Partly allowed

Revelli Somaiah v. Annapuri Narsimha and 2 Ors.

Telangana HC2 Nov 2023MACMA/546/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this motor accident civil miscellaneous appeal, the High Court enhanced the compensation amount awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Court found the original award for injuries and pain to be meager and recalculated heads for injuries, pain and suffering, extra-nourishment, attendant charges, transportation, and loss of income based on the grievous nature of injuries and the appel

What did the court decide?

The Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was partly allowed, enhancing the compensation from Rs. 23,000 to Rs. 79,000, with interest at 7.5% per annum.

Revelli Somaiah Vs Annapuri Narsimha and 2 Ors. — Medical Negligence | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰⁰ ]

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

THURSDAY THE SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶7

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 546 OF 2007

¶8

Appeal Under Sectionl T3 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order^{and decreein} O.P.No. 508 of 2003 dated 31.'10.2006, on the file of the Court of the^Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum I Additional^{District JudgeNalgondaat} Miryalg uda.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Revelli SOMAIAH, (DIED)

¶11

Revelli Sathamma, Wo. Late Somaiah, 36^years, Occ: House hold,

¶12

Revelli Pushpalatha, D/o. Late Somaiah, 16^years, House hold

¶13

Revelli Andalu, D/o. Late SOmaiah, 22^yearc, House Wife

¶14

All are R/o. H. No.6-3-184, Ramagini, Nalgonda Town, Nalgonda Disrict.

¶15

RR2 to 4 are brought on record as Lrs of the deceased A1 Vide Court Order dated 23 04.2012 in MACMAMP No 2195/'123.

¶16

...PETITIONER/APPELLANT

¶17

AND

¶18

1, Annapuri Narsimha, S/o.Thiruvath R/o.Ramnagar, Miryalguda, Nalgonda District.

¶19

B.Srinivas, S/o.Yellaiah, Aged Major R/o. Peddadevulapally [V], Miryalguda, Nalgonda District.

¶20

The United lndia lnsurance Co Ltd, rep by its Branch Manager^{The Branch} Manager, United lndia lnsurance Co Ltd., Ashoknagar, Miryalguda.

¶21

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶22

Counsel for the Appellant : SRl. P. S. P. SURESH KUMAR

¶23

Counsel for the Respondents : SRI A. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY

¶24

The Court made the following:

¶25

THE HOI{'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{NAGESH BHEEMA]?AKA}

¶26

M.A.C.M.A. No.546 OF 2OO7

¶27

JUDGMENT:

¶28

This appeal^{is hled by the appellant-claimantaggnevedby the} Order ald^{Decree dated 31.10.2006passedin O P.No.[;08of 2003} by the Chairman,^{MotorAccidentsClaimsTribrtnal-Cum-[} Additiond^{DistrictJudge at Na.lgonda(for short, the Tribunal)}

¶29

The bnef^{facts of the case are that on 25.01.2003the} claima-nt^{was travelling on Hero Honda bearingNo.AF-09-J-8398} from BodarLgrparthi^{to Nalgonda. The petitionerw'as L-avelling as} pillion rider of the^{said motor cycle and when th'ly reached} outskirts of^{Kanchenapallyvillage, suddenlyone aLto bearing} No.AP-24-U-7315^{driven by itsdnverin a rash anrl negligent} manner came from^{The appellant fiIed aforesaid OP against} respondent Nos.¹ and^{2, owner and insurer of the tankt:r, clarming} compensation of Rs.1,0O,000/-^{for the injuries sustai:led by the} appellant.

¶30

Before the Tribunal, respondent No.l remainec ex parteRespondent No.2 hled counter denying the averments cf the claim petition and contended that the arnount claimed is ex<:essive and prayed to dismiss the clarm petition.

¶31

After considering the oral arld documentarJ. e',idence on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident

¶32

¶33

,-i

¶34

occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry and awarded total compensation of Rs.23,O0O/- with interest @^{7.5o/o per annum, i.e.,} Rs.18,000/- toward.s injuries, pain and suffering, extra-nourishment, Rs.5,O0O/- towatds medical expenses. Dissatisfied u/ith the quantum of compensation, the appellant filed the present appeal, seeking enhancement of the salne.

¶35

Heard and perused ttre record.

¶36

Basing on the evidence in the record, this Court feels that the amount of Rs.18,OO0/- granted by the Tribuna_l towa:-ds four injuries, pain and suffering is meager. In view of the grievous nature of injuries, the tribunal ought to have granted the compensation under the head of injuries and pain ald suffering separately. Therefore, we are of ttre considered opinion that an amount of Rs.1S,OOO/- for one grievous injury and Rs.S,OOO/each for three grievous injuries can be awarded. Now coming to the multiple injunes, the appellant would have suffered a-rry amount of pain, as such it is just and proper to awatd an amount of RS.2O,OOO/- towards pain and suffering. Having considered the seriousness of the injunes and continuity of the treatment, the appellant would have had a separate died for his recovery, for which an amount of Rs.IO,OOO/- is awarded under the head of extra-nourishment. Further, taJong into account the admission of the appeliant/injured at different hospitals for undergoing aru keatment, an amount of Rs.S,OOO/- is awarded under the head of

¶37

¶38

'/,

¶39

attendant chajges. As it is the evidence of appellant that due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident, he undergon: treatment at different hospitals, for which he would have use<l t-lt c transport services for shuttling from his resident to hospital lil. r:wise from hospital to his residence, therefore arl amount of Rs.S,OOO/- can safely be ar,r'arded under the head of transportation.

