Partly allowed

Chelimela Kummari Satyanarayana v. the Apsrtc, Rep.by Md, Musheerabd, Hyd and Another

Telangana HC17 Mar 2023MACMA/444/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court enhanced the compensation awarded to a claimant injured in a motor accident, accepting 50% disability and Rs.6,000 monthly income, totaling Rs.11,25,200, while dismissing theBus Transport Corporation's appeal against the enhancement.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.11,25,200 with interest at 7.5% p.a.; Corporation to deposit within 8 weeks.

Chelimela Kummari Satyanarayana Vs the Apsrtc… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²³⁰ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶6

M.A.C.M.A. NOS: 739 OF 2012 AND4449f 2014

¶7

MACMA NO.739 0F 2012:

¶8

Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, against the Order^and decree in OP No.2875 of 2008 daled^{18lO7l2O'l 1 on the file of the Court of the} Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum-^{XVIAdditional Chief Judge-cum-} ll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge,^Hyderabad.

¶9

Between:

¶10

The APSRTC, rep. by its Managing Director,^{Musheerabad,RTC X Roads,} Hyderabad

¶11

The APSRTC, Rep. by its Depot Manager, Medak^{Depot,Medak District}

¶12

...APPELLANTS/ RESPONDENTS

¶13

AND

¶14

Chelimela Kummari Satyanarayana, S/o Chandraiah @ Bala Chandraiah^(Amended as per Order in lA No. 3'15, dt. 13-9-2010, 24^yrs, Labourer,^{Rl/o Manoharabad (V)} Toopran (M) Medak District.^presently H.No.3-4-'19/5/G,^{Satyanagar,Narayanaguda,} Hvderabad'

¶15

...RES'.NDENT/'ET.r.NER

¶16

MACMA NO.444 0F 2014:

¶17

Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, against the Order^and decree in OP No.2875 of 2008 daled^181071201 1 on the^{file of the Courtof the} Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- XVI Additional Chief^Judge-cum- ll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

¶18

Between:

¶19

Chelimela Kummari Satyanarayana, S/o Chandraiah @ Bala Chandraiah Rl/o.Manoharabad (V) Toopran (M) Medak District.^{presently H.No.3-4-19/5/G,} Satyanagar, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad.

¶20

...APPELLANT/ PETITIONER

¶21

AND

¶22

i t I I I ! i I

¶23

The APSRTC, rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, RTC X Roads, Hyderabad

¶24

The APSRTC, Rep. by its Depot lvlanager, IVedak Depot, It/edak District

¶25

...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS

¶26

For the Appellants : SRI THOOM SRINIVAS, FOR THE APPELLANTS lN MAGMA NO.73912012 AND FOR THE RESPONDENTS IN MACMA NO.444 OF 2014

¶27

Forthe Respondents : SRI P.RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, FOR THE RESPONDENTS IN MACMA NO.739 OF 2012 AND FOR THE APPELLANTS IN MACMA NO.444 0F 2014

¶28

The Court delivered the following : JUDGN4ENT

¶29

THE HONOURABLE SMT, JUSTICE LALITHA^KANNEGANTI

¶30

M.A.C.M.A.NoS.739 of 2Ol2 alad,444 of 2OL4

¶31

COMMON JUDGMENT:

¶32

Aggrieved by the award dated^{18.O7.2011 in O.P.No.2875of} 2008 passed by the Motor Vehicle^{Accident ClaimsTribunal-cum-The} court of the XVI Addl. Chief Judge-cum-Il^{AdditionalMetropolitan} Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, the^{RTChas Iiled MACMA No.739 of} 'dbtZ ana the claimant has filed^{MACMANo.444 of2074 fot} enhancement of the comPensation.

¶33

Having heard Mr. Thoom Srinivas,^{learned counselfor the} corporation and Mr. P. Ramakrishna^{Reddy,learned counsel for the} claimant and perused the^{entirematerial on record.}

¶34

The claimant has filed the claim^{petitionseeking} compensation of an amount of Rs.6,00,000/-^{for the injuries} sustained by him. As per the disability^{certificate,the disability} sustained by the^petitioner is^{457o and as per the evidenceof the} Doctor, the disability is 50%, but, the court^{belowhas taken the} disability at 3Ooh.

