Partly allowed

Durgam Rajamallu v. B.Pasha

Telangana HC18 Feb 2025MACMA/1402/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed seeking enhancement of compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The High Court modified the Tribunal's award regarding loss of earnings, medical expenses, and pain and suffering, enhancing the total compensation to Rs. 73,059/-.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs. 25,500/- to Rs. 73,059/- to cover loss of earnings for six months, medical expenses, pain and suffering, and transport.

Durgam Rajamallu Vs B.Pasha — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2025)

[^32s31

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶5

TUESDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PR]YADARSINI

¶8

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1402 OF 2009

¶9

Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,l988 against the Order and decree in .O.P.No.782 of 2O22 daled. 15/0912006 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (M.A.C.T) {II ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE (FTC)ASIFABAD

¶10

Between:

¶11

Durgam Rajamallu,S/o.Ankaiah Private Electrician Rl/o.Rammipur Village, Adilabad District.

¶12

...AppellanUPetitione r

¶13

AND

¶14

B.Pasha, S/o.Mohd. Tajuddin, MajorOwnerof auto bearing No.AP-1-U4101 Rl/o. lndraram Village, Jaipur Mandal, Adilabad District.

¶15

The United lndia lnsurance Company Limited, rep., by Branch Manager Branch office, Balaji Complex, Mancherial, Adilabad District.

¶16

/Respondents/ Respondents

¶17

Counsel for the Appellant:SRl. S SURENDER REDDY

¶18

Counsel for the Respondents : 2.SMT.SATYA MANJ ULA

¶19

Counsel for the Respondents:1 :NONE APPEARED

¶20

The Court Delivered the following: Judgement

¶21

I I

¶22

HON'I]ILE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

¶23

M.A.C.M.A.No.L4O2 OF 2OO9

¶24

JUDGMENT:

¶25

Dissatisficd with the compensation awarde d by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum - III Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Asifabad (in short, the Tribunal), in O.P.No.782 of 2OO2, dated 15.09.2O06, the^petitioner in the said O.P preferred the present Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶26

For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred as they were arrayed before the learned Tribunal.

¶27

The brief facts of the case are that initially, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 166 (t)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 455 of A.P.M.V. Rules, 1989 seeking compensation of Rs.75,OOO/- for the injuries sustained by him in an accident that took^place on O4.O4.2OO2. [t^{is statedby the} petitioner that on 04.O4.2OO2 at^{1O.O0a.m., whenthe petitioner} along with his friend^{were proceedingin an Auto bearing} registration No.AP-^{13U-6584 from lndaram to Srirampurand} when reached near^{.he outskirts} of^{Kundaram Village, alrother} Auto bearing registration No.AP-lU-4 101 came at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the auto in

¶28

¶29

\ I

¶30

MGP,J MACMA.llo.1402 of 2009

¶31

which the petitioner was travelling. As a result, the petitioner fell down and sustained fracture injury apart from other injuries. Hence Iiled claim petition seeking compensation against the respondent Nos. I & 2, being the owner and insurer of the crime Auto bearing No.AP-1U-4101.

¶32

Respondent No.l/Owner of crime Auto bearing No.AP-1U4 10 1 remained ex-parte.

¶33

Respondent No.2/ Insurance Company filed its counter denying occurrence of accident and contended that the drivers of both the vehicles had no valid driving license and permit to ply the vehicle on road and therefore prayed to dismiss the claim against it.

¶34

Based on the pleadings made by both parties, the leamed Tribunal had framed the lollowing issues for conducting trial:-

¶35

i. Whether the petitioner sustained injuies in the motor uehicle accident dated O4.O4.2002 inuoluing uehic)e No.AP-1-U-4101?

¶36

ii. If so, uhetlrcr the accident took place on ariaunt of fault^{of the driuerof R1?}

¶37

iii. Whether the petitioner b entitled to any compensation? If so, to u-that amount and from uhom?

¶38

iv. To what relieP

t.i

MGP,J MACMA No.1402 0f 2009

¶43

-----*_-'

¶44

7 . Before the Tribunal, the petitioner/ injured examined himself as PW1, got examined PW2 and^got marked Exs.Al to A9 on his behalf. On behalf of respondent No.2/Insurance Company, neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced.

