Partly allowed

Noone Chandraiah v. Sallagarige Narsing Rao

Telangana HC22 Sept 2023MACMA/3892/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the Motor Accident Claims Misc. Appeal in part, holding the Tribunal's compensation award of Rs. 20,500 was meagre. The Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 53,500 covering pain and suffering and loss of future income.

What did the court decide?

Enhancement of compensation from Rs. 20,500 to Rs. 53,500 with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition.

Noone Chandraiah Vs Sallagarige Narsing Rao — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰⁴ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH^{COURTFOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY^{SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY THREE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO}

¶6

MOTOR ACCIDENT^{CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEALNO:3892OF2012}

¶7

AppealfiledUnderSection,lT3ofMotorVehiclesACtagainsttheorderand decree in O.p. No.'1693/2001^{dated. 9.11.2005on the file of the Court of the} Chairman Motor Accident^{Claims Tribunal-cum- V Additional DistrictJudge, (Fast} Track Court), Nizamabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Noone Chandraiah, S/o.^{Limbadri Goldsmith R/o Nagampet Village'Balkonda} It/landal, Nizamabad District.

¶10

...AppellanUPetitioner

¶11

AND

¶12

1 Sallaoarioe Narsinq Rao, S/o.Kistaiah,^{Owner of Mahendr Commander Jeep} d;;;g Ni" nC-zslr-taos^{R/o BussapoorVillage, BalkondaDistrict,} Nizamabad District.

¶13

United lndia lnsurance^{Company Limited,, rep., by Branch Manager' Branch} manager Ambedkar Chowrastha,^{Armoor, Nizamabad Dlstrlct'}

¶14

R -1 dismissed vide Court^{Orderdated 19-12-2011}

¶15

...RespondenUResPondents

¶16

Counsel for the Appellant^{: SRl. K SARALAMAHENDER REDDY}

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent^{No'2 : SRl.A V K S PRASAD}

¶18

The Court delivered the^{following:JUDGMENT}

¶19

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶20

M.A.C.M.A No.3892 of 2OL2

¶21

JUDGMENT:

¶22

'l'his M.A.C.M.A is filcd by the appcllant/ petitioner aggrieved by the Order and decree dt.Og. 1 1.2005 in O.P. No. 1693 of 200 I passed by the Chairn.ran, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (V Additional Districr ..tudge), Nizamabad (for short,'the Tribunal').

¶23

2 For the sake of convenicnce, the parties ',vill be hcrcinalicr reh:rred to as thcv r,r'crc arravcd belore the Tribunal.

¶24

Brief facts of the case are that on 20.10.200 1, the potrl ioncr, Narsirrg Rao, Sathcll Manik_va Prabhu. Ramoji Ramcsh and Chclimcla Gangasagar \'erc travelling tn a I{ahendra Commander jcep bearing No.AP-25-F-1865 from Ba.lkonda to go to Hyderabad. and when the-y crossed Sadashivnagar bus stand at Canal Katta at abour 2.2O a.m., the driver of said jeep lost control over it and drove the same at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against a Mango trce, which rvas bcsrdc Lhc roacl. As a rcsult-. he and other inmates of the said jeep sustaincci multiple and grievous injuries. Immediatcll,, he vvas shifted to Government he aciquartcrs Hospital, N izamat-.acl. and thereaftcr, hc u,as

¶25

2 RRN. NlAaNrA N. l31r) Oi l0l.)

¶26

shifted to Deepa Orthopaeciic Hospital, Nizamabad. Thereforc, he laid the claim against respondents No.1 and 2, the owner and insurer of the said^jeep, claiming compensation ol Rs. 1,50,000/

¶27

4 Before the Tribunal, respondcnt No.1 remained ex parte. Respondent No.2 filed a counter dcnying the petition allegations. They mainly contended that the^jeep was carrying paid passengers in breach of conditions of the policy and provisions of M.V. Act, as such, the lnsurance Companf is not liable to pay compcnsation and prayed to dismiss thc claim petition

¶28

5 To prove his case, thc pctitioner cxamined himself as PW. 1 and got marked trxs.A 1 to 47. No cvidencc u'as adduced on behalf of respondent No.2

¶29

6 On considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal awarded compensation to the petitioner a sum of Rs.20,50O/- with interest @ 7.5%o per annum from the date of petition tili the datc of realization payable by the respondents. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filecl by the petitioner.

