Kalaveni Thirupathi Vs Sayyad Nazeer

¶1

132171

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶6

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1684 OF 2A24

¶7

Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor vehicles Act., against the Judgment and decree, made in M.V.O.P.No. 439 of 2022 dated. 12.02.2024 on the file of the chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- I Additional Diskict Judge, at Karim nagar.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Kalaveni Thirupathi, S/o. Lingaiah, Aged 33 years, Caste: Mudiraj, Occ: Driver of Volvo Vehicle of NCC Company, OCB-2, SCC, Centenary Colony, Godavarikhani, R/o. Akkepalli Village of Manthani Mandal of Peddapalli District, Presently residing H.No. 2-10-262, Mukarampura locality of Karimnagar Town and proper

¶10

..APPELLANT/PETITIONER lN MVOP NO.439 of 2022

¶11

AND

¶12

Sayyad Nazeer, S/o. Shaik Sayyad, Aged 30^years, Caste: Muslim, Occupation: Driver of Lorry bearing No. TS-02-UC-9009, R/o. Ponakal Village of Jannaram Mandal of Mancherial District.

¶13

Mohammed Taher, S/o. Khaja Fakuddin, Aged not known to the^petitioner, but major, Caste: Muslim, Occupation: Owner of Lorry bearing No. TS-02-UC9009, R/o. H.No. 7-2-11151A, Mankammathota, Near Raithu Bazar, Karimnagar Proper.

¶14

The New lndia Assurance Company Limited, H.No. 3-5-83,^'l"tFloor, Upstairs of Andhra Bank, Main Branch building, Osmanpura, Girls College Road, Karimnagar, R/by its Branch Manager.^(Policy No. 61090431220100000007 valid from 21-04-2022 to midnight of 20-04-2023)

¶15

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS in MVOP.NO.439 OF 2022

¶16

Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. A V K S PRASAD

¶17

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI KOTA SUBBA RAO

¶18

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶19

')

¶20

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶21

M.A.C.M.A No. 1684 ot 2024

¶22

JUDGMENT:

¶23

This appeal has been filed by the appellanVclaim^petitioner aggrieved by the^quantum of compensation awarded in^the Decree and Order, daled 12.02.2024^passed in M V.O.P.No.439 of 2022 on the file of the I Additional District Judge-cumChairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Tribunal,^Karimnagar (hereinafter referred to as^'the Tribunal').

¶24

Heard A V.K.S.Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.Kota Subba Rao, learned counsel for the^respondent No 3/ lnsurer

¶25

3 Briefly stated the appellant/claim^petitioner's case is that on 27.09.2022, while he was^proceeding on^{motor cycle,} at^Lanapur, one Lorry bearing registration No. TS 02 UC 9009 driven by^its driver in rash and negligent manner at high speed dashed his motor cycle and caused^grievous injuries all over his body. Thus, claiming medical expenses.^permanent disability filed^claim- petition for compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. The Tribunal having considered the material placed by the appellanUclaim petitioner

NIR.J

2

MACMA 1684 2024

(hereinafter 'the petitioner') awarded Rs.7,41,416/-^{with interest at} 7.5o/o pet annum from the date of^{petitiontill realization towards} compensation against the driver, owner and^{insurer of the} Lorry/respondent Nos.1 to^3.

¶30

Learned counsel for the appellanVclaim-petitioner^would contend that the Tribunal though^{accepted the evidenceof the} doctor-PW.2, disbelieved the^{disabllity certificate/Ex,A'16and} erroneously granted lump sum amount of^{Rs.1,50,000/-for the} disability contrary to the^{prescribedprocedure- He further} contended that the Tribunal has^{not considered the headsof loss} of earnings, extra nourishment^{and granted meager amountfor} attendant charges and transportataon.^{Thus, prayed for} reassessment and to^{grant just compensation.}

¶31

Learned counsel for respondent^{No.3/insurerpleaded that} though the disability has been^{pleaded,the appellantfailedto} make out a clear case as to its effect^{on the occupationand the} income of the appellant. However,^{the Tribunal had considered} the case of the^petitioner leniently^{in grantinghuge amountfor} pain and sufferings and other heads. Therefore, assessment^of .compensation^{was on proper lines, the awarded amountis}

¶32

NIR,J MACMA_1684-2024

¶33

3

¶34

reasonable, as such, no tenable ground is made out in appeal for interference

¶35

6 I have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel.

¶36

The rival contentions are giving rise to the point for determination is. whether the quantum of compensation awarded to the appellant/claim petitioner is just and proper.

