Dismissed

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., v. P.Sukender Reddy and Another

Telangana HC27 Feb 2023MACMA/519/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Roval Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. against the judgment of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal. The court held that the awarded compensation for injuries was not excessive in view of medical evidence and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed, the appeal was dismissed, confirming the decree of the lower court.

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

I ! i

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶5

MONDAY ,THE^{TWENTY SEVENTHDAYOF FEBRUARY} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTY THREE}

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE^{SMT.JUSTICELALITHA KANNEGANTI}

¶8

MOTOR AcCIDENT^{CIVILMlSCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 519 0F20'10}

¶9

Appeal filed under^{Section 173 of Motor VehiclesAct' 1988 aggrievedby} the Judgment^{and Decree passed in O.P.No'1659of 2008' dated 05 11'2009on} the file of the^{chairman,MotorVehiclesAccidentsclaims Tribunal-cum-lll} Additional Chief^{Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad'}

¶10

Between:

¶11

Rovat Sundaram Alliance^{lnsuranceco. Ltd., rep. by its Divil. Manager,Divil-} 6ff';;,Ah &'5tn^{iroots, Je*.iPawaniTowers,FiajbhavanRoad' somajiguda'} Hyderabad

¶12

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT^NO.2

¶13

AND

¶14

P.sukender Reddy,^{S/o. Narsimha Reddy, Aqe: p.5 years' Occ: Business'RJo'} H No 8-33, Dommara^{Pochampally Villale,Quthbullapuri Mandal'} R R.District.

¶15

...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶16

M/s. Orix Auto^{lnfractureservice Limited,,Rep-_by its General manager, P.lot} - rlo. gi, Roid No. 5, L-uuife. Hifri, Hvoeraoao' (Owner of Lorry No AP-28-Y2427)

¶17

...RESPONDENT/^{RESPONDENTNO.1}

¶18

Counsel for the^{Appellant :Sri KOTA SUBBARAO}

¶19

Counsel forthe^{RespondentNo.1 : Sri K' DHANUNJAYA REDDY}

¶20

Counsel for the^{RespondentNo.2 : Noneappeared}

¶21

The Court delivered^{the following: JUDGMENT}

¶22

HON'}I,E SMT.^{JUTICE LALITHA KANNE(iANTI}

¶23

M.A.C.M -A.No.^{519 of 2O1O}

¶24

JUDG M-E^{N T:}

¶25

This is an AppeaL^{prcferred by the Insul'arcrClmpany} aggrir:ved bv^{tl e An'ard rlatcd 05. I 1.2009whcrebyt -re learned} Motor Vehiclcs^{\r:citlents CIaims Tribunal-cum-lll Adttir ional Chief} Judge, Citv^{Civ I rlourts at Flvclerabadhzrd allorved plrtly O P'No'} 1659 of 2OO8^{arLd gratrtcd lts 6,O0,OOO/-for the rnjuries;sustained} by tht: clairn:rnt

¶26

The cla marnt lll'd^{t[]c abovcO.P'seekingcompr:nsation of} Rs.8,OO,OOO/^{-. ' 'h':r::tst-' oI tlte cl:Limantis that on i0 t')5'1]OO8 at} about O6.t)O^{A,4. at Bollrtr:tnrX Road, Miyapur, whj le '1e was} procecding ott t lrotol^{t vt'le, thc drivcr of the lt'rry llearing} Registration^{No. A[) 28 Y .] ll7rlroveit in a rash ariclne'gligent} manner and^{dti;ht--d tht' llloL()r ('''clc,as a result, tec claimant} sustained^{g.r-ievtt ts rnjuries 'l'llt'claimantwasagr:dabout 3i3 years} at the timc o[^{it< t idt:nt rtrrd ht' rr-as earningRs 1:l,l)OO/-per} month.

