Partly allowed

S a. Kalpana v. P. Venkata Narayana and Another

Telangana HC14 Aug 2023MACMA/862/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed part of an appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal from Rs. 1,75,835 to Rs. 4,15,835 by granting an additional sum for future medical expenses, interest calculation, and specific head of grievous injuries.

What did the court decide?

The compensation was enhanced to Rs. 4,15,835/- including Rs. 1,00,000/- for future medical expenses and interest at 7.5% p.a.

S a. Kalpana Vs P. Venkata Narayana and Another — Medical Negligence | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

tMONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF^AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY THREE}

¶3

:PRESENT:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{NAMAVARAPURAJESHWARRAO}

¶5

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCEL^{LANEOUS APPEALNO: 862OF 2012}

¶6

Appeal filed Under section^{173 of MotorVehicles Act against the order and} decree in M.V.O.P.No.^{17770f 2009 dated 31-10-2011 0n the file of thecourtof the} Motor Vehrcle Accidents CIaims^{Tribunal-cum-lll AdditionalChiefjudge, City Civil} Court, Hyderabad.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Miss.Kalpana, D/o A.Raja^{Reddy, Occ- Student, R/o H no 9-15a12-3' Opp} M.M'CourtGajwel,MedakDistrict'TemporarilyR/o,H.No.17-1-23Bl1l2lA' Malakpet,

¶9

...AppellanUPetitioner

¶10

AND

¶11

P. Venkata Narayana, S/o.^{Chinnaiah, Occ- Business, R/o. H.No 8-5-74, Old} Bowenpally, Ranga ReddY^Dlstrict

¶12

lClCl Lombard General^{lnsurance Company Limited, Represented by its} Divrsional Manager O/o.^{6-3 362/1} ,^{lllFloor, Osman Plaza, RoadNol} '^Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

¶13

... Respondents/ResPondents

¶14

Counsel forthe Appellant:^{SRl.JAGATPALREDDY'Advocate}

¶15

Counsel for the Rebpondent^{No.2: SRI. K. AJAY KUMAR}

¶16

The Court delivered the^{following:JUDGMENT}

¶17

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.862 OF 2OL2

¶18

JUDGMENT:

¶19

This appeal is filed by the appellant/petitioner under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, aggrieved by the Award and decree dated 31.10.2011 passed in M.V.O.P.No.l777 of 2OO9 on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribuna-1-cum-lll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short "the Tribunal")

¶20

2 For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

¶21

The petitioner filed a claim petition under Sections 166 and 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- on the account of injuries sustained by her in a motor vehicle accident.

¶22

3(1) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner ./as aged about 21 years and did M.B.A. and was expecting earnings of Rs.50,OO0/- per month within a short period by the date of the accident. On 28.04.2009 at about 5.00 p.m. while the petitioner along with others was travclling in an auto bearing No.Ap-23U-7425 lrom Bachupally to Gartdimaisamma and when the auto reached near Anantha Reddy estate, DRK college, Bachupally, a DCM Van bearing No.AP-3 1W-9690 cam*e in the opposite direction driven by its driver

¶23

l{'i..r ivl.( vl^ N0 li6l01 201)

¶24

rvithout noticing the auto, hit the cLuto in the opposite direction, as a, result, the petitioner and other pzrssengers in the auto sustained grievous injuries. She further stated tl-r at she had to discontinue her studies and her marri age prospects were also badly affected due to the facial injuries sustained by her a-nd that she sustained permanent disability. The Police of Dundigal registered a case in Cr.No.130^of 2009 under Section 337 IPC against the driver of the above DCM^Van. As such, the petitioner filed the claim^pet-ition.

¶25

Before the Tribunal, respondent No. 1 remained ex^parte, and respondent No.2 filed counter filed a counter denying all^the allegations made in the petition. They ntainly coutended that^thc accident was due to the contributory negligence of both the 'rehiclcs and the petition was bad for non-joinder of^{necessa-ryparties i.e.} owner, driver and insurer of the said Auto bearing^{No.AP-23U-7425.} Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the claim^petition.

¶26

To prove her case, the petitioner^got examined^{PWs.1 to 3 and} marked Ex.Al to A12. On behalf of respondent No.2,^RW. I^was examined and got markecl Ex.Bi to [J4.

¶27

On appreciation of the evidencc on record, the^Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.I ,75,835/- to the^{petitionerunder}

¶28

J RRN.J MACMA No 862 of20l2

¶29

various heads. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the present appeal is filed by the petitioner.

¶30

Heard both sides. Perused the record.