¶35

Learned counsel for the claimant submits^{that the claimant} was working as a Mason as on the date^{of accident and was earning} an amount of Rs.6,OOO/-^{per month and the court has taken it only} as Rs.3,OO0/- per month. It is^{submittedthat the occupation of the} claimant being a technical one,^{at least, the court below shouldhave}

¶36

LK, MACMA-739-2O12 and 444 2014

¶37

¶38

taken the inr:c-,me at Rs.6,000/^{per month. [t isstatedthat the} evidence of the Doctor is^{[hat there is a fracture r-o pelvis rightfoot} drop and the r:laimant noticcd that^{he developedseverestiffness of} right hip and knce^{r,r'itl'rpair-rful restrictedmovements and due to the} same, he cannot do his^{job rrnd he has to use the stickforever and in} spite of that. the court beJorv has^{considered the disabilityonly} at 3Oo/"

¶39

Learnecl counsel lor the corporation submits^thatthe claimant and others^were triple^{riding on the motorcycleat the time} of accident, which is in^violation of^{the rules under MV Act and} hence, conttibutory ncgtigence ought to^{havebeen fixed on the} claimant at 50'/o. It is stated^{that the courtbelow oughtnot to have} taken the incotne of the clain'rant at^{Rs.3,OOO/- per month and even} considering 3O7o disability is also bad in law.

¶40

Admitledly, in the accident, the claimant has^sustained several injuries and the e:vidence of^{the Doctorshows that the} claimant has sustarned fracture to^{pelvis right foot drop and he} developed severe stiffness of^{right hip and knee withpainful restricted} movements ancl the disabilitv^{certificate was givencertifying that the} claimant has sustained^5o9zo disability.^{Considering the evidence of} the Doctor and the impact it has^got on his work, this court is inclined to take 5O7o as disability sustained by the r--laimant.

¶41

LK, J MACMA_239 2OtZ and 444 2014

¶42

¶43

¶44

Coming to the monthly income of the claimant, according to him, he was working as a Mason as on the date of accident and earning an amount of Rs.6,OOO/- per month. Though there is no evidence let in by the claimant in support of the same, this court is o[ the view that the monthly income of the craimant can be taken at Rs.6,OOo/-.

¶45

As per the age of the claimant i.e. 24 years as on the date of accidcnt, 40yo future prospects would be Rs.2,4OO/_ and the annual income comes to Rs.1,O0,SOO/- and the appropriate multiplier would be '18'. Hence, considering the disability at SOyo, the claimant is entitled Rs.9,OZ,2OO/_ (Rs.42,O0OX18X5O/ 100) for toss of future income due to disability.

¶46

Admittedly, the claimant lost his earnings for a period of three months due to treatment and hence, under the head of loss of earnings, the claimant is entitled Rs. lg,OOO/_ (Rs,6,O0OX3).

¶47

The court below has granted an amount of Rs.l,lO,00O/_ for medical bills and Rs.5O,0O0/_ for pain and suffering basing on the evidence available on record, which this court is not inclined to interfere.

¶48

Under the other heads, the court below has granted meager amounts. Hence, this court is inclined to grant an amount of Rs. 1O,OOO/- each towards attendant charges, extra nourishment and

¶49

LK, ].\ MACMA_739_2O 12 and 444_2014

¶50

¶51

transport. Further, undcr thc' hcad of^{legal expenscs,the claimantis} entitled to Rs. 10,0OO/ -.

¶52

In the liqht ol thc alrrx e discussion, the claimant^{is entitled} for the following^{(rompens.rtion} undcr diflerent^heads:

¶53

Head Com	Pensation awarded
(1)Lossofearnings due toclisability	Rs.9,O7.2OO
(21Lossofearnings fortl-rreemonths	Rs.18,O00
(3)Medicalbills	Rs.1,i0.0OO
(4)Pain andsuffering	Rs.5O,00O
(5)Attendan[benefits	Rs.1O,0OO
(6)Extranourishment	Rs.10,00O
(7)Transportcharges	Rs.10,00O
(8)Legalexpenses	Rs.1O,OOO
Totalcompensationawarded	Rs.11,25,2OOl-

¶54

In the result, the Motor Accident Miscellareous Appeal^{of the} corporation is dismissed and Motor Accident Miscellaneous^{Appeal of} the claimant is allowed by enhancing the compensation^{awarded by} the court below from Rs.3,49,600/ to^{Rs.11,25,2OO1- as hereunder:}

¶55

(a) The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5%o p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶56

(b) The claimant shall pa5, the court fee on the enhanced amounl.,,f COmpcnSal ion

¶57

-l

¶58

LK. J MACMA_7gg_2o12 and 444_2014

¶59

¶60

(c) The corporation shall deposit the amount within a periocl oi (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of judgment. On such deposit, claimant is permitted to withdraw entire amount without furnishing the securify.