¶27

Tht lltru'.tttct-^{Cr-rrnllatll'filed the(lor.Lntlr a hda'l'it} denyingtheavct:n'nlsitrLhcClirir-llPetitionltisstate':lttLatthe accident oc('Llrrt'^{I ,luc 1o til(' rirsll irnrl negligenct ol- tL e claimant'} hencc, thc^{I'lstt ittrt'c( .)rlll)alll ts not liat)le [o paythe} compen sit^{t io r-t}

¶28

¶29

The claimant in support of his case, examined P.Ws. 1 to 4 and got marked trxs.A I to A I 1. On behalf of the Insurance Company, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.

¶30

The Tribunal alter going through ttre entire material and the evidence placed on record, allowed the Claim Petition in part and au,arded Rs.6 lacs as compensation as the claimant could establish that he sustained grievous injuries in the accident occurred.

¶31

Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant Insurance Company Sri Kota Subba Rao submits that the amount awardcd by the Tribunat is highly excessive. The Court granted Rs.75,O00/for each injury and again awarded Rs.SO,OOO/- towards loss of earnings. The Tribunal ought not to have granted compensation for the injurics u'hcn specific amount was awarded for loss o[ earnings. [t is submitted that for the medical bills, there is^n<.r evidencc to the cffect that the amounts were spent. It is furthcr submittcd that disability that was considered by the Tribunal^is not corrcct. Lcarncd Standing Counsel submits that as the claimant uas 33 year-old at the time of accident, the fracturcs would bc ur-ritcd Ieaving no disability permanently. It is furthcr submittcd that cven in case of injuries, one-third of amount has to be deductcd Lorlards miscellaneous expenses.

I \

I I

L,,:arn,'1 counsel for the claimant sullmits tnat^the Tribtrnal basil g on the mcdical cvidcnce hird^{conr.idt red the} disability ancl^r.r st)^{granted compensationzrs per thr: s'lttledlaw.}

¶36

I-r this c:lse, the claimant sustairte<t irtj'.trics n the accident thar t:rck place on 10.05-2OO8.^{Evidcnce ,)f th(r doctor} shows that tht' claimant had slrsrained^{crush rnjurl ro t oth feet} with loss^,rf tlo sal and^plantar skin rigl-rt^{mallious fi'ar:tu -e ankle} instability u'itlr d,rrsal clislocation ancl hc^opined tha:^{the injuries} are grievous i r n:rture. Thc cittctor etlso de1;osed^{rhzrtP.W. I} underwent dcb ic ement of adv:tncemer.rt flap atrd sk^{I-r grirfting of} right foot anvo) ra as correctcd^rvitl-t blot:l<l transfusion.^{Fle further} stated that the piltient requircs itnotht'r three^sittrngs surgery^for flap cover of Ioth fect and expt'ttclilttrc arnuttd^{It;..i,5O,00O/-.} Basing on tho^{p -avity} ol injnries, the Tritrunal^{gritnt,edFls.75,OOO/-} for the injurir:s This Court llncls^rro illi:gality ir the^{\r'rar,l under} Appeal.

¶37

Coming to th<: clisal;ilitr aspcct, tht,ugh tI c Coctor's evidence shou s that lhe clairnilnt strfi'cred^{6O'2, disrrbility,the} Tribunal grant )d Rs.5O,0Oo/ los'arcls loss ol' e,rr rings and granted Rs.6 k ct;. Th<: amoLutt^qrantc<'l bv thr:^'lril;trltal is not excessive anrl he Iusrtrant'c Compitttt' t--ould not^m ]k( out^a ground for in'.cr le:etrcc ol this Cottr t in tllc Au':trcl anl Lht' Appeal is liable to bc rlr ;ntisscrl.

¶38

¶39

10 The Appeal is accordingly, dismissed. No order as

¶40

to costs.

¶41

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand

closed.

