Allowed

Meena Gangaram v. Ravi Kumar and Another

Telangana HC27 Jul 2023MACMA/4255/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal in part, enhancing the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal from Rs.40,000 to Rs.93,500 with 7.5% per annum interest. The Court increased compensation for simple and grievous injuries, adjusted the monthly income estimate to Rs.4,500, and extended the loss of earnings period to four months.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.93,500/- with 7.5% p.a. interest from date of petition till realization.

Meena Gangaram Vs Ravi Kumar and Another — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰⁴¹

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR^RAO

¶6

MOToR ACCIDENT clvlL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO:⁴²⁵⁵ OF²⁰¹⁴

¶7

Appeal filed Under Section^'173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and decree in O.P.No.326 of 2008 dated 07.09.2013 on the file^of the Court^{of the Motor} Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-ll Additional District Judge(FTC),^Nizamabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Meena Gangaram, S/o. Sripathilal, Occ Driver R/o. Bathiga Village,^BasidiTq Dholpur District. Rajasthan State at Present R/o. Godown road, Nizamabad,^R/o H.No. 10-18-121, Nizamabad.

¶10

...AppellanUClaimant

¶11

AND

¶12

Ravi Kumar, S/o. Sh. Dhuni Singh, Occ: Businessman, R/o. Sitaram Colony, Gulab Bag, Dholpur District, Rajasthan State.

¶13

The United lndia lnsurance Co., Ltd, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Branch Office at Dhoolkot, Dhoolpur, Rajasthan^(lnsurer of Lorry NO. MP06E-1595 Vide lnsurance Policy No.141401/3/02105321 valid from 27h212002 lo 26t12t2003)

¶14

...Respondents

¶15

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri VONJARI RAJA SHEKAR^REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: NONE APPEARED Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: Sri BATHULA RAJ KIRAN The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶16

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWARRAQ} M.A.C.M.A.No.4255 OF 2014

¶17

JUDGMENT:

¶18

This appeal is hled by the appellant/claimant^under Section 173 of the Motor^{VehiclesAct, aggrievedby the orderand} decree, dated 07.09.20 13,^{passed in O.P.No.326 of 2008 on the} file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [II^{AdditionalDistrict} Judge (FTC)I at Nizamabad,^{(for short "the Tribunal").}

¶19

For the sake of convenience, the^{partieswill be hereinaJter} referred to as they are arrayed before^{the Tribunal.}

¶20

Brief iacts of the case are that the^{petitioner filed a claim} petition under Section 163-A of the Motor^{Vehicles Act, 1988,} claiming compensation of^{Rs.2,00,OOO/-on the accountof injuries} sustained by him in a motor^vehicle accident.^{It is stated that on} O2.ll.2OO3 at about^{12.30pm on NH7 near Gamjal village, a lorry,} bearing No.AIW 4748 was said to^{have dashedthe lorry bearing} No.MP06E-1595 driven by the^{petitioner and as a result,the} petitioner sustained fracture right tibia fracture^{right thigh (bone),} injury over right eye, teeth loosened and injuries^{to abdomen and} other parts of the body. [t is further stated that^{the petitioner}

¶21

2 R t.t i\ .r NIACM-1 \o 42r-5 ol20 t l

¶22

undel'went ireatment zrs inpatiett in CHH, Nizamabad from O2.ll.2OO3 to 06.11.200 and was larer shifted to Sai Hospital, Nirmal where he was treated as rnpatient from 07. 11.2003 to i 3. 1 I .2003. He incurred an amount of Rs.l,SO,O00/_ towards treatment. As such, the petitroner filed the claim petition

¶23

Respondent No.2 remained exparte and respondent No.2 filed a counter denying the allegations rnade in the petition.

¶24

To prove his case, the petitioner got examined pWs. 1 and 2 and marked Ex.Al to A10. On behalf ol. the respondents, neither ora-l nor documentary evidence was adduced. Exs.R1 and R2 were marked by thirC party.

¶25

6 On appreciation of the evidence on record, the 'I'ribunal awarded compensation of Rs.4O,OOO/_ to the petitioner under various heads. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the present appeal is filed by the petitioner

¶26

Heard both sides. perused the record.

