I II I I 1

I kt

J( ,o

i', I

COMPAMI LIMITEDI,^{this Court is inclinedto fix the monthly} income of the^{petitioner as Rs.a,500/-. Therefore,the petitionerts} entitled to Rs.9,000/-^{under the head of loss of incomeduring the} treatment period^{(Rs.4,500/- X 2).}

¶46

Since the income^{of the petitioner is fixed at Rs'4,500/-per} month, the annual^{income wouldcome to Rs'54,000/-'As per the} decision of the Honble^{Apex court inITIATIONALIMURAMT} Cj}IIIPAM|LIMITDDVs.PRANAYSETHIANDoTHERS2,foTselfemployed 4Oo/o has^{to be takenas future prospectsfor ttre age of} below 40 years. In^{the instant case, the petitioner is aged below 40} years and therefore, the^{futureprospectsof the petitioner at 4O7o} would come to Rs.75,600/-^{(Rs.5a,00Ol- + 21,600/-)' As per the} decision of SARLA^{VARMA Vs' DELHITRIIMSPOR?} CORPORATIOIW,^{the appropriate multiplier for the age of the} petitioner is 15. From^{this, 30% is to be considered for disablement.} Thus,thelossoffutureearningsofthepetitionerwouldcometo Rs.3,40,200/-^{(Rs.75,60o/-X 15 X 30/ lOO)'}

¶47

'(2ol^{l) 13 scc 236} '20fi^{nct ztoo} r 2oo9 (6) scc 12l

¶48

¶49

RRN,J M. A.C. M.A. No.3826 of 2014

¶50

'r=

¶51

¶52

The Court below has granted a sum of Rs.3O,OOO/- towards medical bills and Rs.20,000i towards pain and suffering and the same needs no interference br. this Court.

¶53

The Court below has granted a sum of Rs. 1,000/_ under the head of extra nourishment and transportation charges and the same is very meagre and therefore, the same is enhanced to Rs.5,000/-. In addition to that, the petitioner is a-lso entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards future medica_i expenses for the rerroval of the steel rod.

¶54

The court below has rightry awarded the rate of interest at 7 .5o/o per annum and the same needs no interference bv this court.

¶55

In all the petitioncr is entitled to Rs.4,L4,2OO I - (Rs.3,40,200 + 9,000 + 30,ooo + 2o,ooo + 5,000+ 10,000).

¶56

Though the claimed amount is Rs.l,5O,OOO/- invoking the principle of just compensation. and in view of the law Iaid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in RaJesh as. Rajbir Singhe, and in a catena of decisions, this Court is empowered to grant compensation ber.ond the claimed amount.

¶57

o MANU/sc/0480/2013

¶58

6 RRN, J /v{.4.C. M.A. No.3826 of 2014

¶59

In the result, the M.A.C.M.A is a.llowed and the compensation arnount awarded by the court below is enhanced from Rs.56,OOO/- to Rs.4,14,2OOl- with interest @7 .5^o/o p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. The respondents are directed to deposit the said amount with costs and interest, after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the same without furnishing any security. However, the petitioner is directed to deposit the deficit court fee on the enhanced amount. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶60

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall

¶61

stand closed.

¶62

SD/-N.SRIHARt ASSISTA}T REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶63

To,'1. The chairman Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District Judoe. Mahebubnaqar. 2. o;;ci 6sRl^{k Ve"ruxeresHGUPTA' Advocate-[o. PUC]} e: oiG cc to^{snt N.sATHlsHREDDY,Advocate [oPUc]} 4. Two CD CoPies. BSK #-\

HIGH COURT

DATED:0910612023

JUDGMENT

{ ,- S iATE- OA
.,. )
,.
:
!)),) tt [\s NB
,,, ,,-) .7
:^

¶68

MACMA.No.3826 of 2014

¶69

APPEAL IS ALLOWED WITHOUT COSTS.

¶70

{

¶71

[^3304l

¶72

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶73

FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶74

PRESENT

¶75

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUST]CE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶76

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS AP PEAL NO: 3826OF 2014

¶77

Between:

¶78

Mohammed^Yousuf, S/o.Mohammed sadiq, Age 24 years, occ : Erectrician & Auto Driver Rl/o. Old Palamoor, Mahabubnagar iown'a Disirict.

¶79

...APPE LLANT/CLAIMANT

¶80

AND

¶81

Kakollu Nagalaxmamma, Wo. Kondaiah, Age 3g years, Occ:Business & Ownerof .Lorry_bearing No.Ap37U 98 i 9, R/6. Matieru Vtf f age, Fennr;;;tra Mandal, West Godavari District.

¶82

(Rl dismissed for defautt vide C.O, {t.19-12-2011)

¶83

The odental lnsurance company Limited,, rep. by its Divisionar Manaqer. Divisionat office No.ilr, Ar-Kdree-m Traoe beriire,'rvr.cn.io-. S"iliiiiYifro

¶84

...RESPONDENTS

¶85

Appeal filed under section 'r73 of Motor Vehicres Act against the order and decree in M.V.o.P No.156 ot 2o14, Datect 05-2008 on the file of the court of the chairman Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District Judge, Mahabubnaga r.

¶86

oRoER : 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 Sri K.Venkatesh Gupta, Advocate for the Appellant and Sri N.Sathish Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No.1 .

¶87

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows :

¶88

That the Civil lvliscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is allowed by enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.56,0001 to Rs.4,'14,200/- with interest @7.5^{% p.a.from the date of petition till the date of realization,}

¶89

fhat the respondents are directed to deposit the sakl amount with costs and interest, after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within a^period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶90