Allowed

Abdul Sattar , Bablu v. the Managing Director and Another

Telangana HC2 Aug 2024MACMA/2238/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court enhanced the compensation for motor accident injuries from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 3,67,160, fixing disability at 20% despite the treating doctor's testimony, applying standard multipliers and future prospects.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 3,67,160 with interest at 7.5% p.a. from date of petition to realization.

Abdul Sattar , Bablu Vs the Managing Director and… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³²⁵¹ ]

¶2

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

¶3

FRIDAY. THE SECOND^{DAY OF AUGUST} IWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTYFOUR}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

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

¶6

M.A.C.M.A.No:2 238 of²⁰¹²

¶7

Appeal filed under^{Section173 of M.V. Act , against the Judgmentand} Decree dated^{12-07-2010 passed in o.P.No.1227 of 2008 on the file of the court of} theVAdditionaltvletropolitanSessionsJudge'MahilaCourt,atHyderabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Abdulsattar@Bablu,S/o.Babutr4iya,Age:28years,Occ:LorryDriver'No122-389, Ali NagZr,^{Kulsumpura,Hyderabad.}

¶10

...APPellant

¶11

AND

¶12

l.TheManagingDirector,APSRTC,AdministrativeBuilding,BusBhavan'RTC Cross Road, HYderabad.

¶13

The Depot^{Manager, APSRTC, Mehdipatnam Depot, Mehdipatnam'} Hyderabad-

¶14

...Respondents

¶15

IA NO: 1 0F 2023

¶16

Petition under Section^{151 cPCprayingthat in the circumstances stated in} the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition, the High Court maybe pleasedto} permit the petitioners to enhance^{the original claim oP No.1227of 2008 fromRs.} ),oo,oool- to Rs 6,26,560^{by permittingthe petitioneramendthe sectionfrom163} (A) to Sec^'166 of tr/V Act.

¶17

Counsel for the^{Appellant:Mr. U.P. RAO}

¶18

counsel forthe Respondents:^{SRIC. SUNILKUMAR REDDY(SCFORAPSRTC)} The Court delivered^{the following:JUDGMENT}

¶19

¶20

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^K.SURENDER

¶21

M.A, C.M.A.No.2238 of 2Ol2

¶22

JUDGMENT:

¶23

Aggrieved by the award and^{decree dated} 12.07.2O1.O, in O.P.No.1227 of^{2OOa on the file of learned V} Additional Metropolitan Sessions^{Judge, Mahila Court,} Hyderabad the claimant has filed this^{appeal for enhancementof} the compensation amount.

¶24

Heard. Perused the record.

¶25

According to the appellant/claimant, on^{06.O5.2008, while} he was going on his motor cycle, the offending^{vehicle whichis a RTC} Bus, came in a rash and negligent^{manner and hit the motor cycle,} due to which, the appellant fell down^{and sustained fracture of Grade} I open left humerus with 1/3rd of^{radial (N) palsy, fracture of left leg} and other grievous injuries all over the^body.

¶26

The manner in which the accident has taken^{placeand the} liability are not in dispute.

¶27

The Doctor who was examined as PW-2^{gave conservative} treatment by examining the^{petitioner on O2.O7.2OO9.According to} him, the petitioner suffered with stiffness of left^{shoulder joint and} elbow. He was facing great difficulty in lifting^{weight and moving the} hand and he estimated 30%o partial disability. Ex.A6 - Disability Certilicate was given to that effect. However, during the

¶28

¶29

cross-examination, he stated that it was possible to reduce disability from 30% to less percentage.

¶30

The iearned Tribunal Judge found that since he was not treated in the Rajya Laxmi Hospital where PW-2 worked, his evidence regarding disability cannot be accepted. Though the petitioner was initially treated in Osmania General Hospital, the disability certificate was not taken from the Medical Board of the said Hospital.

¶31

7 . Learned coqnsel for the appellant filed I.A.No. 1 of 2023, seeking enharcement of the original claim in O.P.No.1227 of 2OO8 from Rs.2,00,0O0/- to Rs.6,26,560/- by permitting the petitioner to amend the Section of law from 163(A) to 166 of Motor Vehicles Act. The said application was allowed by this Court on O8.O9.2O23.

¶32

Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the judgments of the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Syed Saleem as. Abdul Shukur dnd. o;nothert arrd Charan Singh us. G.Vittat Red.dg and. another2 and argued that a Surgeon is competent to give medical certilicate regarding disability and necessarily need not be from the Doctor who treated the injured. He aiso placed reliance on the Judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kajal as. Jagdish Chand and. othersc and Muhdmmed as.