¶27

8 Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner had contended that the Tribunal

¶28

grossly erred in awarding compensatlon on the lower side despite there being cogent

¶29

¶30

RRN.,I N{AC\Ir\ No^.l25 i 0l l0l1

¶31

evidence on record. He further contended that the compensation granted under various heads are very meager and they deserve enhancement. With regard to the income of the petitioner, it^was contended that the petitioner'*,as working as a driving earning^not less than Rs.5,O0O/- per month but the Tribunal erred in guessing the monthly income of the petitioner at Rs.4,000/- p.m. It^was lastly contended that no evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents and as such, the complete version of the petitioner must be believed and the compensation ought to have been granted as prayed.

¶32

9 Per contra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 contended that there is no irregularity in the order passed by the Tribunal and the aspect of negligence and the contention that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending lorry need not be looked into. He further contended that the Tribunal was^justifred in passing the impugned order by awarding adequate compensation, thus, prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶33

There is no dispute with regard to the accident and involvement of both lorries. As the claim petition was filed under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, negligence need not be

¶34

¶35

w R[\ | \lA( NIA i'lo 1-li5,,r lItt

¶36

gone into. 'fhe fincling of the Tribunal tliat the responcle,l," *!' liable to pay compensation to the petitioner is final.

¶37

1 1. It is observed from the impugned order that the petitioner received two grievous injuries artd two simple injuries and the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.2O,OOO/_ cnly towards pain and suffering. Nothing was grzrnted for injuries. This court is of the view that the Tribunal is justified with regard to pain and slrffeling only, but it has not granted anything with regard to lnJ urles.

¶38

It seems that the Tribunal was convinced that the petitioner sustained only t.*zo injuries, based on the evidence of PW2, who deposed the events subsequent to 06.11.2003. Hcwever, the petitioner deposed that he was treated inpatient from 02.11.2003 to 06.11.2OO3 in the first hospital. As such, it can be concluded that the petitioner sustained two simple injuries and two grievous injuries and as such, the petitioner is awarded Rs.SO,OOO/- towards simple and grievous injuries. It is observed from the impugned order that the Tribunal did not grant compensation under the head disability, in the absence of any evidence and the same is justified.

¶39

)

¶40

RR.] \l.\C\1A No..l2i: ol 20ll

¶41

( I

¶42

.lnsofar^{as the income of the petitioneris concerned,the} petitioner claimed that he^{r,,'as workrng as adriver, earning} Rs.S,OOO/- per month and due^{to the injuriessustained by him,} his employer had removed him^{from his job. No evidenceis} adduced by the petitioner to strengthen^{his contention and as} such, the Tribunal, however,^{believed that the petitioner was a} driver and would have^been earning^{Rs'4,000/- per month. This} Court is inclined to fix the^{monthlyincome of the petitioner at} Rs.4,500/- in view of the decision^{of the Hon'ble SupremeCourt in}

¶43

Ramcq.ndrappa V. Manager, Rogal^{SundaramAlliance}

¶44

Insurance Compang Ltd.,tas the^{petitioner couldnot produce} any income proof. In the^{absenceof incomeproof,this Court is} inclined to carry out the above exercise.^{The Iinding of the} Tribunal that the petitioner must^{have needed rest for a period of} 3-4 months is^justified but^{the loss of earnings was calculatedfor} a 3 months. This Court is inclined to award^{Rs.13,5OO/- (4,500} x 4) towards loss of income, keeping in^{view that the petitioner} could not have worked for a^period of⁴ months'

¶45

With respect to the compensation granted^{by the Tribunal} under the heads 'extra nourishment,^{attendant charges,}

, I

( 201r ) 1l SCC 236

.tI

Il R ..1 '1,^( Nl^ No.t2i5 ot t0t.1

¶51

transpor-tation'etc., at Rs.B,o00/, this court feels that ttre sam) is meager and as such, it is enhalced to Rs. IO,OOO/.

¶52

The Tribunal gralted interest on the compensation amount at Z .So/o p. a from thc date of petition till the date of realization and the same needs no interference.