¶30

7 Heard both sides and perused tl-rc record

¶31

¶32

RRN,J MACMA No 3892 Ct 2012

¶33

Learned Counsel lor the petitioner had contended that the Tribunal did not appreciate the fractures and other injurics, and no amount r.l,as grantcd towards treatment, [ransport or extra nourishment etc., He further contended that the Tribunal did not award compensation for future medical expenses, and no proper multiplier was applied. Accordingly, praycd to allow the appeal.

¶34

Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondcnt No.2/Tnsurance Companv n,ould contend that the Tribunal \ /as rightly granted the compensation and no interference is required by this Court. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶35

i 0. The issuc with regard to thc involvemcnt of the jeep and the manner of the accident was rightly decided in favour of the petitioner as the respondents failed to adduce any contrary cvide nce or clicit anyrhing material in the cross-examination. As such, the aspect of negligence needs no scrutiny. The respondents are liable to compensate the petitioner jointly and severally, as observed by the Tribunal. The onl1, point to be answered in the present appeal is whether the petitioner is entitled to enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal or not.

¶36

4 RRN,] MACMA No 1892 Ot 2O12

¶37

A perusal of thc in-rpugncd ordcr €{oes to shos tltat the Tribunal observed that the petitioner sustained one grievous injury and two simple injuries and also sustained 5yo of partial permanent disabilit_v. He has been treated in a Government Hospital as an outpatient free of cost. Therefore, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/ - towards pain and suffering of grievous injur,"- and a sum ol Rs.2,00O/, towards pain and sulfering of tn'o simple inj uries. lt is a verl mcagre amount. As such, this Court an ards Rs.20,OOO/- tou,ards pain and suffering of one grievous injury and a sum ol Rs. 10,000/ each i.e. Rs.2O,OOO/- tou,ards pain and suffering ol tri,o simpli: inj uries.

¶38

t2 The Tribunal further observed that the petitioner failed to place any trust\'orthv evidencc ',r,rth regard to his income and rightly opted the guidance of II scheduie of the Act which says that a sum of Rs.15,000/- per annum should be taken as notional income o[ non earning member during relevant period of time. The Tribunal considered the age of the petitioner as 28 years, and as per II schedule of the Act, 18 is the multiplier for the age group betu,'een 25 -years and not exceeding 3O years. Therefore, the Tribunal rightl_v calculated the loss of future income as Rs. 13,5OO/- (i.e. 18 x 57o x

¶39

¶40

RRN,] MACMA No.3892 OF 20i2

¶41

15,0O0/-). In all, the petirioner is entitled to Rs.S3,SOO/_ (i e. Rs.20,00o/ + Rs.20,OOO/ + 13,500/ ).

¶42

Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A is allor,r,ed in part by enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal iron-r Rs.20,500/- ro Rs.S3,SOO/ (Rs. Filty three thousand and five hundred only) with interest at 7.5o/<t per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The respondents are dircctcd to deposit thc said amount together with costs and ir)tcrcst w,ithin 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 is permitted to u,ithdrarv rhe entirc annount. Thcrc shall be no order as to costs.

¶43

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

¶44

SD/- MOHD.^ISMAIL' ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR.

