Partly allowed

United India Insurance Company Limited, Secunderabad. v. Adulla Bhaskar Reddy and Another

Telangana HC8 Nov 2023MACMA/4230/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Telangana High Court allowed the Motor Accident Claims Miscellaneous Appeal filed by United India Insurance Company against a claim of Adulla Bhaskar Reddy. The Court enhanced the compensation awarded by the lower court from ₹3,79,400 to ₹8,40,000, considering the driver's 100% disability due to amputation.

What did the court decide?

Compensation increased to Rs. 8,40,000 with 7.5% interest; Respondent 2 (Insurance Company) directed to deposit the amount within one month.

United India Insurance Company Limited… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁰⁸ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶6

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 4230 OF 2012

¶7

Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and decree in O.P..l 136 of 2004 daled. 17-10-2008 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- l"tAdditional District Judge, at Nalgonda.

¶8

Between:

¶9

United India lnsurance Company Limited, rep by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office-ll, Ramalaya, PB No.1694, 1-7-241110,2nd Floor, SD Road, Secunderabad.

¶10

...AppellanUPetitioner

¶11

ANO

¶12

1 Adulla Bhaskar Reddy S/o.Ramachandra Reddy Driver R/o.Chinttampadu Village, Nampally Mandal, Nalgonda Distirct

¶13

...Respondent No;1/Petitioner No.1

¶14

2 M/s.ABT Parcel Service, (Owner of Lorry Bearing No.AP 03 T 3493), rep by its Manager O/o.Santosh Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶15

...Respondent No.2/Respondent No.2

¶16

Counsel for the Appellant :SRl. SOMANCHI VENKATESWARLU

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI CHANDRASEKHAR REDDY GOPIREDDY

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : None appeared

¶19

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶20

¶21

THE HONOURABLE^{SMT.JUSTICEP.SREE SUDHA}

¶22

M.A.C.M.A.No.4230 of 2Ol2

¶23

JUDGMENT:

¶24

This appeal^{is filed against the Order dated17.O1-2OO8in} O.P.No. 1136^{of 2004 passedby the Chairman, Motor Accidents} Claims^{Tribunal-cum-l Additional DistrictJudge,Nalgonda.}

¶25

The appellant/^{petitionerftled O.P.No.1136 ol2OO4,} claiming^{compensationof Rs. 1O,00,0OO/-for injuriessustained} by him in^{the road trafltc accident occurredon 07 -12.2OO4and} he sustained^{grievous injury to the right leg and grievous} injuries all^{over the body. Thereis no dispute regarding the} accident.

¶26

karned counsei^{for appellant/petitioner stated that the} petitioner sustained^{amputation of right leg above knee.The} Trial Court^{consideringthe oral and documentaryevidence} granted Rs.3,79,400/-^{with [email protected]/oper annumfromthe} date of^{petition to tillthe date of deposit' Challenging the} quantum of^{compensation as meagre,the petitionerhas filed} the present^aPPeal.

¶27

¶28

Learned counsel^{for appellant/petitionerstatedthat the} petitioner examined^{P.Ws.2 and 3'P'W'2 stated that the} petitioner was admitted^{on 08.12.2004and he met withan} accident on 07.12.2OO4^{and he sustained Grade-III Compound} Comminuted tight tibia^{hbula fracture and also contused and} lacerated wound^{over left occipital regionand on the same day} he had done debridement^{and external hxation of right tibia and} plastic surgeon by name^{Dr.Kulkarni, presentthere for} assessment and^{treatmentofvascularstatus oflimb'} Thereafter they^{had stabilized the fracture and givenssupport} with knee plaster.^{Thesecondsurgery was decided and done on} lO.l2.2OO4 which^{was above kneeamputationof right limb'} This was also done in^{the presenceof Dr'Kulkarni'Plastic} Surgeon. As the^{patientimproved clinically,he was discharged} on 17.12.2004 with^{the advise of follow-upin any instituteof} Hyderabad. P.W.3, Dr.K.Harinath,^{practicingas Orthopedic} Surgeon and who^{worked in District Hospital,Nalgonda stated} in his evidence that^{he was Member of the District Medical} Board. The petitioner^{sustained abovekneeamputationof right} side and the disability^{was fixedat SOVo} '

¶29

¶30

¶31

Learned counsel for the^{appellant/petitioner reiied upon a} judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Clwga as, Bapusahebl wherein the Hon'ble Apex^{Court held as follows:}

¶32

"This prouision (order 41 Rule 33^{C-P.C)is based on a} salutary pinciple that the appellate^{court should haue} tlrc potuer to do complete^{justicebetu-teen the parties.} The rule confers o ttide dkcretionary^{pou.teron the} appellate court to^pc.ss such^{decreeor order os ought to} haue been passed or as the^{cose maA require,} notuithstonding the fact that^{the Appeal} is^{only uLith} regard to o part of the decree or that tke^partA in uhose fauour^{the pouer is proposedto be exerci'sed Lns not} filed^{ang appeal or cross-objection".}

¶33

He also relied upon a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court between Surekha vs Santosh wherein Hon'b1e Apex Court held as follows:

¶34

"Denial of enhanced compensation on ground that claimants foiled to file cross-appeal-court slnuld not take hgper technical approach and ensure that^just compensation i-s awarded to offected person or cloimants".

