Partly allowed

Sri Ramoji Ramesh v. Sallagarige Narsing Rao

Telangana HC22 Sept 2023MACMA/3896/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in part, enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs. 45,250 to Rs. 78,250 for pain, suffering, and loss of future income with interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs. 45,250 to Rs. 78,250 with interest at 7.5% p.a.; respondents directed to deposit within two months.

Sri Ramoji Ramesh Vs Sallagarige Narsing Rao — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰⁴ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF 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 APPEAL NO: 3896 OF 2012

¶7

Appeal filed under Section 173 of lvlotor Vehicles Act against the Order^and decree in OP NO.1692/2001 dated 09.11.2005 on the file of the Court^{of the} Chairman Motor Accident Claims TribunAL-CUM-V Additional District Judge^at Nizamabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Sri Ramoji Ramesh, S/o Ramulu Goldsmith R/o Balkonda Village and^tvlandal, Nizamabad District

¶10

...APPELLANTiPETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

Sallagarige Narsing Rao, S/o Krishtaiah, Aged 24^years, Occi^{Owner of} lVahendra Commander Jeep No.AP25 F-'1865 Ryo Bussapoor^Village, Balkonda Mandal, Nizamabad District

¶13

The United lndia lnsurance Co Ltd, Rep. by its Branch [\4anager Ambedkar Chowrastha, Armoor, Nizamabad District- A.P.

¶14

R-1 dismissed for default vide C.O. daled 19.12.2011

¶15

...RESPONDENTiRESPONDENTS

¶16

Counsel forthe Appellant: SRl. K SARALA MAHENDER REDDY

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent NO.2: SOMANCHI VENKATESWARLU

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWARRAO}

¶20

M.A.C.M.A No.3896 of^2Ol2

¶21

JUDGMENT:

¶22

This M.A.C.M.A is filed^{by the appeliant/petitioner} aggrieved bv the Order^{and decree dt.09' l 1'2005 inO'P'} No. I692 of 200 I^{passedb1' the Chairman,Motor Accidents} Claims Tribunal^{(V AdditionalDistrictJudge),Nizamabad(for} short,'the Tribunal').

¶23

For conveniencc, the^{partics r'vi1l bchereinafier} reierred to as thev^{were arrayed before the Tribunai'}

¶24

Brici Iacrs o1' thc case arc^{that on 20 10'2001,the} petitroncr, Narsing Rao, Nunc^{Chandraiah.Manikya Prabhu,} and Chelimela Gangasagar^{were travelling in aMahendra} Commandcr^jeep bcaring^{No.AP-25>-ir- 1865from Balkonda to go} to Hyclerabad, ancl^{rvhert thc-'crosscd Sadashivnagar bus stand} at Canal Katta at about^{2.2O a.m., the driver of said jeep lost} control over it and drove the^{same at high speedin a rash arrd} ncgligcnt mann(rr ancl^{dashccl againsta Mango tree, u'hichwas} beside the road. As a result,^{he and other inmates of the said} jeep sustained multiple and grievous injuries. Immediately'^he rvas shifted to Government hcadquartcrs^{IIospital, Nizamabad,} and thereafter,^{he n as shiftcd to l)cepaOrt hopaedic Hospital,}

¶25

¶26

MACMA No.1896 Ol 7tl

¶27

Nizamabad. Therefore, he laiC the claim against respondents No.1 and 2, jeep o\ rner and insurer, claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.

¶28

Belore the Tribunal, respondent No.l remained ex parte. Respondent No.2 filed a counter denying 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 Insurance Company is not liable to pa]' compensation and prayed to dismiss tl-rc claim petition.

¶29

To prove his case, thc petitioner examined himself as PW. I arrd got marked Exs.A1 to A7. No evidencc u,as adduced on behalf of respondent No.2.

¶30

On considcring the oral and documentarv cvrdence available on record, the Tribunal awarded compensation to the petitioner a sum of Rs.a5,250/- with interest @ 7 5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization payable by the respondents. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the petitioner.

¶31

7 Heard both sides ancl perused the record.

¶32

¶33

RRN,] MACMA No.3896 OF 2012

¶34

Learned Counsel for the petitioner had contended that the Tribunai did not appreciate the fractures and other injuries, and no amount was granted towards treatment, transport or extra-nourish men t ctc., He further contended that the Tribunal did not award compensation for future medical expenses, and no proper multiplier is applied. Accordingly, prayed to allow the appeal.

¶35

Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.2/lnsurance Company would contend that the Tnbunal \/as rightly granted thc compensation and no interference is required by this Court. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶36

The issue u,ith regard to thc involvement of the jeep and the manner of the accidcnt was rightl-y decided in lavour of the petitioner as the respondents failed to adduce any contrary cvidcncc or elicit anything material in the cross examination. As such, the aspect of negligence needs no scrutiny. The respondents are liable to compensate the petitioner jointly and severaliy, as observed by the Tribunai. The onl1, point to be answered in the present appcal is u,hcthcr the petitioner is entitled to enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal or not.