¶40

Further, on a perusal of the material on record. it :s seen that the appellant used to work as Washerman and earn Rs.rr OOO/ per month but, no proof is filed to that effect. However, taking into account the age and avocation of the appellant at relevalt time, his monthly inr:ome carr be hxed at Rs.4,500/- per month. In view of the multiple injunes which are grievous and simple in lature, the appellarrt would had been away from his avocation lor a period of two months, which is inclusive of his period of treatment. Therefore, arr amount of Rs.9,OOO/ - is awarded towa-cls loss of income during the period of his treatment and bed rest.

¶41

In the result, the Motor Accident Cir.il Miscellaleous Appea,l is partly allowed, enhancing the compensation amount ar[arded by the Tribunal from Rs.23,0O0/- to Rs.79,OOO/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest G, 7.5yo per annum from tl.re date of claim petition till realizalion.

¶42

Miscellaleous petitions pendrng, if any, shail stand closed.

¶43

No costs

¶44

¶45

Sd/. K. VENKAIAH ASSISTANTRE,GISTRAR ''-*IV

¶46

//TRUE COPY/'

¶47

SECTION OFFICER

¶48

The chairman Motor Accident ctaims Tribunal -cum I Additional District Judge Nalgonda at Miryalguda.

¶49

One CC to SRl. P. S. P. SURESH KUMAR, Advocate [OpUC]

¶50

One CC to SRI A RAMAKRTSHNA REDDY, ROvocate [OeUC1 4. Two CD CopiesTwo CD CopiesCopies

¶51

Two CD CopiesTwo CD CopiesCopies

¶52

SNJ/DL s

¶53

tf,X*l-.-&1]riith,

¶54

I I

¶55

HIGH COURT DATED:0211112O23

¶56

JUDGMENT MACMA.No.546 ol 2007

¶57

1 H E s 14 14:
(
oo 0 4 il A B 2a2 4 )
).) I
I,
.! )rl
;,'

¶58

MACMA IS PARTLY ALLOWED
c.fq
a

¶59

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

¶60

THURSDAY THE SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶61

PRESENT

¶62

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH^BHEEMAPAKA

¶63

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOU^{S APPEALNO: 546 OF 2007}

¶64

Between:

¶65

Revelli SOMAIAH,(DIED)

¶66

Revelli Sathamma, W/o. Late SOmaiah,^{36 years,Occ-House hold,}

¶67

Revelli Pushpalath, D/o. Late SOmaiah,^{16 years, House hold}

¶68

Revelli Andalu, D/o. Late SOmaiah,^{22 years, HouseWife}

¶69

All are R/o. H. No.6-3-184, Ramagini,^{Nalgonda Town, NalgondaDisrict.}

¶70

RR2 to 4 are brought on record as^{Lrs of the deceased A1 Vide Court Order} dahed 23.04.201 2 in MACMAMP^{No. 21 95/12}

¶71

,..PETITIONER/APPELLANT

¶72

AND

¶73

'1. Annapuri Narsimha, S/o.Thiruvath R/o.Ramnagar, Miryalguda, Nalgonda District.

¶74

B.Srinivas, S/o.Yellaiah, Aged^{MajorR/o.Peddadevulapally} [V]'^Miryalguda, Nalgonda District.

¶75

The United lndia lnsurance Co Ltd,^{rep by its Branch Manager The Branch} Manager, United lndia lnsurance Co^{Ltd., Ashoknagar,Miryalguda.}

¶76

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶77

Appeal Under SectionlT3 of Motor^{Vehicles Act against the order and decree in} O.P.No.508 of 2003 dated 31.10.2006,^{on thefile of the Court of the Chairman} Motor Accident Claims Tribunal^{--cum I Additional DistrictJudge Nalgonda at} Miryalguda.

¶78

ORDER: This appeal coming on for^{hearing and upon perusingthe grounds of} appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the^{Lower Court and the material papersin the} case and upon hearing the arguments^{of SRl. P. S. P. SURESH KUMAR, Advocate} for the Appellant and of SRI A.^{RAMAKRISHNA REDDY,Advocate for the} Respondent.

¶79

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

¶80

That the Motor Accident^{Civil rliscellaneousAppeal be ard herebyis Partly} allowed, enhancing the^{compensationamount awarded by the Tribunal from} Rs. 23,0001 to Rs. 79,0001,

¶81

That the enhanced amount^{shall carry interest} @^{7.5ok per annum from the} date of claim^petition till realization;

¶82

That save as aforesaid, the decree of the^{LowerC)ourtshallstands} confirmed in all other respects;^and

¶83

That there be no order as to costsⁱⁿ this appeal

¶84

Sd/-K. VENKAIAH ASSISI'ANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

'1 . The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum I Additional District Judge Nalgonda at tvliryalguda.

¶90

fwo CD Copies

¶91

¶92

{

¶93

HIGH COURT DAIED:021'1112023

¶94

DECREE MACMA.No.546 of 2O07

¶95

MACMA IS PARTLY ALLOWED rtr4-,. "W*

Revelli Somaiah v. Annapuri Narsimha and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Revelli Somaiah v. Annapuri Narsimha and 2 Ors.

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

Dhanisetti Anjaneyulu Vs State of Telangana

Duddu Venkaiah and Another Vs K.Vinod Kumar and 2 Others

Smt. Gadda Badhramma Vs Bommidi Balaiah

M/s. Sri Sai Granites, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

M/s Mohan Steels (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited

M. Niranjan, S/o Sadanandam, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh