Amgothu Mangi Vs v Hari Chander

¶1

t^32s3l

¶2

HrGH^{couRr t?+} llEDSIilEDoF TELANGANA

¶3

T H U^{R S D AY, TH} S Js|ITSF^{N;'+,?aL ?.: F,'u'.' ^"}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SMT JUSTICEM'G'PRIYADARSINI} LLAN EO^{USAPPEAL NO:3489 0F2014} MOTOR ACC^{IDENT CIVILMISCE}

¶6

173 of^{M.V.Act against the judgmentand} Appeal^{filed under Section} P.No.^{739 of 2010 on the file of the Court of} decree^{dated24-01'2014in M V'O} s Tribunal -cum-^{ll Additional District Judge} the Chairman^{Motor Accident Claim} W arangal

¶7

Between:

¶8

tvr u^{ri pi rar a v,r a} se'^{Rava p a rthv}

¶9

tTXS$"r,x.*?t, rg,",,"ff^{fl :,*ri?Tryi:,15Ji}

¶10

..ApPellanUPetitioner

¶11

AND

¶12

1 Htt.t;::tr:l!"?{":1sit?Yfi^3lr*?'3;'"

¶13

Uillll:-",ffi^{fl ,J,;d;:fl}

¶14

ra n ch of^{fi ce at}

¶15

2 r h e N^{atio na I} !^{s u} 1,a^nc9-corl* ffI !{Jtn fi'fi ::! Y,?l'Xt""r:^,?

¶16

H'No'B-5-43'^Seetharama

¶17

"Respondents/Defendants

¶18

Counsel^{for the Appellant:SRI' AJAY KUMAR MADISETTY}

¶19

Counsel^{for the RespondentNo'1:None Appeared}

¶20

Counsel^{for the RespondentNo'2: SRIP' BHANU PRAKASH}

¶21

The Court^{made the following:JUDGEMENT}

I i I I

r 1

I I

I I I I

the petitioner to substantiate that she suffered disability^on account of the injuries sustained by her in the accident. The doctor, who has provided treatment to PW1, also did not depose anything about the disabiiity alleged to have sustained by^{PW 1.}

¶27

It is the contention of the petitioner that rmplants^were inserted at the time of surgery of the^{petitioncr and for removal} of the same, an amount of Rs.2O,000/-^{may be required. In this} connection, PW2 deposed in his chief^{examinationaflidavit that} if the patrent develop any^{pain due to the presence of implant,a} future surgery may be required^{for removal of the saidimplants} and if surgery is done by^{a privatehospital the total cost of} surgery including medicines^{may cost Rs.2O,0OO} /^- No estimation bill is^{hled by the petitionerto substantiate that an} amount of Rs.2O,0O0/-^{is required for removal of implants'} However, in the cross examination,^{PW2 admitted that if the} patient goes for future surgery^{for removal of impiantsat MGM} Hospital, Warangal, it^{wouldbe done at free of cost and that the} treatment given to the^{patient by MGM wasfree of costs.In} such circumstances, this Court^{is not inciined to award any} amount for removal^{of implants,as the petitioner can avail the} opportunity^{of gettingthe implants removedfrom her body by} obtaining^{treatment at MGM hospital' But the fact remains is}

¶28

8

¶29

that the though petitioner can avail treatment for removal of implants under "Arogua Sree Scheme,, he has to meet the expenditure of medicines subsequent to the removal of implants. Hence, this Court is inclined to award a sum of Rs. 10,00O/- toward 'future medical expenses,.