¶61

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶62

Sd/.MOHD. ISMAIL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- XVI Additional Chief Judge-cum- ll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. (with records)

¶67

One CC to Sri Thoom Srinivas, Advocate [OPUC]

¶68

One CC to Sri P.Rama Krishna Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]

¶69

Two CD Copies

Kj. .""'--r

HIGH COURT

DATED:1710312023

COMMON JUDGMENT

MACMA.Nos.739 of 20'12 and 444 of 2014

¶75

::>-
-,-.--:-
/-'^"Q";'" rt: u
$
I (-
2l lut ?m
i
,1, /
.. 'Y .:"
*t -n, . nr' r "--
------ =;--

¶76

ALLOWING THE MACMA NO.44412014 DISMISSING THE MACMA NO.739/2012

¶77

b
sl6le
t-^#

¶78

[³²³⁰ ]

¶79

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶80

FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶81

PRESENT

¶82

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶83

M.A.C.M.A. NOS: 739 OF 2012 AND 444 OE2014

¶84

MACMA NO.739 0F 2012:

¶85

Between:

¶86

The APSRTC, rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, RTC X Roads, Hyderabad

¶87

The APSRTC, Rep. by its Depot Manager, Medak Depot, Medak District

¶88

...APPELLANTS/ RESPONDENTS

¶89

AND

¶90

Chelimela Kummari Satyanarayana, S/o Chandraiah @ Bala Chandraiah^(Amended as per Order in lA No. 315, dt. 13-9-2010,24^yrs, Labourer, Fl/o Manoharabad^(V) Toopran (M) Medak District.^presently H.No.3-4- 19/5/G, Satyanagar, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad.

¶91

...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶92

MACMA NO.444 0F 2014:

¶93

Between:

¶94

Chelimela Kummari Satyanarayana, S/o Chandraiah @ Bala Chandraiah Ri/o.Manoharabad (V) Toopran (M) Medak District.^presently H.No.3-4-19/5/G, Satyanagar, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad.

¶95

AND

¶96

...APPELLANT/ PETITTONER

¶97

'1. The APSRTC, rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, RTC X Roads, Hyderabad

¶98

The APSRTC, Rep. by its Depot Manager, Medak Depot, Medak District

¶99

...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS

¶100

Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, against the Order and decree in MVOP No.2875 of 2008 dated 181071201'l on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- XVI Additional Chief Judge-cumll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

¶101

ORDER: 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

¶102

case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Thoom Srinivas, Advocate for the Appellant in MACMA No.739 of 2A12 and for the Respondents in MACMA No.44412O14 and of Sri P.Rama Krishrra Reddy, Advocate for the Respondents in MACTMA No.739 of 2012 and for the Appellants in I,'IACMA No.444 of 2014

¶103

This Court doth Order and decree as follows

¶104

That the MACMA of the Corporation is dismissed and Motor Accidents Miscellaneous Appeal of the claimant is allowed by enhancing the compensation awarded by the Court, below from Rs.3,49,6001 to Rs.1 1 ,25,2001 as hereunder;

¶105

That the enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5o/o p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization

¶106

That claimant shall pay the Court fee on the enhanced amount of compensation.

¶107

That the corporation shall deposit the amount within a period of (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of Judgment. on such deposit, claimant is permitted to withdraw entire amount without furnishing the security.

¶108

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

¶109

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

¶110

Sd/.MOHD, ISMAIL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶111

//TRUE COPY// SECTI OFFICER

¶112

¶113

'l . The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- XVI Additional Chief Judge-cum- ll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

¶114

1. Two CD Copies

NY"---

HIGH COURT

DATED:1710312023

COMMON DECREE

MACMA.Nos.739 of 2012 and 444 of 2014

¶121

ALLOWING THE MACMA NO.4MI2O14 DISMISSlNG THE MACMA NO.739/2012

¶122

¶123

t4 Ju)

Chelimela Kummari Satyanarayana v. the Apsrtc, Rep.by Md, Musheerabd, Hyd and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chelimela Kummari Satyanarayana v. the Apsrtc, Rep.by Md, Musheerabd, Hyd and Another

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

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, Chennai. Vs Bandi Ramachandram , Ramachandru and 4 Others

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, Nizamabad Vs Gurudu Gangubai and 4 Others

The Managing Director, Hyd. Vs Thaneeru Kondaiah, R.R.Dist.

Chimalollamasheshwari and 2 Others Vs Depot Manager, Apsrtc and Another

The Apsrtc Vs Galpally Bhagyamma , Bhagya

The Depot Manager, Apsrtc, Medak and Another Vs Chimalolla Maheshwari and 2 Others