¶31

Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner had contended that the Tribunal ought to have considered the evidence of PW.2lDr. Rajesh, Neuro Surgeon of Yashoda Hospital, who categorically deposed that the petitioner sustained Poly Trauma, which include head injury, right frontal compound fracture with right frontal extra dural hemorrhage, fracture right maxilla, right zygoma, right orbit wall fracture, fracture medium I l2/3 meta carpel frasmal N, laceration over the right forehead, right black eye, right upper ling left ear bleeding apart from other injuries and the petitioner was also referred to Opthomoligist, who opined that the patient was unlikely to develop any problem in future, but she had undergone severe head injury and maSsive injury and she might develop eclipse (l-rts) due to serious head injury and frontal compound fracture with extra dural haemorrhage, but the Tribunal failed to notice that the petitioner requires future operation and for that, she needs a sum of Rs.3,oo,00O/-.

¶32

8(1) Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner had further contended that the Tribunal failed to notice the fact that the

¶33

w l RR ..I \1,\t \11 \o ll(l ol l)12

¶34

petitioner lost her vision and a very n-leagre amount^{of Rs.75,000/-} r.l,as au,arderl under the Lreacl pain and^{sufferings.Accordingly,} prayed tc allorv the appeal.

¶35

g . Per contra, learned Counsel appc'aring^{on behalf ofthe} responclent submitted that there is^{r-ro irregularityinthe Arvard} passed by the Tribunai and^prayed to^{dismiss the appcal.}

¶36

Thcre is no dispute with^{regardto theacciCentand} involvement of both vehicles.^{While answering issue No.l:Wh.ether} the petitioner sustained injuies^{in the accident on 28.04-2009 due to} the rash and negligent diuing oJ'the^{drit'er of the DCM Vanbearing} No.AP-31W-g6gO?, the Tribunal^{elaborately discussedthe issue ald} came to the conclusion that^{in view of Ex.Al-FIR, Ex.A2-chargesheet} anrt Ex.A3-injury certificate^{coupled wrth the evidenceof PW 1, it is} proved that the accident was on^{accountof rash and negligentdriving} of the DCM Van bearing^{No.AP-31W-9690by its driver. As such, the} Iinding of the Tribunal that^{the respondents are liable topay} compensation to the^{petitionerhas attainedfinality.}

¶37

1 I . The learned counsel for the^{petitioner submittedthat the} Tribunal failed to award^{any amountunder the head disability though} there is ample^{evidence on record with regardto disability' The} Tribunal while rejecting^{the compensation under the disability}

¶38

¶39

RRN.] MACMA No 862 ol20l2

¶40

¶41

observed that though the petitioner stated that she sustained loss of vision in her right eye and she was feeling giddiness and head-ache due to temporal fracture and that she sustained 10oo/o disability Though the petitioner stated that she had lost vision of the right eye, she had not exarnined anv Ophthalmologist nor liled any documentaqr evidence in support of her contention. As such, the Tribunal rightly granted no amount under the head disability

¶42

A perusal of the impugned order goes to show that the petitioner sustained in all seven grievous injuries according to the evidence of PW.2. This Court is awarding Rs.20,000/- to each grievous injury. Flence, the petitioner is awarded Rs.1,4O,OOO/under the head grievous injuries. The Tribunal rightly awarded a sum of Rs.95,835/- towards medical expenses and also rightly awarded Rs.7S,OOO/- under the head of pain and suffering as she had to suffer a lot for the above mentioned injuries and also rightly awarded a sum of Rs.S,OOO/- under the head of' extra nourishment. Hence, needs no intcrference.

¶43

PW.2 clearly deposed that the petitioner. was unlikely to develop any problems in future, but as she had undergone severe head injury artd facial injuries, she needs to attend the Hospital for follow up treatment and she night develop fits rJr-re to the serious

¶44

-t ',-

¶45

¶46

RRN.J 'lA( l\44 No 861ol l0t2

¶47

head injury a,,d fronta-l compound fracture rvith extradurar haemorrhage and that she required long time medication such as anti-epileptic drugs and might require an amount of Rs.3,OO,O0 O/_ for her future rnedica] investigations amd expenses. considering the evidence of PW.2, this Court is inclined to award an amount of Rs. l,OO,OOO/- towards future medical expenses.