//TRUE COPY//

Sd/- K. VENKAIAH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (al) SECTION OFFICER

¶46

To,

¶47

The Chairman, Motor^{VehiclesAccidentsClaimsTribunal-cum-lll} Additional Chief Judge, City^{Civil Court, at Hyderabad}

¶48

One CC to Sri KOTA SUBBA^RAO,Advocate TOPUCI

¶49

One CC to Sri K.^{DHANUNJAYA REDDY,Advocate} [OPUC]

¶50

Two CD Copies

Njb

\ (

HIGH COU tT

DATED:271)212023

.<'- 1. t-,
1 r. s'lN 'il1

¶56

JUDGMENT

¶57

MACMA.No,519 of 2010

¶58

DISMISSING T'HE MACMA.

¶59

/, p ,)
\. >
* \ (\ '-7->

¶60

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

¶61

MONDAY ,THE^{TWENTY SEVENTHDAY OF FEBRUARY} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY THREE}

¶62

PRESENT

¶63

THE HONOURABLE^{SMT' JUSTICELALITHA KANNEGANTI}

¶64

MOTOR ACCI^{DENT CIVILMISCELLANEOU S APPEAL NO: 519 OF 2010}

¶65

Between:

¶66

Roval Sundaram^{Alliance lnsuranceCo' Ltd'' rep.by its Divil Manager'Divil'} A;'# ;ih^"f biii'iri,l*,^{L*"t Fa*ini rowers' Rajbhavan Road'Somaii g uda'} Hyderabad

¶67

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT^NO.2

¶68

AND

¶69

P.Sukender^{Reddy,Sio. Narsimha Reddy,Age:.35 years'Occ:Business'R/o'} ' it.i;.;-53: b;;#; poinampaltv vilhle' Outhbullapuri Mandal' R.R.District.

¶70

...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶71

M/s. orix^{Auto lnfraclureservice Limited,,Rgor^bYits General man?qe!'^P]9t} ' i'rt. aI,'iilro r'r". s, JrurEJ nirti,Hvoerd6'a' towner of Lorry^{No AP-28-Y-} 2427\

¶72

'..RES'.NDENT/^{RESP.NDENT No'1}

¶73

Appeal filed under^{Section 1 73 of Motor Vehicles Act' 1988 aggrievedby} the Judgment^{and Decree passed in O'P'No' 1659 of 2008' dated 05 11 2009on} thefileoftheChairman,MotorVehiclesAccidentsClaimsTribunal-cum-lll Additional^{Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad'}

¶74

This appeal coming^{on for hearing and upon perusingthe Memorandum of} Appeal, the^{order of the Lower Court and the material papers in the case'and upon} hearing the arguments^{of Sri KOTASUBBA RAO' Advocate' for the Appellantand} Sri K. DHANUNJAYA^{REDDY,Advocate fortheRespondent No 1'}

¶75

DECREE: Thrs Cot rt order and Decree that the Decree of tl e Lovver Court be and hereby is confirmer and this Appeal is Dismissed and this C:ttrt doth further Order and Decree that the^.e be no orders as to costs in this Appeal,

¶76

Sd/. K. VENKAIAH ASSiISTANI REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ,xJ

¶77

SE(,'TION OFFICER

¶78

To,

¶79

'1 . The Chairma r, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribl n:tl-crrm-lll Additional Cr ri€ f Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabac

¶80

Two CD Cop :s

Njb _

HIGH COUR T

DATED:2710112023

DECREE

MACMA.No. i19 of 2010

¶87

DISMISSING THE MACMA. Ir l -i,\ ,,'^

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., v. P.Sukender Reddy and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., v. P.Sukender Reddy 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

Smt.Akula Narmada Vs Smt. S. Pankaja

Lankala Krishna Reddy Vs P Mohan Reddy

Pottabattina Ravi Vs N. Balaji

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Ongole. Vs B.Vishnusravanth and 2 Others

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. D. Laxmi Devi and 4 Others

B. Naga Raju Vs Smt. K. Padmaja Rani