Allowed

MD Shabheer v. Apsrtc and Another

Telangana HC6 Sept 2024MACMA/1130/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal by a motor accident claimant seeking enhancement of compensation. The court held the Tribunal erred in rejecting a disability certificate without proof but granted enhanced compensation for specific injuries found in the record.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.1,35,000 to Rs.2,55,000 with interest at 7.5% per annum from date of petition.

MD Shabheer Vs Apsrtc and Another — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³²⁵¹ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶3

FRIDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPIEIMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

MOTOR ACCIDENT C IVIL MISCELLANEOUS APP EAL NO: 1130 OF 2015

¶7

Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V. Act, aggrieved by the decree and judgment dt. 29.10614, passed in 0.p.No. B0 of 2013 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-lX Addl. District Judge Nizamabad at Kamareddy.

¶8

Between:

¶9

MD .SHABHEER, S/o Chote Miya, Aged about 45 years, Occ Hotel Worker, R/o NGOs Colony, Kamareddy, Nizamabad District, ielangana State

¶10

.,.APPELLANT/CLAIMANT

¶11

AND

¶12

APSRTC, Rep by its Depot Manager, Depot No.1, Nizamabad.

¶13

M/s A.P-S.R.T.C.,, Rep by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, RTC X Roads, Hyderabad.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶15

Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. AKKAM ESHWAR

¶16

Counsel for the Respondents: N VASUDEVA REDDY (SC FOR RTC)

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶19

M.A.C.M.A No.l13O OF 2015

¶20

JUDMENT:

¶21

1 . This appeal is^f rled by the^{appellant/claimantseeking} enhancement of^{compensation granted by the Tribunal on the} ground that disability certihcate/ Ex.A-7,^{though hled, the samewas} not considered.

¶22

According to the claimant, on 10.05.2013^{while he wzrs going} on a motor cycle, the^{offending vehicle u'hich an RTCbus drcvein a} rash and ncgliger-r manner and hit the^{two wheeler result-ing the} appellant receiving the^{followinginjuries:-}

¶23

'1. F ractl-l.e of right tibia. 2. Disloc:rtion of upper teeth.

¶24

1. Abrasion at right 4th toe. 4 . Abrasion at right ear tube. 5. Abrasion at medial mallelou. 6. Fractu.e of mandible."

¶25

The manner in rvhich the accident has taken place, liability and injuries are not in dispute.

¶26

Learned cou:-rse1 for the appellant would submit that though certifica[e under Ex.A-7 was filed^regarding disability at 7.J%o, tL-e same was nol consrdered by the Tribunal.

¶27

As seen frorn the record, no reasons are given as to why any of the Doctors rvho signed the cerlificate were examined to pr.ove the

¶28

¶29

said certificate. Though P.W.2 and P.W.3 were examined, they did not speak about any kind of disability of the appellant. When the certificate is filed, the contents of the said certificate cannot be read into without proof. Mere filing of a certihcate will not dispense with its proof. For the said reason, the Tribunal has rightly rejected the disability cert ifica te.

¶30

P.W.2 who is the Orthopedic Surgeon was examined. He stated that he performed surgery on the claimant. Thereafter, the appellant was referred to Dental Surgeon. He was examined as P.W.3 in his evidence. He stated that teeth were totally manowcluse, there was fracture on the right body of mandible with displaced fragment. P.W.2 stated that the appellant incurred Rs.3O,O00/ - to Rs.40,000/ - for surgery and he would incur more Rs. 15,000/ - to Rs.20,000/- for removal of implants. Similarly, P.W.3 stated that the appeilant has incurred approximately an amount of Rs.3O,O0O/- to Rs.40,000/-for treatment.

