Partly allowed

Shaik Altaf v. Sri Syed Mahmood Hussain and Another

Telangana HC7 Aug 2024MACMA/1261/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court sanctioned an appeal against the quantum of motor accident compensation. The Court enhanced the awarded disability amount by revising the claimant's income and applying a multiplier for future prospects, increasing the total family compensation significantly.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.4,35,000/- to Rs.7,53,760/- with interest at 7.5% per annum.

Shaik Altaf Vs Sri Syed Mahmood Hussain and Another — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

132s1 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1261 OF 2009

¶7

Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,1988 against the Order and decree in O.P.No.1485 of 2004 dated.3l -0'1-2009 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Vlll Additional District Judge at Nizamabad.

¶8

Eetween:

¶9

Shaik Altaf, S/o Ameer Sab, Occ: Business in Cattle, Goats, Sheeps etc. Ryo Binola Village, Navipet Mandal, Nizamabad Diskict.

¶10

...Appellant

¶11

AND

¶12

1 Sri Syed Mahmood Hussain S/o Syed Ahmed Hussain, maior Owner of Auto No. AP 25 U 982 Rl/o H.No.1 1-1-8/287l'1, Chandrashekar Colony, Nizamabad.

¶13

United lndia lnsurance Company Limited, through its Divisional lr,4anager, Godown Road, Nizamabad.

¶14

...Respondents

¶15

Counsel for the Appellant : Sri Lakkadi Dayakar Reddy

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Sri E Sambasiva Pratap

¶17

The Court delivered the following: Judgment

¶18

-///

¶19

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶20

M.A.C.M.A No.1261 OF 2009

¶21

JUDMENT:

¶22

l. This appeal is hled by the appellant questioning the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal on account of the injuries received in the motor vehicle accident occurred on t9.o4.2003.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant and the learned counsel for respondent No.2-lnsurance Company.

¶24

The manner in which the accident had taken place and the liability are in dispute

¶25

On 19.O4.2OO3, u,hilc the claimant was going on his birycle with one Shaik Ahmed Hussain and when they reached Binola Village, the offending vehicle which is an Auto came in a rash and negligent manner with high spced and dashed the bicycle from behind, resulting in multipte grievous injuries to the claimant/ appella nt.

¶26

Learned counse I appearing for the claimant submits that the Tribunal has erreci in considering the income of the claimant at Rs.2,5O0/-p.m. rhough ir rvas claimed that the claimant was earning around Rs. l5,0OO/-p.m. b1, doing business in cattle, goats

¶27

¶28

I I t, i I i I

¶29

and sheep. He further submits that the Tribunal has not considered granting of 4O%o future prospects, as per the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in No;tional Insurance Co. Ltd.. Vs. Pro.nag Sethil.

¶30

Except stating in Ex.A-9/charge sheet tiat the appellant was doing mutton business in Binola village, no proof of income was filed, this Court is inclined to fix the income of the deceased at Rs.3,OO0/- per month notionaily.

¶31

7 . Accordingly, taking the income of the appellant at Rs.3,OOO/ p.m., the annual income comes to Rs.36,OOO/-p.a. Further, in view of the judgment of the Hon,ble Supreme Court in Na,tiona.l Insurq.nce Co. Ltd., Vs. Pranag Sethi2,4o% has to be considered towards future prospects which comes to Rs.5O,40O/ _ (36,000+ 14,4OO). In view of the judgment of the Hon,ble Supremt: Court in Slrnt.Sarla Vartna Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation3, the appropriate multiplier would be^,18,. When applied^.18, multiplicr, the amount comes to Rs.9,OZ ,2OO / -(50,4O0x 181. Taking into consideration, 8O7o disability, the amount is arrived ar come s ro Rs.7 ,25,760 / -.

¶32

'^{2ot7(6) ALD 170 (sc)}

¶33

'^{2ott(6)ALD 170 (sc)}

¶34

'^{2009(6) scc 121}

¶35

¶36

Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to enhance^the

¶37

compensation as follows.

¶38

Sl.No.	NameofHead	Awardedby Tribunal	Awardedby thisCourt
o1.	Disability	Rs.4,O8,0OO/- llnconlcCr)^Rs.2,5OO/ rnd disabihtyatB0o/o)	Rs.7,25,760/- {lncome@ Rs.3,00o,disabitityat 80Ploincluding future prospects)
o2	Medical expenditure	Rs.l0,OOO/-	Rs.1O,000/-
03	Painandsuffenng	Rs.10,000/-	Rs.10,000/-
o4	Extra nourishment	Rs.2,OOO/-	Rs.2,O0O/-
05.	Loss ofearnings	Rs.5,O0O/	Rs.6,000/-
TOT	AL	Rs.4,35,OOO/-	Rs.7,53,760l-

¶39

In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.4,35,OOO/- to Rs.7,53,760/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @) 7 .5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Except the above enhancement, the award of the Tribunal shall rcmain same on all other aspects.

¶40

_^{Ylscellaneous applications,if an1, pending,shall standclosed.}

¶41

Ass*sfl.ftvR?3'3+i R //TRUE COPY// S TION OFFICER

¶42

To,

¶43

Th!^{Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Vlll Additional District Judgeat} Ni;lamabad(With records)

¶44

Orre CC to Srilakkadi Dayakar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]

¶45

Orlre CC lo Sri E Sambasrva Pratap, Advocate [OPUC]

¶46

Tw'o^{CD Copies}

ADl(/gh

HIGH OURT

DATE 0710812024

JUDGMENT+DECREE I MACMA.N0.1261of 2009

¶52

slATE I A
$t
tx scj,
*
lor)
,k
I D t- s F

¶53

PARTLY ALLOWING THE MAMCA

¶54

6)({ e *,ff

¶55

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

¶56

WEDNESDAY, THE^{SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY FOUR}

¶57

PRESENT

¶58

THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICEK.SURENDER}

¶59

MOTOR ACCIDENT^{CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1261 OF 2009}

¶60

Between:

¶61

ShaikAltaf,S/oAmeerSab,Occ:BusinessinCattle,Goats,SheepsetcRl/o tJr a Village, Navipet^{Mandal, Nizamabad District.}

¶62

...Appellant

¶63

AND

¶64

Sri Syed Mahmood^{Hussain S/o SyedAhmed Hussain, major Ownerof Auto} ruo. Ap zs U 982^{Ryo H.No.'l 1-1-8/28711,Chandrashekar Colony, Nizamabad}

¶65

United lndia^{lnsurance Company Limited, through its Divisional Manager'} Godown Road, Nizamabad.

¶66

...Respondents

¶67

AppealfiledUnderSection.lT3ofMotorVehiclesAct,l9SSagainsttheorder and decree in o.P.No.1485^{0f 2004dated.31-01-2009 0n the file of the court of the} t,4otor Accident claims^{Tribunal-cum-Vlll Additional District Judgeat Nizamabad.}

¶68

This appeal coming on for^{hearingand 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^{argumentsof Sri Lakkadi Dayakar Reddy, Advocate for the} Appellant and of Sri E Sambasiva^{Pratap, Advocate for lhe Respondent No 2 and} none app'eared for the^{respondentNo.1 .}

¶69

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

¶70

That the lvlotor Accident Civil Miscellaneous^{Appeal be and herebyis partly} allrlwed enhancing the compensation awarded by the^{Tribunal from} RS .4,35,0001 to Rs.7, 53,7601;

¶71