¶37

¶38

/IACMA No 3896 0i 2L

¶39

I 1. A perusal of the impugt-red order goes to shorv Lhat the Tribunal observed that the petitioner sustaineci one grievous injury and two simple injuries and also sustained i5%o of partial permanent disability. He has been treaLed in a Government Hospital as an inpatient for one day free of cost. Therefore, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering of grievous injury and a sum of Rs.2,000/ towards pain and sulfering of two simple injuries. It is a very meagre amount. As such, this Court ar.',.ard s Rs.2O,OOO/towards pain and suffering of one grievous inj ur,r, and a sum <>f Rs.10,000/- each, i.e. Rs.20,OOO/- towards pain and suffering of two simple injuries.

¶40

The Tribunal further obscrved that the petitioner lailed to place any trustworthy evidence u.ith regard to his income and rightiy opted the guidance of II schedule of the Act, which says that a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per annum should be taken as notional income of non earning member during relevant period of time. The Tribunal considered the age of the petitioner as 30 years, and as per II schedule of the Act, 17 is the multiplier for the age group between 30 years and not exceeding 35 years. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly calculated the loss ol future income as Rs.38,25O/- (i.e. 77 x 7 Sah x

¶41

5 RR N,] MACMA No.3896 OF 2012

¶42

15,000/-). The petirioner is entitled ro Rs.78,2SO/_ (j.e. Rs.20,000/ + Rs.20,OOO/- + 38,2SO/).

¶43

Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A is allorved in part by enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal lrom Rs.45,250/- to Rs.78,25O/- (Rs. Seventy eight thousand, two hundred and fi fty only) with interesr aL 7.Sok per annum liom the date of petition till the date of realization. The respondents are directed to deposit the said amount toge ther rvith costs anci interest within trrvo months from the date oi rece rpt of a copy of this order after dcducting thc amount, if any, already deposited. Upon such deposit. the petitioner is permitted to withdraw, thc cntire amount. There shall be no order as to CoStS.

¶44

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

¶45

Sd/- MoHD. tstvl,Atl ASSISTANT REGIST AR //TRUE COPY//

¶46

¶47

S ECTION OFFICER

¶48

'I . The chairman N4otor Accident claims TribunAl-cuw-v Additionar District Judge at Nizamabad. (with Records if anv)

¶49

One CC ro SRt. K SARALA MAHENDER (EDDY, Advocate [OpUC] 3. One CC to SRt. SOMANCHT VENKATESWAnT_U,'AOvocate tbpUe, 4. Two CD Copies

asr/pr

ff'q

HIGH COURT

RRN, J

DATED: 2210912023

JUDGMENT MACMA.No.3896 of 2012

¶56

1 Hc S TA r€
(
q
oo 3 1 J AI 2[24 ^oZ
*
olr ?--

¶57

PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA

¶58

o t.^.0, lq^\r1>q'

¶59

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶60

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶61

PRESENT

¶62

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶63

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 3896 OF 2012

¶64

Between:

¶65

Sri Ramoji Ramesh, S/o Ramulu Goldsmith Ryo Balkonda Village and fvlandal, Nizamabad District

¶66

...APPELLANT/PETITIONER

¶67

AND

¶68

1 . Sallagarige Narsing Rao, S/o Krishtaiah, Aged 24 years, Occ: Owner of [\ilahendra Commander Jeep No.AP25 F-1865 Rl/o Bussapoor Village, Balkonda l\ilandal, Nizamabad District

¶69

The United lndia lnsurance Co Ltd, Rep. by its Branch l/anager Ambedkar Chowrastha, Armoor, Nizamabad District- A.P.

¶70

R-1 dismissed for default vide C.O. daled 19.12.2011

¶71

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS

¶72

Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and decree in OP NO.1692/2001 dated 09.11.2005 on the file of the Court of the Chairman ft/otor Accident Claims TribunAL-CUM-v Additional District Judge at Nizamabad.

¶73

ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and lhe material papers in the I/VOP and upon hearing the arguments of Sri. K Sarala Mahender Reddy, Advocate for the appellant and of Sri Somanchi Venkateswarlu, Advocate for the Respondent No.2

¶74

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

¶75

'1 . That the It/.A.C.lt/.A.No.3896 of 2O12 be and hereby is allowed in part by

¶76

enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.

¶77

45,2501- to Rs. 78,2501(Rupees Seventy eight thousand, two hundred and fifty

¶78

only) with interest at 7.5o/o p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization;

¶79

That the respondents be and hereby are directed to deposit the said amount 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;

¶80

That on such deposit, the petitioner be and hereby rs permitted to withdraw the

¶81

entire amount;

¶82

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

¶83

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

¶84

sd/- MoHD. tsM L ASSISTANT REGIST R /iTRUE COPY//

¶85

¶86

SECTION OFFICER

¶87

The chairman lvlotor Accident claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge at Nizamabad.

¶88

Two CD Copies

asr/pr

ffr^{

HIGH COURT

RRN, J

DATED: 2210912023

DECREE MACMA.No.3896 of 2012

¶95

PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA

¶96

@+*0, 1'r<sup>t "^^^

Sri Ramoji Ramesh v. Sallagarige Narsing Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ramoji Ramesh 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

Noone Chandraiah Vs Sallagarige Narsing Rao

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