Dismissed

The Roads and Buildings v. Chituveri Arun , Arun Kumar and Anr.

Telangana HC10 Sept 2024MACMA/100/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the vehicle owner against the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal. The Court upheld the Tribunal's award of Rs. 75,000 for future amenities and grievous injury, finding no infirmity, and noted the 8.5% interest rate was within permissible limits.

What did the court decide?

The Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed, upholding the Tribunal's order and decree.

The Roads and Buildings Vs Chituveri Arun… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³²⁵¹ ]

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TENTH^{DAY OF SEPTEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND^TWENTYFOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER}

¶6

MOTOR ACCIDE NT^{CIVIL MISCELLANEOUSAPPEALNO:100 0F 2009}

¶7

Appeal filed^{under Section'173of MotorVehicles Act'' against the order} anddecreeinM.V-o.P.No.szotzooldated2gIOTl200SonthefileoftheCourtof theChairman,MotorVehicleClaimsTribunal.Cum-llAdditionalDistrictJudge, Karimanagar^{at Jagtial-}

¶8

Betvveen:

¶9

The executive^{Engineer' Roadsand Buildings,N H Division-16'AC Guards'} Hyderabad.

¶10

PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS

¶11

AND

¶12

Chituveri Arun, @^{Arun Kumar, S/o Govind Minor, rep} !y^{naturalfather' next} ' f;;;;';;,i b;;;ia" Rlo Yorirtn,gar Villase, Korutla Mandal' Karimnasar District.

¶13

Mohd^{tVloiz,S/o.suleman Driver R/o'Palan Mahila, Backside of Tirumala} Theatre, Nizamabad.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS

¶15

MACMAMP.^{NO:33 0 0F 2009}

¶16

PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin the affidavit^{filed in .rpport of the petitionl the High Courtmay} -b-9^nleased .rrp"nO the operatlon^{of juJgment in OP No'92/2007dated29 'O7 '2008 pending} the above^{C [VlA}

¶17

Counsel for the^{Appellant:GPFOR ARBITRATION}

¶18

Gounsel for the^{RespondentNo'1:Sri HARI BABU MANNE}

¶19

The Court made^{the following: ORDER}

¶20

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶21

M.A.C.M.A.N o.lOO of 2OO9

¶22

JUDGMENT:

¶23

Questioning the grant of compensation vide order dated 29.O7.2OO8 in M.V.O.p.No.92 of 2OO7 passed by the Motor Vehicles Accident claims , Tribunal-cum-Il Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, the appellant/Owner of the vehicle has preferred this appeal.

¶24

2 Heard the learned Standing counsel for the appellant/Owner of the vehicle and the learned counsel for respondents / pe titioners

¶25

The milnner in which the accid.ent had taken place ald the injuries art: not in dispute.

¶26

The glound on which the appeal is filed by the appellant/ownt:r of the vehicle is that the interest at 8.5% to be paid is on thr: higher side and sought for reducing interest component and the other ground raised by the learned counsel is that for future prospects Rs.75,000/_ was granted.

¶27

The case of the claimants is that on 19.0Z.20O6, while the claimants a_nd others were proceeding from yousufnagar to Metpally, mea.time the offending vehicre Mahindra Borero

¶28

¶29

KS, J
MACMA_100_2009

¶30

bearing No.AP^{09 AX 2588 came in rash and negligent manner} with high speed and^{dashed to their motorcycle,due to which} the claimants^{fell downon the road and receivedinjuries'}

¶31

The student was inpatient^{for 15 days and underwent} checkup for^{six days over a period of nearly O6 months' Further'} the claimant^{could not walk and was limping even by the time of} cross examination^{before the Tribunal'Havingconsideredthe} age and disability,^{the Tribunal awardedRs'75,000/-towards} future amenities^{and the compensation for grievousinjury' I do} not find any infrrmity^{with the findingof the learnedTribunalin} granting compensation^{of Rs'7S,OOO/- towards futureamenities} and a-lso for the^{grievousinjury, since the claimant could not} walk properiy^{and was limping even on the date of cross} examination^{before the Tribunal'}

¶32

The Hon'ble^{SupremeCourt held that the Courts are at} liberty to^{grant interest} @^{6% to 12 %o per annum on the basis of} each case.^{The court granting 8'57o to be paid cannotbe found} fault with.