¶33

¶34

'^{2007 (1)ALD q82}

¶35

2 2003 (4l.ALD r83 (DB)

¶36

3 2020(2r.ALD 23s (SC)

, I

Onited Indld Ins-urance Co. Ltd, and othersa and Jr,rdgment of the High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad in Zahura Begum vs. V,Venkata Ramana and otherss and argued that future prospects shall be considered while granting compensation.

¶41

PW.2-Doctor I is competent Surgeon who had assessed the disability at 3Oo/o, however in his cross-examination, he stated that the disability can even be reduced. However, keeping in view that the appellant was suffering with failure of implant and malunion of L-humerus and also suffering with stiffness of left shoulder joint and elbow, this Court deems it appropriate to consider the disability as 2O/o.

¶42

¶43

According to the appellant/claimant, he was earning an amount of Rs.4,500/- per month, working as a driver. As the appellant was aged about 25 years, future prospects @ 4Oo/o has to be considered. Hence, the monthly income of the appellant comes to Rs.6,300/- (Rs.4500+Rs.18OO). In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt Sarla Varma Vs. Delhl Tvansport Corporatlona, as the appellant was aged about 25 years, the appropriate multiplier would be '18'and the disability of the claimant is taken as 2Oo/o. Under the head of loss of future earnings due to

¶44

disability, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.2,72,16O I -

¶45

4 2023 ACJ a94 5 2023 ACJ t2t9 6 2009(6) SCC 12 r

(6,3o0x12x18x2O%). The appellant is also entitled to Rs.25,00O/- for one fracture injury, Rs.30,000/- towards pain, suffering and loss of amenities, Rs. 10,000/- towards attendant charges, Rs.5,000/_ towards medical expenses, Rs.15,0OO/_ towards removal of implant, Rs.5,0OO/- towards special diet, Rs.3,000/_ towards transportation and Rs.2,0O0/- towards damages to clothes. Thus, in total the appellanl is entitled to Rs.3,67,160/(2,7 2,160+25,000+30,00o+ 1 0,000+5,000+ 1 5,000+5,OOO+3,00o+2,00 0).

¶50

¶51

I 1. In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.SO,OOO /- to Rs.3,67,16O/_. The enhaaced amount shall carry interest @ 7.5o/o per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount of compensation, on payment of deficit Court fee. Except the above enhancement, the award of the Tribunal shall remain sarne on all other aspects.

¶52

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand

¶53

closed.

¶54

Sdi. MOHD.^ISMAIL AS SISTANT^REGTSTRAR

¶55

//TRUE^COPY// ECTION^OFFICER

¶56

To,

¶57

The^{V AdditionarlvletroporitanSessionsJudge,tvrahila court'at Hyderabad'} (with records,^{if anY)}

¶58

One^{CCto Mr' U.P' RAO' Advocate [OPUCI}

¶59

U\I{" 3. One^{CCto SRIC' SUNILKUMAR REDDY(SCFOR APSRTC)[OPUC]}

¶60

Two CD^CoPies

¶61

HIGH COURT

¶62

DATED:0210812024

¶63

,.f-\ I t-
2 5 N[\ 1[21 5C
o 4 x
.}t
i
oesn

¶64

JUDGMENT

¶65

MACMA.No.2238 of 2012

ALLOWING MACMA

(u?
@ )\n''

[^32sl ]

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

¶71

FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF^AUGUST IWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^FOUR

¶72

PRESENT

¶73

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶74

M.A.C.M.A.No 2238 ol 2012

¶75

Between:

¶76

Abdul Sattar @ Bablu, S/o. Babu^{[Miya,Age:28 years, Occ: Lorry Driver, Rlo.12-} 2-3B9, Ali Nagar, Kulsumpura, Hyderabad.

¶77

...Appellant

¶78

AND

¶79

1 . The Managing Director, APSRTC,^{Administrative Building, Bus Bhavan, RTC.} Cross Road, Hyderabad.

¶80

The Depot Manager, APSRTC,^{firlehdipatnamDepot, [\i]ehdipatnam,} Hyderabad.

¶81

...Respondents

¶82

Appeal filed under Section^'173 of^{It/.V. Act., against the Judgmentand} Decree dated 12-07-2010^{passed in} o.P.No.1227^{of 2008 on the file of the court of} the V Additional Metropolitan Sessions^{Judge, Mahila Court, at Hyderabad.}

¶83

This appeal coming on for heaiing^{and uponperusingthe grounds of} appeal, the Judgment and^{Decree of the Court below and the material papersIn} the case and upon hearing the^{arguments of Mr. U.P. RAO, Advocate for the} appellant and SRI C. SUNILKUMIAR^{REDDY(SCFOR APSRTC)forthe} Respondents.

¶84

This Court doth Order and Decree as^follows:

¶85