¶45

After considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal had partly-allowed the claim petition b1' awarding compensation of Rs.25,50O/- along with interest @ 7 .5% per anmrm from the date of petition till the date of deposit payable by both the respondents I & 2 jointly and severally. Having not satisfied with the compensation awarded, the petitioner/injured preferred the present Appeal seeking enhanccment of the same.

¶46

Heard arg,uments submitted by Sri S.Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant/ injured and Smt.P.Satya Manjula, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2/lnsurance Company who appeared through virtual mode. Perused the record.

¶47

The contentions of the learned colrnsel for Appellant/ injured as stated in the grounds of Appe'al are that the learned Tritrunal failed to consider the disabilitv sustained b1' the petitioner even after examination of the Doctor who

¶48

¶49

M6 P,] MACMA.No.1402 of 2009

¶50

issued Certificate stating about the fracture injury^sustainedby the petitioner. karned counsel also contended that the Tribunal erred in granting loss of earnings only for a period of 2 months instead of 6 months and also failed to award amount incurred towards medical expenses and therefore prayed to allow the App"al by enhancing the compensation amount.

¶51

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/Insurance Company contended that the learned Tribunal, after considering all the aspects, had awarded reasonable compensation for which interference of this Court is unwarranted.

¶52

Now the point that emerges for determination is,

¶53

Whetler tLe appellont/ injured is entitled for enhartrement of co mpe ns atio n?

¶54

POINT:-

¶55

Since there is no dispute about the manner of accident and liability of the respondents and since thc findings arrived at by the Court below on those aspects were not challenged, there is no necessit5r to once again decide the above said aspects. The only point that has to be considered in thc present Appeal is with regard to quantum of compensation.

¶56

t, -

¶57

¶58

MGP,J MACMA.No.1402 0f 2009

¶59

[ramed counsel for the appellant/injured contended that though the petitioner got examined PW2-Doctor to prove about the disability sustained by him, but the learned Tribunal did not consider his evidence.

¶60

PW2 in his evidence deposed that he treated thc petitioner who was admitted as inpatient in their Hosprtal from O4.O4.2OO2 to 2i.O4.2OO2. He also stated that the petitioner sustained fracture shaft of right femur and was operated on lO.O4.2OO2 by using kuntsher intrameduliary nail and sustained permanent partial disability of 3O% and advised to take rest for 6 months and also advised to abstain from doing hard work for another 6 months. Though PW2 'a,ers crossexamined, nothi;rg adverse was elicited to disbelieve his testimony.

¶61

It is pertinent to state that though PW2 in his evidence stated that the petitioner sustained 30% disability, tl:t^{in the} Certificate issued by him under Ex.AS, there is^{no mention} made with regard to^percentage of disability except^stzrtingthat the petitioner sustained^"fracfure shafi of right femur^middle 1/ 3,a". Hence, :he learned Tribunal did not consider the percentage of <lisability while calculating the compensation.

¶62

¶63

MGP,J MACMA.No.1402 of 2009

¶64

However, this Court, taking into consideration ,the fracture injury sustained by ttre petitioner, and the opinion expressed by PW2 that the petilioner had to abstain from doing hard work for another 6 months, come to a conclusion that the petitioner would require at least 6 months for recovery of the said injury and hereby grant loss of eamings for a period of 6 months instead of 2 months as awarded by Tribunal. It is stated by the petitioner/injured that he is working as private electrician and was earning Rs.3,OO0/- per month, therefore, this Court considering the same, hereby award an amount of Rs. 18,OO0/towards loss of earnings for a period of 6 months.

¶65

¶66

A perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the learned Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 15,OO0/ - towards medical expenses and extra nourishment. A detailed perusal of medical bills liled under Ex.AS, clearly shows that the petitioner/injured incurred an amount ol Rs. lB,O59/- towards medical expenses. Hence, this Court deems fit and proper to to award the same.