¶45

,/TRUE^COPY//

¶46

SECTION FFICER

¶47

To, 1, The Chairman^{Motor AccidentClaimsTribunal-cum- V Additional District} ' jrag. iirii Track Court), Nizamabad-(With records' if anv)

¶48

z 6",iiji^{t" sRl. K sARA-LAMAHENDEiIREDDY' Advocate [oPUC]} 3 o;; cc^{to snr A v K s PRASAD' Advocate[oPUCl} 4. Two CD CoPies

ADK

HIGH COURT

DATED:2210912023

JUDGMENT+DECREE

MACMA.No.3892 o12012

.'+ .,
,... <br>,) .J il .-: i
.a'
t
oEsPAl C<br>

¶56

PARTLY ALLOWING^{THE MACMA}

¶57

G)"0'' 8," 1A^\'+

¶58

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FORTHE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶59

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY^{SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY THREE}

¶60

PRESENT

¶61

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICENAMAVARAPU RAJESHWARRAO}

¶62

MOTOR AC CIDENT^{CIVILMISCELLANEO US APPEALNO: 3892 OF 2012}

¶63

Between:

¶64

Noone chandraiah,^{s/o. Limbadri Goldsmith R/o.NagampetVillage'Balkonda} Mandal, Nizamabad^Drstrict.

¶65

...APPellanUPetitioner

¶66

AND

¶67

1 Sallaoarioe Narsinq^{Rao, S/o.Kistaiah, Owner.of Mahendr CommanderJeep} #ffi; ii; RE)slr-'raGin%^{BussapoorVillase, Balkonda District'} Nizamabad District.

¶68

2 united lndia lnsurance^{companyLimited,,rep., by.Branch Manager,Branch} il, """i"i Arii"Jr;^{i bn owtr'stn d Arm oor, N izam a bad D istrict} R -1 dismissed^{vide Court Orderdated 19-12-2011}

¶69

...ResPondenUResPondents

¶70

Appeal filed Under^{Section 173of Motor VehrclesAct againstthe Order and decree} in O.P.No.1693/2001^{dated 9112005on the file of the Courtof the Chattman} MotorAccidentClaimsTribunal-cum-VAdditionalDistrictJudge,(FastTrackCourt), Nizamabad.

¶71

ORDER: This^{appeal coming on for hearingand 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 SARATA MAHENDERREDDY'} Advocate for the^{Appellant arid of SRI A V K S PRASAD' Advocate for the} Respondent No.2^{and none appeared for the respondentno1}

¶72

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows :

¶73

That the Motor Accid Civil Miscellaneous Aor

¶74

allowed enhancino thent Rs20,;00,.';';::il:,8ffi ffi :1?il"#:":-_*i{:il,:1,,1il:i?Jg onty) with interest at 7 rearization . syo per ";;;;;;; 1ffi,.:"J,.i:i,il1,,11;"n;:,TT

¶75

That the respondents directed to deposit the

¶76

costs and interest *itt,ilti said amount together with order after deducting ,nl Yl 'ontnt;ffi;'# of a copy of this e amount, if any, arready o.rtJrti.T,r,

¶77

' lffi* Such deposit, the petitioner is permitred to withdraw the enrire

¶78

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

¶79

o r., r.r1i,y ?EB,I'JHX,*:

//rRUE coPYtt

To,

"..r,#^r,".

1 2 ifr,:,,H;lys%flB:i,Ifl:;:..1,#,,T?ff ;ffi ;,,.,,,o,.n,",

ADK

HIGH COURT

DATED:22109t2023

DECREE

MACMA.No.3892 ot 2012

¶90

PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA

¶91

Ep.InttV"

Noone Chandraiah v. Sallagarige Narsing Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Noone Chandraiah v. Sallagarige Narsing Rao

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

The Icici Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd Vs K.Narotham Reddy

Bodi Anjaiah and 3 Ors. Vs Ch.Raja Mouli and Anr.

Biswajit Ganguly, Hakimpet, Secunderabad Vs a.P.S.R.T.C.,Rep. by Its Gen Manager, Musheerabad, Hyderabad

Smt.Puli Nagamani Vs The Depot manager

Sri Ramoji Ramesh Vs Sallagarige Narsing Rao

Gone Sayamma and 2 Others Vs K. Rajeswar Goud and Another