Partly allowed

Mohd. Yousufuddin , Y.R. Babu v. P.v.K.Shashthry and 2 Others

Telangana HC14 Sept 2023MACMA/637/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed this motor accident appeal partly, setting aside the Tribunal's findings that the accident was unproven due to FIR delay. The Court awarded Rs. 1,15,000 for transportation, nutrition, temporary loss of earnings, pain and suffering, and loss of amenities, with interest at 7.5% p.a.

What did the court decide?

Award of Rs. 1,15,000 towards compensation including transportation, nutrition, temporary loss of earnings, pain and suffering, and loss of amenities, with interest at 7.5% p.a.

Mohd. Yousufuddin , Y.R. Babu Vs P.v.K.Shashthry and 2 Others — Insurance | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²¹⁶¹

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN

¶6

M.AC.M.A. NO: 637 OF 2008

¶7

Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in O.P.No.768 of 2004 dated 21.11.2OO5 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-lV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judgecum-XVlll Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Mohd. Yousufuddin @ Y.R. Babu, S/o. Late Saheb Ali, Assistant Commissioner of Labour [Retd] No 6-3-12471419/1, Raj nagar , Opp Raj Bhavan Road, Somajiguda, Itq^{&c.zabrd -} 5ooo$-

¶10

...APPELLANT/PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

P.V.K.Shashthry, S/o P.Srishaila Shashtry Junior Assistant Oio Assistant Commisioner of Labour, Khammam.

¶13

2- B. Narasimha Rao, S/o. Subba Rao Assistant Labour Officer, O/o. Assistant Commisioner of Labour, Khammam.

¶14

The Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz General lnsurance Company^Limited,No. 25126, College Road, Prince Towers, Nungam Bakam, Chennai.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT

¶16

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI SYED LATEEF

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI A RAMAKRISHNA^REDDY

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.l & 2:^NONEAPPEARED

¶19

The Court delivered the following: JUOGMENT

¶20

''7

¶21

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. LAXMAN MOTOR ACcIDENT cryIL IUIscEL US AP No.6 37 OF 2o08

¶22

JUDGMENT:

¶23

1' The present Motor Accident civil Misceraneous Appear is fired challenging the award and decree dated 21. r r.2005 in o.p.No.768 of 2OO4 on the file of the IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge_ cum-XVIII Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad, (hereinafter referred to as^.Tribunal J, wherein and whereby the petition filed by the appellant herein seeking compensation for injuries sustainecr by him in accident was dismissed.

¶24

The grievance of the appellant-injured is that the Tribunal was wrong in holding that the accident with crime vehicle is not proved merely because there is delay in rodging First Information Report (FIR)' The Tribunal without considering the attending circumstances to the accident and without determining the compensation has dismissed the pefition of the appellant_injured. Hence, the present appeal.

¶25

Learned counsel for respondent N o o'3-insurance companv opposed the contenti." ^, ,::"^:-::' r. o, the appellaat_injured stating that the incident occurred or and camplqint was rodged on os.o6.200sand there ,:',::-1"' ts rnordinate delay jn lodging report before -Y

¶26

¶27

police, as such there is chance for concocting the incident. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly considerecl such evidence and rendered finciings, u,hich requi.e no interference. He also contended that the Tribunal has also considered the impact of such injuries on earning disabiliry of the appellant-inj ured and rightly found that no ross was suffered b_y hinr. Such findings also require no interference by this Court

¶28

Heard bot,h sides.

¶29

The FIR and the evidence of^p.W.1 clearly demonstrate that the accident occurred when the appellant-injured was traveling as pillion rider on the two wheeler driven by respondent No.1. The accide't occurred on account of sudden application of brakes while the vehicle was in speed. The appellant-injured is the best witness to state about the accident. Irr fact, the appellant-injured was pillion rider and he is rightful person to say how the accident occurred. The evidence on record also shows that the appellant-injured was working in Khammam and his family was i:esiding in Hyderabad. Immediately after accident, he was shifted to hospital in Khammam. The driver of the vehicle i.e., respondent No.1 was subordinate of the appellant-injured and there must have been certain restraint circumstances to take up criminal proceedings against his l-

¶30

¶31

-:-7

¶32

subordinate, who was trying to drop the appellant-injured at the place of his request on the date of accident. There is gap of three months from the date of accident and the date on which the appellant-injured rejoined in duty. The appellant-injured lodged complaint immediately after joining duty.