¶35

7 . Admittedly, the petitioner sustained amputation to right leg above knee and as he was a driver and he could not discharge his duties anymore due to the disability sustained by

¶36

'ir9l+yzsccat

¶37

¶38

him, this Court finds it reasonable to take his disability at 10O% pJ^ c hry-\J ald his income at Rs.40,000/- per annum and as he was aged^-'t '^{Y 45 years, the appropriate multiplier is,l3, and to this 25% future prospects to be added and 2Ook is to be deducted, towards disability. Thus the loss of dependency comes to Rs.S,2O,OOO/-. Apart from that he is also entitled for Rs. 1,50,000/ - towards pain and suffering, Rs. 1 ,50,OO0/ - towards loss of amenities, Rs. 10,000/- towards transportation and Rs. 1O,000/- for extra nourishment.

¶39

Therefore, the appellant/petitioner is entitled for the compensation in the following terms:

¶40

1	PainandSuffering	Rs.1,5O,OO0/-
2	Loss ofAmenities	Rs.1,50,000/-
a	TransportationCharges	Rs.1O,OO0/-
4	Extra nourishment	Rs.i0,000/-
5	Lossof dependency	Rs.5,2O,OO0
	TOTAL	Rs.8,4O,OOO/-

¶41

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.3,79,4OO l- to Rs.8,40,O00/(Rupees tright Lakhs Forer Thousand only) with interest at the rate of 7 .Soh per annum from the date of filing th_e petition till

h, I

date of^{realizatior..RespondentNo'2/InsuranceCompany} shall deposit^{the entire amount within a period of one} month^{from the date of order'On such Deposit' the} appellant^{is entitled to withdraw the said amount' There} shall be^{no order as to costs'}

¶46

Miscellaneous^{petitions pending,ifany' shall stand}

¶47

closed.

¶48

SD/. T JAYASREE' ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR'

//TRUE^COPY//

SECTION^OFFICER

To,

l.TheMotorAccidentClaimsTribunal.cum-l.tAdditionalDistrictJudge,at Nalgonda.^{(with records' if anY)}

¶53

1. a;;cCa"^{bnr. sortlnNbHl vENKATESWARLU' Advocate [oPUC]} ;. O;;^{CC i. SNI.CHANDRASEKHAR REDDY GOPIREDDY',} Advocate [OPUC]

¶54

1. Two^{CD CoPies} .V

¶55

ADK \

¶56

HIGH COURT

¶57

DATED:0811112023

¶58

{t\ tl STA:.I f:
,'
u4 r1r il
co 15 l{ftf,
.', .,/
* ,/

¶59

JUDGMENT

¶60

MACMA.No.4230 of 2012

¶61

PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS

¶62

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶63

WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶64

PRESENT

¶65

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶66

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 4230 OF 2012

¶67

Between:

¶68

United lndia Insurance Company Limited, rep by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office-ll, Ramalaya, PRNo.1694, f -i-24'1t1O,2nd Floor, SD Ro-ad, Secunderabad.

¶69

...AppellanUPetitioner

¶70

AND

¶71

1 Adulla Bhaskar Reddy S/o.Ramachandra Reddy Driver R/o.Chinttampadu Village, Nampally Mandal, Nalgonda Distirct

¶72

...Respondent No.1/Petitioner No.1

¶73

2 Mis.ABT Parcel Service, (Owner of Lorry Bearing No.AP 03 T 3493), rep by its Manager O/o.Santosh Nagar, Hyderdbad.

¶74

...Respondent No.2/Respondent No.2

¶75

Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and decree in O.P.1136 of 2004 dated. 17-10-2008 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- 1't Additional District Judge, at Nalgonda.

¶76

ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, th.e Judgment.and Decree of the Lower Court and fhe material papers in the Case and upon hearing the arguments of SRl. SOMANCHI VENKATESWARLU, Advocate for the Appellant and of SRI CHANDRASEKHAR REDDY GOP|REDDY, Advocate for the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the respondent no.2.

¶77

1',

¶78

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows :

¶79

That the Motor Accident Civil tvliscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is parily allowed

¶80

That the Compensation amount enhanced from Rs.3,7g,400/- to Rs.8,40,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Forty Thousand only) with interest at the rate oI 7.5o/o per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of realization

¶81