¶37

B. The petitioner/P.W.1, treating doctor/p.W.2, deposed ihat the petitioner had received eight grievous injuries. Further, the doctor/P.W.2 assessed physical condition of the petitioner and opined that the injuries resulted in floating knee and stiffness due to which there would be restriction in range of motion of the knee joint and the petitioner cannot drive a vehicle in future. Disability Ceriificate/Ex.A16 demonstrating that the disabitity of the petitioner at 60% Further, the doctor/p.W.2 validated the medical bills issued by the hospital.

¶38

The Tribr,rnal having regard to the above read evidence and bills/Exs.Al 1 to A13 granted to Rs.4,29,416/-. As this finding is based on the material on record and in the absence of a1y .-

II

NTR.J

4

n

MACMA_1684_2024

contest, this amount is affirmed. Further, having regard to the nature and severity of the injures and period of treatment undergone, granting Rs.1,50,000/- towards pain and sufferings is found proper.

¶45

ln regard to the disability, considering the evidence of the doctor/P.W.2 and as the injuries effected the limb of the petitioner, whose claimed occupation of Dump Operator and restriction of knee movement would certainly affect the occupational abilities and possibilities of error in rating the disability by the doctor, accounting 50% disability in fulure earning capacity of the petitioner can safely be believed.

¶46

The petitioner had claimed his relevant age at 33 years and Rs.18,000/- per month as Dump Operator. Age of the petitioner has not been disputed by the respondents and the employeriP.W.3 in his evidence certified the occupation of the petitioner and monthly earning Rs.18,0001. ln the absence of any material in contra, except the suggestion of the denial, accounting Rs. 18,000i- as monthly income of the petitioner is found proper.

¶47

NTR.J MACMA 1684 2024

¶48

7

¶49

-)

¶50

lt is settled proposition that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pappu Deo Yadav v. V. Naresh Kumar and othersl held that the future prospects enunciated in National lnsurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others2 is equally applicable in assessment of compensation for the disability. Accordlngly, for the regular employment and the age of the petitioner, 50% of the income towards future prospects has to be added, therefore, the monthly income would be of Rs.27,000/- (18,000X50%) and annual income at Rs.3,24,000/-. As the disability is effecting.50% of the future rncome, half of the annual income i.e. 1,62,000/- has to be taken as rnultiplicand to multiply with relevant multiplier to the age of the petitioner as prescribed in the authority of Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and anothef i.e^'16', the amount would come to Rs.25,92,000/(1,62,000X16). The claim petitioner is entitled for this amount towards loss of future earnings due to disability.

¶51

13 Further, having regard to the possible effect of the disability in the enjoyment of amenities of life, granting Rs.25 000/- towards

¶52

loss of amenities is found proper

¶53

rr^rl-r l6 (⁽ t^ i lr^ir) (^r I l,)\

¶54

NTR,J MACMA 1684 2024

¶55

6

¶56

n

¶57

The Tribunal having regard^{to the periodof treatment and} the statement of the employer/P.W.3 that^{the salary was paidonly} to the extent of the^period of his attendance,^{granted Rs.72,0001} towards loss of earning during^{the period of treatment i.e. four} months. As this conclusion is found^{reasonable,confirmed.} Further, as the^{petitioner undergone treatment for four months} granting attendant charges at Rs.20,000/- is clearly^{on lower side.} Hence, granting Rs.10,000/-^{per month towardsattendant} charges, in all awarding Rs.40,000/-^{under this head'is found} proper. That apart the amounts Rs.10,0001 towards^extra nourishment and Rs.20,000/-^{for transportation and Rs.40,0001} for future medical expenses^{granted by the Tribunalare affirmed.}

¶58

Thus, in all, the^{petitioneris entitledfor compensation as}

¶59

follows.