¶33

There is no evidence that any other vehicle was involved in the accident. The only vehicte involved in the accident was two wheeler. If there was another vehicle involved which has no policy there can be some reason to suspect the claim set up by the insurance company. Such is not the case of respondent No.3-insurance company. Therefore, the Tribunal should have considered the above circumstances in considering the evidence with regard to accident. The vehicle which is referred in the FIR and charge sheet is the vehicle which is involved in the accident. The accident is result of rash and negligence on account of sudden application of brakes. Therefore, the findings of the Tribunal in this regard are hereby set aside and consequently, it is held that the accident is result of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.l.

¶34

7 . The evidence on record shows that the appeltant_injured suffered Grade-lV IT fracture to right hip and operated for orif rvith DHS and 8 holes barrer plate were fixed. The said operation was ./

¶35

¶36

done in Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad, on 24.o3.2O03. On the date of accident, the appellant-ir,jured was 56 years old. He was admitted in Apollo Hospital from 20.03.2003 to 30.03.2003. Prior to that, immediately after accident, he was adnritted in hospital at Khammam. Subsequently, he was shifte<l to Apollo Hospital at Hyderabad. For shifting from Khammam to l{yderabad, he^must have incurred some expenditure. Therefore, this Court^{is inclinedto} grant arr amount of Rs.5,000/- towards trartsportation charges.

¶37

The appellant-injured was in olte or^{otherhospitalfor nearly 13} days. He must have incurred some expenditure^forextra nourishment and diet, hence, this Court is^{inclined to grantan} amount of Rs. 10,000/^- under the^{said head.}

¶38

g. It is clear trorn the findings of the^{Tribunal that the medical} expenditure incurred by the appellant-injurcd^{was reimbursed.} Therefore, this Court is not inclined^{to grant any amount under the} head medical expenditure.

¶39

lO. The Tribunal has not considered^{that the appellant-injuredwas} absent for his duties f<rr nearly^{2 % months. It is not disputedthat} he was earning an amount of^{Rs.16,879/- per month by workingas} Assistant Commissioner of Labour.^{The appellant-injured was 56} years and he had long service.^{BY-keepingin view, the rank and}

i {

I l

)

position of the appellant- injured, the amount claimed for temporary loss of earnings for 2/z months is just and proper. Hence, this court is inclined to gralt an amount of Rs.4O,O00/- towards temporary loss of earnings.

¶45

It appears there is no requirement of future medical expenses. Accordingly, no amounts are granted under the said head. However, the appellant-injured underwent surgery and implants were there. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant an amount of Rs.3O,00O/_ towards pain and suffering and another amount of Rs.3O,OOO/_ towards loss of amenities for the rest of the life.

¶46

The total arnount of compensation granted to the injured_ appellant by this Court comes to Rs. I , I 5,OOO/ _ [traasportation charges : 5,000/- + extra nourishment : Rs. 1O,O0O/_ + temporary loss of earnings : Rs.40,OOO/- + pain and suffering : Rs.3O,OO0/_ + loss of future amenities : Rs.30,000/-1.

¶47

In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed by granting an arnount of Rs. 1,15,OOO/_ towards compensation to the appellant-injured. The amount of compensation shall carry interest at 2.5^o/o per annum from the date of filing of the o'P till the date of rearization. Respondents are directed to deposit the said amount to the credit of o.p. along with accrued interest

within a period of two rnonths from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdrarv the entire amount. The appellant is directed to pay deficit Court fee, if any, on amount of compensation granted over and above the claimed amount. Thcre shzrll be no order as to costs.

¶53

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shzrll stand closed.