¶67

Further, the Tribunal also awarded an amount ol Rs.5O0 towards transport expenses Rs.S,OOO/ - for pain and suffering which this Court finds the same to be meager and is inclined to

¶68

¶69

MGP,I MACMA.No.14O2 of 2009

¶70

interfere with the same and hereby enhances the said amounts as detailed unde r:-

¶71

S.No.	Name Head of the	Amount Awarded Tribunal b	y ^Amount awardedby thisCourt
I	Lossole:rrnings	Rs.5,O00/- (for 2months)	Rs.18,0O0/- (6months)
2	Fractureinjury		Rs.25,0o0/-
3	Medicall1)xpenses	Rs.15,OO0/-	Rs.18,059/-
4	Transporl NSCS	Rs.5OO/-	Rs.lOOO/-
5	Pain ancisufferin	Rs.5,000/-	Rs.10,000/-
6	Extra nourishment I		Rs.looo/-
7 I	TOTAL COMPENSATION	Rs.25,500/-	Rs.73,O59/-

¶72

In the resurlt, the Appeal is^{partly-allowedby enhancing} the compensat io!1 amount^awarded by^{ttre Tribunalfrom} Rs.25,5OO/- to F1s.73,059/-. Except the said^{finding, the} findings arrived trv the^Tribunal with^regard to^{rate of interest} and liability shall remain undisturbed. There shall^{be no order} as to costs.

¶73

¶74

MGP,,J MACMA.No.1402 of 2009

¶75

Miscellaneous petitions pending, i[ any, shall stand

¶76

closed.

¶77

SD/-A.SRINIVASA REDDY

//TRUE COPYII

TANT REGISTRAR L

CTION OFFICER

To,

l.The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (M.A.C. Addl District Judge (Ftc)Asifabad (With Records If Any)

¶83

2.One CC to SRl. S SURENDER REDDY Advocate [OPUC]

¶84

3.One CC to Smt.P.Satya Manjula Advocate [OPUCI

4.Two CD Copies

NS Yr

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 810211,;.025

JUDGMENT

'{:' ST..\T€ v.
A
//.-q- 6)
()
11 t$ rs ti
l)
'.)t{ggl"i

¶91

MACMA.No.1402 of 2009

¶92

PALTLY ALLO\VING THE MACMA

¶93

WITH OUT COS'T

¶94

xaA
t-*'-
\e
X^"

¶95

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶96

TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶97

PRESENT

¶98

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

¶99

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1402 OF 2009

¶100

Between:

¶101

Durgam Rajamallu,S/o.Ankaiah Private Electrician FUo.Rammipur Village, Adilabad District.

¶102

...AppellanUPetitioner

¶103

AND

¶104

1 . B.Pasha, S/o.Mohd. Tajuddin, Major Owner of auto bearing M.AP-1-U-41 01 Rlo. lndraram Village, Jaipur Mandal, Adilabad District.

¶105

The United lndia lnsurance Company Limited, rep., by Branch Manager Branch Office, Balaji Complex, Mancherial, Adilabad District.

¶106

Respondents/ Respondents

¶107

Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,19B8 against the Order and decree in .O.P.No.782 ot 2022 dated 15/09/2006 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor AccirCents Claims Tdbunal (M.A.C.T) lll ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE (FTC) ASTFABAD

¶108

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 MVOP and upon hearing the arguments of Sri S.SURENDER REDDY Advocate for the Appellant and respordent no.2 Smt.P.Satya Manjula, Advocate.

¶109

This Court doth Ordcr and Dccrcc as follos,s

¶110

That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is pa rtly a llowed .

¶111

That the compensation amount awarded by lhe Tribunal be and hereby enhanced from Rs.25,500/- to Rs. 73,059/- except the said finding the findings arrived by the tribunat with regard to the rate of interest and liability shall remain underslanding; and

¶112

That there shall be no order as to costs.

¶113

SD/-A.SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// $__ sEbrroru oFFrcER

¶114

To, t. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (lll (FTC) ASIFABAD.

¶115

2.Two CD Copies

NS k

HIGH COURT

DATED:1810211i:025

DECREE

?. 1tt e :: -/r
<br>17 0['' 2ry5 :'
<br>

¶121

MACMA.No.1402 of 2009

¶122

PALTLY ALLOIVTNG THE MACMA

¶123

WTTH OUT COS

¶124

,tr{A &"

Durgam Rajamallu v. B.Pasha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Durgam Rajamallu v. B.Pasha

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

The National insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Smt.c.Usha Kumari

B Srinu , Srinivas Goud, Medak Dist Vs M. Laxman, Secunderabad and Another

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Rajesh Kumar Rana

E. Mahesh, Vs St. Joseph Public School

Kanigiri Vijay Kumar Vs B.Venkata Reddy and the Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd

Smt Kanigiri Hema Vs B.Venkat Reddy and Another