¶53

Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. 1S allowed rn part by enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.40,00o/- to Rs.93,SOo/_ (Rupees Ninety Three Thousand Five Hundred onry) with interest at 7 -5%o p.a. from the date of perition tiU the date of realization. The respondents shall deposit the said compensation amount together with interest and costs 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. The petitioner is permitteci to rvithdraw trre same. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶54

As a sequel of which, misceilaneous petitions, if any,

¶55

pending shall stand closed.

¶56

Sd/. MOHD. SANAULLAH ANSARI, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

To,

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

1 The Motor Accident craims Tribunar-cum-il Additionar District Judge(FTC), Nizamabad.

¶62

2 One CC to Sri VONJART RAJA SHEKAR REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] J One CC to Sri BATHULA RAJ KIRAN Advocate IoPUCI

¶63

4 Two CD Copies SP

HIGH COURT

DATED:2710712023

JUDGMENT

MACMA.N o.4255 ot 2014

¶68

MACMA IS ALLOWED IN PART

¶69

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

¶70

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY^{SEVENTH DAY OF JULY} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY THREE}

¶71

PRESENT

¶72

THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICENAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO} MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL^{MISCELLANEO US APPEALNO: 4255 OF 2014}

¶73

Between:

¶74

Meena Gangaram, S/o. Sripathilal,^{OccDriver R/o.Bathiga Village, Basidi Tq'} Dholpur District. Rajasthan State^{at Present R/o. Godownroad, Nizamabad, R/o.} H.No. 10-18-121 , Nizamabad.

¶75

...AppellanUClaimant

¶76

AND

¶77

Ravi Kumar, S/o. Sh. Dhuni Singh,^{Occ: Businessman,R/o. SitaramColony,} Gulab Bag, Dholpur District, Rajasthan^State.

¶78

The United lndia lnsurance^{Co., Ltd, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Branch} Office at Dhoolkot, Dhoolpur,^{Rajasthan(lnsurerof Lorry NO. MP06E-1595} Vide lnsurance Policy No.14140113102/05321^{valid trom 2711212002to} 26t12t20O3)

¶79

...Respondents

¶80

Appeal filed Under Section 173 of^{Motor Vehicles-Act-a.gainstthe} -Orde-r.and decree iir'O.p.No.326 of^{2OO8 dated 07.09.2013 on the file of the Court of the Motor} Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-ll^{Additional DistrictJudge(FTC), Nizamabad.}

¶81

ORDER: This appeal coming^{on for hearingand upon perusingthe groundsof} appeal, the Judgment and Decree^{of the Lower court and the material papersin the} iase and upon hearing the^{arguments of SRI.V. RAJASHEKHARREDDY'} Advocate foi the Appellant, SRl.^{BATHULARAJ KIRAN, Advocate for the} Respondent No.2 and NONE APPEARED^{for the Respondent No.'l}

¶82

This Court doth Order and^{Decree as follows:}

¶83

That the Motor Accident^{Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is Allowed} in Part by enhancing the compensation^{awardedby the Tribunalfrom} Rs.40,000/- to Rs. 93,500/- at7.5o/o^{P.A from the date of Petition till the date} of realization;

¶84

-7

¶85

That the respondents shall deposit the said compensation amount together with interest and costs 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;

¶86

That the petitioner be and hereby is permitted to withdraw the same;

¶87

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

¶88

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

¶89

Sd/- MOHD. SANAULLAH ANSARI, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

f^.--"'

SECTION OFFICER

To, 1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-ll Additional District Judge(FTC), Nizamabad.

¶94

Two CD Copies SP

HIGH COURT

DATED:2710712023

DECREE

MACMA.N o.4255 of 2014

¶99

MACMA IS ALLOWED IN PART

¶100

a2
ND
l

Meena Gangaram v. Ravi Kumar and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meena Gangaram v. Ravi Kumar and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.D.Razia Begum, Nakirekal Vandm., Nalgonda District Vs the M.D., Apsrtc., Musheerabad, Hyderabad and Another

A.P.S.R.T.C and Another Vs Nemali Veera Swamy

Nemali Veera Swamy, Vs A.P.S.R.T.C.

Ms. N. Umalakshmi, B.Sc., B.Ed., Vs Government of A.P. rep. by its Principal Secretary

Bhagyamma, Vs M.v.Ravindranath

Y.Vijaya Augustine and 4 Others Vs v.Satyanarayana and 3 Others