¶33

KS, J MACMA_100_2009

¶34

¶35

Accordirrgly, the appeal frled by the owner of the vehicle

¶36

fails and is dis:rissed

¶37

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, sha1l stand

¶38

closed.

¶39

sd/^P sSBTi$iB#t'tiRRX

//TRUE^COPYII

SECfION^OFFICER

1 The Chairman,^{t\ilotorVehicle AccidentClaimsTribunal-ll AdditionalDistrict} 2 +5r.%4ffi^{At ,ta' I atl' t lg,+lXtl$'ft])n,n n c o u rt f o r th e s tate of reI a n s a n a}

¶45

3#tftltt"lllk'^{tot' MANNE' AdvocatetoPUCl}

¶46

J, 4. Two CD^CoPies

¶47

PR o

.4.

I l l

HIGH COURT DATED: 10t0912024

¶52

JUDGMENT

¶53

MACMA.No.100 of 2009

¶54

, ttf- S rAfc
c ?-
) (
c
L) 2 4 J\il z$fi oz
) .+
./,
*
/')/.S,, . _T C ,t?i"

¶55

DISMISSING THE APPEAL

¶56

,hl
EF

¶57

IN THE HIGH C-OURT^{FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA}

¶58

AT HYDERABAD

¶59

TUESDAY, THE TENTH^{DAYOF SEPTEIVIBER} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENryFOUR}

¶60

PRESENT

¶61

THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICE K.SURENDER}

¶62

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL^MI SCELLANE^{OUS APPEAL NO: 100 OF 2009}

¶63

Between:

¶64

The executive Engineer, Roads and Buildings,^{N. H.Division-16, AC Guards'} Hyderabad.

¶65

PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS

¶66

AND

¶67

'1 . Chituveri Arun, @ Arun Kumar, S/o Govind [t4inor, rep- by natural^{father, next} fiienO and guaid-ian R/o.Yousufnagar^{Village, Korutla lt/landal,Karimnagar} District.

¶68

2- tr/ohd ltrloiz, S/o.suleman^{Driver R/o.Palan Mahila, Backside of Tirumala} Theatre, Nizamabad.

¶69

...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS

¶70

Appeal filed under Section^{173 of lr/otorVehicles Act., against the order} and decree in Ir/t.V.o.P,No^{.92 0l 2OO7 dated 29to7t20080n the file of the court of} the chairman, Motor^{Vehicleclaims Tribunal-cum-ll Additional DistrictJudge'} Karimanagar at Jagtial.

¶71

This appeal coming on^{for hearingand. upon perusing the groundsof appeal'} the Judgment and Decree^{of the court below and the material papers in thecase} and upon hearing the^{argumentsof GP FOR ARBITRATION, Advocate for the} AppellantsandofSriHAR|BABUIVANNE,AdvocatefortheRespondentNo',1.

¶72

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows

¶73

That the l\ilotor Accident Civil [\4iscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is dismissed

¶74

Sd/. P PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \ _ -. ),/ SECTION OFFICER

¶75

¶76

The Chairman, ltrloto r Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-ll Additional District Judge, Karimnagar at Jagtial. Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT DATED: 1OtOgt2O24

¶81

DECREE

¶82

MACMA.No.100 of 2009

¶83

DISMISSING THE APPEAL

The Roads and Buildings v. Chituveri Arun , Arun Kumar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Roads and Buildings v. Chituveri Arun , Arun Kumar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bachalakura Andhra Babu Vs Bajjuri Ram Reddy

Ajmeera Chinna Suraiah Vs P. Nooka Raju and 2 Ors.

Munigala Bhaskar, Warangal District Vs State of a.P.,Rep.by P.P.,High Court, Hyderabad

Lingam Olla. Lingaiah Vs the State of A.P.

Smt. Sahitya Kulkarni Vs Keerthi Kumar Pamrag

Talari Srinivas, Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.