¶48

In all, the petitioner is awarded Rs.4,lS,g3S/_ (ns. l,4O,OOO I - + 95,835/-+ 75,OOO/- + 5,000/- + Rs.1,0C,0OO/-) The Tribunal granted intcrest on the compensation amount at 6ok p.a. basing on the rate of interest preva ing at that time. However, this court is inclined to grant interest @7.s% p.a. on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶49

Head	Amount arrived atby the Tribunal	Amount arrived atby thisCourt
grlevous Forseven
injuries.	Nil	Rs.1,4O,OOO/-
Medicalexpenses	Rs.95,835/-	Rs.95,835/-
Extra nourishment	Rs.5,O00/-	Rs.5,OOO/.
Painartdsuffering	Rs.75,O0O/-	Rs..75,OOO/-
Futuremedical enses	NiI	Rs.l,OO,OOO/-
Totat	Rs.1,75 835	Rs.4 1s,E35/-

¶50

Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed in part by enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs. I ,75,g35/ _ to Rs.4,15,835/- (Rupees Four lakh, fifteen thousand, eight hundred and thirty five only) with interest ar z.Sok p.a. on the enhancecl

¶51

7 RRN.J MACMA No 862 of20l2

¶52

arnount from the date of petition till 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. On such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the same. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶53

As a sequel of which, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending sha-ll stand closed.

¶54

Sd/- T. JAYASRE E ASSIsrANr^{-rKF^} R

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Motor Vehicle Accidents claims^{Tribunal-cum-lll Additionalchief judge,} City Civil Court, Hyderabad.^{(with records)}

¶59

OnE CC tO SRI. JAGATHPAL^{REDDY KASI REDDY, AdVOCAIE} IOPUC]

¶60

One CC to SRl. K AJAY^{KUMAR,Advocate} [OPUC]

¶61

Two CD Copies

PSR

HIGH COURT

RRN,J

DATED:1410812023

JUDGMENT

STAT€ oA
v
e
a
.l!
o 1B JAN 2$2[
o nt
*
I5S P p5 c'

¶68

MACMA.No.862 of 2012

¶69

PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA

¶70

t-.
Ooqt't
t",L<br>6vv

¶71

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶72

MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶73

:PRESENT:

¶74

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO 8620F 2012

¶75

Between:

¶76

Miss.Kalpana, D/o. A.Raja Reddy, Occ- Student, Fl/o. H.no.9-15412-3, Opp M.M.Court Gajwel,Medak District. Temporarily Fl/o.H.No.17-1-2381'll2lA, Malakpet,

¶77

...AppellanUPetitioner

¶78

AND

¶79

P. Venkata Narayana, S/o. Chinnaiah, Occ- Business, R/o. H.No.8-5-74, Old Bowenpally, Ranga Reddy District.

¶80

lClCl Lombard General lnsurance Company Limited, Represented by its Divisional Manager Olo. 6-3-36211,lllFloor, Osman Plaza, RoadNo.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

¶81

...Respondents/Respondents

¶82

Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and decree in tt/.V.O.P.No. 1777 of 2009 dated 31-10-2011 on the file of theCourtof the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum:lll Additional Chief^judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶83

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 Case and upon hearing the arguments of SRl. JAGATPAL REDDY, Advocate for the Appellants, and of SRl. K. AJAY KUiVAR, Advocate for the Respondent No.2

¶84

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

¶85

1 Motor Accident civil Miscelaneous appear be and hereby is par,y illj::

¶86

2 That the amount of Co P tation from Rs' 1 ',^{75',835/- to Rs} 4,15,835/-

¶87

(Rupees four lakh fift"un tl hereby is enhanced ; -*^'",lilll :: T Ht;:: liH::,.#,:H:::: amount from the date of petition till the date of realization.;

¶88

3 That the respondents shal with interest and costs^{j-ti':il.1"ff:t::J;"1'".,amount together} deposited, if any, within a perioa of two months ,r", ;^i:"r,:T;::"il:"1 copy of this Judgment;

¶89

That on such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the same;

¶90

5' That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Lower court sha, stands confirmed in all other respects and .

¶91

That there shall be no ot 'der as to costs in this appeal

//TRUE COPY//

^.,,,fftJ*'fiti[^.F

To,

SECTION OFFICER

1 Iif 3ii%y;Xl",l?ff :fl:lliflfl ?"..lif;"",-.,m-* Additionar chier judse,

¶97

2 Two CD Copies

PSR

HIGH COURT

DATED:1410812023

DECREE

MACMA.No.862 of 2012

PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA

¶104

L,
Ogio'l
o
^ a 1-/
t-^"'

S a. Kalpana v. P. Venkata Narayana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S a. Kalpana v. P. Venkata Narayana 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

A.Chandramma Vs The State of Telangana

M. Sekhar Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Dev Narayan and Another, Vs M/S. Rajneesh Transport Pvt. Ltd., and Another

A.v.N.Raju , Vs The State of Telangana

The Ap State Road Transport Corporation Vs Smt.Ayesha Begum and 5 Ors.

P. Naveen Kumar Vs The State of Telangana rep by its Principal Secretary