¶31

7 . However, as seen from the compensation granted, individually, the Tribunal failed to grant compensation towards injuries received. Hence, apart from the compensation of Rs.1,35,0OO/- granted by the Tribunal, this Court is inclined to grant an amount of Rs.60,00O/towards grievous injuries (2), Rs.3O,00O/- towards dislocation of teeth and Rs.30,000/- towards abrasions (3). Thus, the total

¶32

¶33

compensation^{th,:appellant isentitled to isRs'2,1i5'000/-} ( 1,35,000+60,000'^{3O,000+30,000).}

¶34

Accordinglv, the^Appeal is^{allorved enhancingthe} compensation^{au,'arded by the Tribunal from Rs' I ,35,(t0O/-to} Rs.2,55,000/-.^{The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 7 -5o/o} per annum from the^{clate of petition till the date of realization'The} appellant is^{permitted to withdrawthe compensationarr'ount on} payment of dehci-. Court^{fee. trxceptthe above enhancenrent, the} award of the Tribunal^{shall remainsame on all other aspecls'}

¶35

Miscellaneous applications,^{if any pending, shalt stand close'l'}

¶36

sd/. MoHD. rslirAtl ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

,TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Chairman, lVlotor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-lX Addle Diskict Judge, Nizamabad at Kamareddy.

¶43

One CC to SRl. AKKAM ESHWAR Advocate tOpUCl

¶44

One CC to SRI N VASUDEVA REDDY(SC FOR RTC) Advocate [OPUC]

¶45

Two CD Copies

HIGH COITRT

DATED:06/09/2024

JUDGMENT

MACMA.No.1130 of 2015

¶51

tt't-
. t_-,.1<br>.\ \i.
7i (.i' ii
,
:- $8ilo\l2024 r,z
,'.. j
-a
.::,..

¶52

ALLOWING THE APPEAL.

¶53

{N<br>)D

¶54

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶55

FRIDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶56

PRESENT

¶57

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶58

MOTOR ACCID ENT CIVIL MISCEL LANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1130 OF 2015

¶59

Between

¶60

ItP SI4BIEER,^{S/o Chote.Miya,Aged about 45 years,} Occ Hotet Worker, R/o NGOs Colony, Kamareddy, lrlizariabad District, telangjna Siiie

¶61

...APPELLANT/CLAIMANT

¶62

AND

¶63

'l . APSRTC, Rep by its Depot Manager, Depot No.1 , Nizamabad.

¶64

2 Y{.4 P,9 |.T.C.,, Rep by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, RTC X Koads, Hyderabad.

¶65

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶66

Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V. Act, aggrieved by the decree and judgment dt. 29.10614, passed in 0.p,No. B0 of 2013 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-lX Addl. District Judge Nizamabad at Kamareddy.

¶67

DECREE: 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 sri Akkam Eshwar, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri N. Vasudeva Reddy, for the respondent No. 1 & 2

¶68

This court rhis court doth order and Decree as follows : order and Decree as follows:

¶69

That this court while allowing the appeal rhis court doth order and Decree as follows :

¶70

That this court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.'l ,35,0001 to Rs.2,55,000/-.

¶71

That the enhanced amount shall carry interest @^{7 .5% per} annum^{from the} dateof petition till the date of realization.

¶72

That the appeliant is^permitted to withdraw thecompensation amount on payment of deficit Court fee.

¶73

Save as afore said, the^judgment and decree of the tribunal cc,urt is confirmed in all other aspects.

¶74

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶75

sd/- MoHD.;^guaL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR .N

¶76

Copyto:

¶77

!hCr:o^l 6?PX^Cef:_

¶78

The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-lX Addle.District

¶79

Judge, at Kamareddy, Nizamabad District.

¶80

Two CD Copies.

HIGH COURT

DATED:06/09/2024

DECREE

MACMA.No.1130 of 2015

¶86

ALLOWING THE APPEAL.

MD Shabheer v. Apsrtc and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

MD Shabheer v. Apsrtc and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madipally Varalaxmi, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd., and Another

P.Gangamma and 2 Others Vs B.Shekar and Another

Islavath Bulli and 2 Others Vs G. Venkataiah and Another

J Narsimha, R.R.Dist and Others Vs Sombir, Delhi and Others

S.Upendra Radha Krishna Murthy and Another, Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Spl.Pp.

Innampudi Vijayander Vs the State of A.P. and Another