¶60

DESCRIPTION	AMOUNT (Rs)
Painandsufferinq	1,50,000.00
MedicalEx nditure Bills	4,29,416.00
Lossofearnin s duri the treatment rrod	72.00000
Attendantcha ES	40,00000
Extra nourishment	10,000 00
Transportation	20,000.00
Lossoffuture earningonaccount^ofdisability al5oo/o	25,92,000.00
Lossofamenities	2!p0q!!l-.-
Future medical expenses l-	40 00000
TOTAL	33,78.41600

¶61

NTR J MACMA 1684 2024

¶62

7

¶63

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed by granting Rs.33,78,4'16l- (Rupees Thirty Three Lakhs Seventy Eight Thousand Four Hundred and Sixteen Only) as compensation with proportionate costs The liability of respondents, rate of interest and other terms stipulated in the impugned order are maintained. The insurer/respondent No 3 is directed to deposit the differential amount of compensation within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw entire amount. Accordrngly, the impugned decree stands modified.

¶64

As a sequel. pending miscellaneous applications, if any,

\

To

shall stand clo red,

Sd/. N. SRIHARI ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR \ ,N\ ----S CTION^OFFICER

¶69

//TRUE^COPY//

¶70

The Chairman^{Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-| AdditionalDistrict} 2 3 i,iifi*f^{$sn'Sr+u{r.,r#if"'?s",%,} 4. Two^CDCoPies

pI

I

,

HIGH COURT DATED: OllOX12025

¶75

JUDGMENT

¶76

S TATE
C)
.>
rlq s
1t
o,)
+:.=..,

¶77

MACMA.No.1t584 of 2024

¶78

PARTLY ALLOWED

¶79

b
\e{

¶80

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶81

TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE

¶82

PRESENT

¶83

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶84

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1684 OF 2024

¶85

Between:

¶86

Kalaveni Thirupathi, S/o. Lingaiah, Aged 33 years, Caste: Mudiraj, Occ: Driver of Volvo Vehicle of NCC Company, OCB-2, SCC, Cent'enary Colony, Godavarikhani, R:/o. Akkepalli Village of Manthani Mandal of Peddapaili Districi, Presently residing H.No. 2-10-262, Mukarampura locality of Karimhagar Town and proper

¶87

...APPELLANT/PETITIONER lN MVOP NO.439 ot 2022

¶88

AND

¶89

1 Sayyad Nazeer, S/o. Shaik Sayyad, Aged 30 years, Caste: Muslim, O-ccupation Driver of Lorry bearing No. TS-02-UC-9009, R/o.^ponakal Village of Jannaram Mandal of Mancherial District.

¶90

2 lvlohammed Taher, Sio. Khaja Fakuddin, Aged not known to the petitioner, but major, Caste: Muslim, Occupation: Ownei of Lorry bearing No. TS-O2-UC9009, R/o. H.No. 7-2-1115tA, Mankammathoti, Neai Raithu Bazar. Karimnagar Proper.

¶91

3 The New lndia Assurance Company Limited, H.No. 3-5-83, 1"t Floor, Upstairs of Andhra Bank, Main Branch building, Osmanpura, Girls College Road, Karimnagar, R/by its Branch Manager. (Policy No. 6109043'1220i00000007 valid from 21-04-2022 to midnight of 20-04-2023)

¶92

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS in MVOP.NO.439 OF 2022

¶93

Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor vehicles Act., against the Judgment and decree, made in M.V.O.P.No. 439 of 2022 dated. 12.02.2024 on the file of the chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- I Additional District Judge, at Karimnagar.

¶94

This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Court below and the material papers in the MVOp and upon hearing the arguments of SRl. A V K S PRASAD, Advocate for the appellant and of SRI KOTA SUBBA RAO, Counsel for the Respondents.

¶95

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

¶96

'1 . That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is Partly allowed by granting Rs.33,78,4161 (Rupees Thirty three lakhs Seventy Eight Thousand Four Hundred and Sixteen only) as compensation with proportionate costs;

¶97

That the liability of respondents rate of interest and other terms stipulated in the impugned Order are maintained;

¶98

That the lnsurer/respondent No.3 is be and hereby directed to deposit the differential amounl of compensation within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment;

¶99