¶54

SD/.P.CH.NAGABHUSHAMBA ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

//TRUE^COPY//

A----

SECTI6N^OFFICER

To, 1. The^{Chairman, Motqr Accident Claims Tribunal-cu-m-lv Additional} ' il;ir;iliilS;.sions Judse-cum-XVlll Additional chief^Judse'

¶59

Hvderabad(with^records)

¶60

,. d; cc^{i;'srisyed Lateef, Advocate[oPUCl} :. il &^{io sii nl nr,, KrishnaReddv' Advocate[oPUCl}

¶61

Two^{CD CoPies}

ASRZPIP

; i

HIGH COURT

DATED:1410912023

JUDGMENT

MACMA.No.637 of 2008

1tr L S]'ATE
o
t) t 5 trsB ?1'li

¶70

PARTLY ALLOWING M.A.C.M.A. WITHOUT COSTS.

¶71

e^@ff{'L Vrau{

¶72

7 .i1

¶73

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

¶74

THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH^{DAY OF SEPTEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND^TWENTYTFIREE

¶75

PRESENT

¶76

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN

¶77

M.AC.M.A. NO: 637 OF m08

¶78

Between:

¶79

Mohd. Yousufuddin @ Y.R. Babu, S/o.^{Late Saheb Ali, AssistantComrnissionerof} Labour [Retd] No 6-3-12471419/1,^Rai nagar ,^{Opp Raj Bhavan Road, Somajiguda,}

¶80

...APPELLANT/PETITIONER

¶81

AND

¶82

1 . P.V.K-shashthry, S/o P.Srishaila Shashtry^{Junior Assistant O/o Assistant} Commisioner of Labour,^Khammam.

¶83

B. Narasimha Rao, S/o.^{Subba Rao Assistant LabourOfficer, O/o Assistant} Commisioner of Labour, Khammam.

¶84

The Branch Manager, Bajaj^{Allianz General lnsurance Company Limited, No} 25126, College Road, Prince Towers,^{Nungam Bakam, Chennai.}

¶85

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT

¶86

Appeal under Section 173 of Motor^{Vehicles Act againstthe order and decree} in O.P.No.768 of 2OO4 dated^{21.'11.2005 on the file of the Courtof the Chairman,} Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-lv^{Additional Melropolitan Sessions Judge-} cum-Xvlll Additional Chief^{Judge, Hyderabad.}

¶87

ORDER: This appeal coming on for^{hearing and upon perusing the grounds of} appeal, the Judgment and^Decree of the^{Lower Court andthe material paper in the} case and upon hearing the^{argumentsof Sri Syed'Lateef, Advocatefor the Appellant} and of Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate^{for Respondent No.3and for th€} Respondents 1 & 2 not appeared^{eitherin personor by Advocate.}

¶88

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

¶89

That the M.A.C.M.A. No. 637 of 2008^{be and herby is partly allowedby} granting an amount of Rs. 1,15,000i- towards compensation to^{the appellant-} injured;

¶90

That the amount of compensation shall carry interest at 7.Sok per annum from the date of filing of the O.P. till the date of realization;

¶91

That the respondents be and hereby are direcled to deposit the said amount to the credit of O.P. along with accrued interest within a period of two months

¶92

from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment;

¶93

That on such deposit, the appellant be and hereby is permifted to withdraw the entire amount;

¶94

That the appellant be and hereby is directed to pay deficit Court fee, if any, on amount of compensation granted over and above the claimed amount;

¶95

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

¶96

SD/.P.CH.NAGABHUSHAM BA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-lV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-XVlll Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad

¶101

Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:14109nO23

DECREE

MACMA.No.637 of 2008

PARTLY ALLOWING M.A.C.M.A. WITHOUT COSTS.

¶108

\4td", w__ {fz'l

Mohd. Yousufuddin , Y.R. Babu v. P.v.K.Shashthry and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Yousufuddin , Y.R. Babu v. P.v.K.Shashthry and 2 Others

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

Mr. Ramesh Kumar Bung and 2 others Vs The State of Telangana and another

Mr. Ramesh Kumar Bung Vs The State of Telangana

Kothuri Gundaiah, Adilabad Vs Kothuri Vijaya Kumar and 11 Others

V. Shankaramma, Vs B. Ramulu

Varsha Upadyaya and 4 Ors. Vs Mr.Prabhulal Gujjar and 5 Ors.

Andhra pradesh Industrial Infrastucture co., Ltd., Vs a.K.Sagar (died)