Partly allowed

Regulla Bhumanna v. Mohd Ayub Khan

Telangana HC6 Sept 2024MACMA/1587/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana, in an appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, enhanced the compensation awarded to a motor accident victim. The court found the original award meagre and increased it from Rs. 54,500 to Rs. 1,25,000.

What did the court decide?

Enhancement of compensation from Rs. 54,500 to Rs. 1,25,000 with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition.

Regulla Bhumanna Vs Mohd Ayub Khan — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

[^32s1 ]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

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

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶7

MOTOR AcCIDENT CIVIL M ISCELLANEO US APPEAL NO:158 7 0F 2009

¶8

Appeal filed Under section 173 of Motor Vehicres Act,19g8 against the order and decree in o.P.No.'1976 ot 2002 dated.02-03-2007 on the fite of ihe court of the Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum- Vlll Additional District Judge at Nizamabad.

¶9

Between:

¶10

lggutta^{Bhumanna,S/o.Nad.ipBhumanna, occ: pMp} Doctor and Agricurture Rl/o.Adloor Village, Armoor Mandal, ltizamiOiO Oistiict.

¶11

... ClaimanUAppellant

¶12

AND

¶13

Mohd Ayub Khan, S/o.Mohd Osman Khan, Occ: Business cum Owner of Auto Bearing No.Ap 25 T 9733, No.9-20-124t1b, [auiarrio ltigii, Ni.;;;b;;.^""'"

¶14

2 United lndia lnsurance Company Limited, rep by its Divisional Manaoer O/o. Divisional Office, Neear'Mayuri Hotei, OilO<jw" nolO, N;;;;;"d.' '

¶15

...Respondents/Respondents

¶16

Counsel for the Appellant : Sri p Radhive Reddy

¶17

Counsel forthe Respondent No.2 : Sri K S N Murthy

¶18

The Court delivered the following: Judgment

¶19

( {

¶20

¶21

THE HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER}

¶22

M.A.C.M.A No.1587^{OF 2OO9}

¶23

JUDMENT:

¶24

1 This appeal is filed^{by the claimant/appellantquestioning} the compensation^{grantedby the Tribunal as meagre'}

¶25

Heard the learned^{counselfor the appellant-claimant and} the learned counsel^{for respondent No.2-lnsurance Company'}

¶26

The manner in^{which the accidenthad taken place and the} liability is not in dispute.

¶27

On 25.LO.2OO2, while the^{appellantwas travellingin an} Auto from Perkit^{towards Armoor, the Driver of the said Auto drove} the Auto in a rash and^{negligent manner at a high speed, as a} result of which, the Auto^{turnedturtle resulting in the appellant} receiving multiple^{and simple injuries all overthe body.}

¶28

l,earned counsel for the^{appellant submitstJ:atthe Tribunal} having considered the injuries^{received by the appellant and the} expenditure incurred by him^{grantedmeagre compensation of} Rs.54,50O/-only and prayed to enhance^{the same.}

¶29

Since, it is not in disputed that the appellant^received grievous injuries and simple injuries, this Court deems it appropriate to enhance the compensation as follows:-

¶30

¶31

¶32

		Awardedby	Awardedby
Sl.No.	NameofHead I	Tribunal	thisCourt I
01.	Grievousinjury(3)	Rs.45,000/-	Rs.90,OO0/-
02.	Simpleinjuries(3)	Rs.4,5OO/-	Rs.3O,OOO/-
06	MedicalExpenses	Rs.5,0O0/-	Rs.5,Ooo/
TOT	AL	Rs.54,5OO/-	Rs.1,25,OOO/- ]

¶33

7 . In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.54,500/- to Rs. 1,25,000/-. The enhanced amount sha1l 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 remain same on all other aspects. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶34

//TRUE^COPY//

¶35

sd/' P. PADMANABHA EEP?Y ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

SEC N OFFICER

To,

l.TheMotorAccidentClaimsTribunal.cum-VlllAdditionalDistrictJudgeat Nizamabad(With^records)

¶40

z. dn" CCto^{iri P RadhiveReddv' AdvocateIOPUCI}

¶41

;. o;; cc^{io sri K S N Murthv, Advocate [OPUC]}

¶42

Two CD^CoPies

ADKgh

HIGH COURT

DATED:0610912024

ltiE s14 i{:
.J 11 [iC ztfr
,i

¶49

JUDGMENT

¶50

MACMA.No.1587 of 2009

¶51

PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA aX @)c"f' $a--A-.q*

¶52

¶53

(2 DRAFTS)
+
(DECREE)

¶54

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

¶55

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

¶56

PRESENT

¶57

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶58

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIV IL MISCELLANEOU^{S APPEAL NO:1587OF 2009}

¶59

Between:

¶60

Regulla Bhumanna, S/o.Nadip Bhumanna,^{Oc9.fM.P Doctor and Agriculture} Rl/o-.Adloor Village, Armoor Mandal,^{N izamabadDistrict.}

¶61

... ClaimanUAppellant

¶62

AND

¶63

1. Mohd Ayub Khan, S/o.Mohd Osman^{Khan, Occ: Business cum Owner of} Auto Bearihg No.AP 25 T 9733^{R/o.9-20-124116, Mujahid Nagar, Nizamabad.}

¶64

United lndia lnsurance Company^{Limited,repby its Divisional Manager} O/o.Divisional Office, Neear'Mayuri^{Hotel, Godown Road, Nizamabad.}

¶65

...Respondents/ResPondents

¶66

Appeal filed Under Section^{173 of Motor Vehicles Act,'l9BBagainst the Order} and decree in o.P.No.1976 0f^{2OO2 dated.02-03-20070n the file of the courtof the} Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum-^{Vlll Additional District Judge at Nizamabad.}

¶67

This appeal coming on for hearing^{and upon perusingthe grounds of appeal'} the Judgment and Decree of^{the Lower courtand the material papers in the case} and upon hearing the arguments^{of Sri P Radhive Reddy, Advocate for the Appellant} and of Sri K S N Murthy, Advocate^{for the Respondent No.2and none appearedfor} the respondent No.1^.

¶68

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

¶69

That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is partly allowed enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.54,5001 to Rs.1,25,0001;

¶70

That the enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization;

¶71

That except the above enhancement, the award of the Tribunal shall remain same on all other aspects;

¶72

Sd/. P. PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPYII

sEc:'t6#{lcER

To,

The Motor Accidenl Claims Tribunal-cum- Vlll Additional District Judge at Nizamabad

¶77

Two CD Copies

ADK /gh

HIGH COURT

DATED:0610912024

DECREE

MACMA.No.1587 of 2009

¶85

PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA

¶86

Ocq.,P

¶87

¶88

tp\9

Regulla Bhumanna v. Mohd Ayub Khan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Regulla Bhumanna v. Mohd Ayub Khan

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

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.

MD Shabheer Vs Apsrtc and Another