¶30

In view of the above facts and circumstances, in all, the appellalt/claimant is entitled for the compensation under va rious heads, as follows:

¶31

Sl.No.	Nameofthehead	Compensation awarded to the claimant(Rs.)
1	Painandsufferance	10,0oo/-
2	Hospitalexpenses	10,0oo/-
a	fractureinjuries(Rs.25,000x2) Two	s0,00o/-
4	Foursimpleinjuries(Rs.5,O00/x4)	2O,OOO/-
5	Attendantcharges	s,0oo/-
6	Transportationexpenses	2,OOO/-
	Extranourishment	s,00o/-
8	Medicalbills	r,27s/-
9	Lossof earnings	6,000/-
10	Futuremedicalexpenses	10,00o/-
	Total	t,19,275/-

¶32

The learned Tribunal awarded rate of interest @ 6oh per

¶33

annum. However, as per the decision of the Honourable Apex

¶34

t

¶35

0

¶36

Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and othersl this

¶37

Court is inclined Lo enhance the rate of interest granted by the learned Tribunal frorn 6%o per annum Lo 7 .5%o per annum.

¶38

In the result, the Appeal is allowed in part by enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.29,275/- to Rs-1,19,2751-, which shall carry interest @) 7 .5% per annum from the date of hling the claim application till the date of realization. The respondents are jointly and severally liable to deposit the compensation amount within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the petitioner is entitled to withdraw the entire amount awarded to him without furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶39

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pendrng shall stand

¶40

closed.

¶41

SD/. A. SREENIVASA^REDDY ASSISTANT^REqISTRAR //TRUE COPY// l)r-^t' SECTIbN OFFICER

¶42

To,

¶43

. The Chairman,^{Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- ll Additional District} Judge Warangal.^(WithRecord)

¶44

OneCC to^{SRl.AJAY KUMAR IVADISETTY' Advocate[OPUC]}

¶45

One CC^{to SRl. P. BHANU PRAKASH, Advocate[OPUC]}

¶46

Two CD CoPies

GK

I, t I. i I I I

HIGH COURT

DATED:1310212025

JUDGEMENT

sinf l.;:-..
./:..,\
.,,:,q
f-) StP N6 l.:., :
I ) \i
.-, ,']- l)*"-" -''
''- :ii.__..i:.-= ; -.."

¶53

MACMA.No.3489^{of 2014}

¶54

PARTLY ALLOWING^{OF THE MACMA}

WITHOUT^COSTS

o
4z
7

[^32s3 ]

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶59

THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶60

PRESENT

¶61

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

¶62

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 3489 OF 2014

¶63

Between:

¶64

Amgothu Mangi, W/o Vasanth, Labourer, Rl/o Muripirala Village, Rayapa(hy Mandal, Presently R/at Shivanagar, Warangal.

¶65

...AppellanUPetitioner

¶66

AND

¶67

'1 . V Hari Chander, S/o Ravinder, Owner-cum-Driver of Crime Vechile, i.e., Maruthi Car Bearing No.AP-36-AB-8851, Fl/o H.No.16-1-52, Railway Gate, Shanti Nagar, Warangal City and Dist.

¶68

The National lnsurance Co Ltd, Rep by its Branch Manager, Branch Office at H.No.8-5-43, Seetharama Complex, Station Road, Warangal.

¶69

...Respondents/Defendants

¶70

Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act against the^judgment and decree dated 24-01-2014 in M.V.O.P.No. 739 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the Chairman J\Iotor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum- ll Additional District Judge Waranga l.

¶71

ORDER: 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 IVIVOP and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Ajay Kumar lt/laddisatty, Advocate for the appellant and of Sri P. Bhanu Pakash, Counsel for the Respondent No.2.

¶72

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

¶73

That the appeal be and^{hereby is allowedin part by enhancingthe} compensation amount^{fromRs.29,2751- 1o Rs.1,19,275l-,(} Rupees one Lakh Nineteen^{ThousandTwo hundred and Seventy} five only) which shall^{carry interest} @^{7.5% per annum from the} date of filing the claim^{applicationtill the date of realization;}

¶74

Thal The respondents be^{and hereby are jointly and severally} liable to deposit the^{compensation amount withinone month} from the date of receipt^{of copy of this judgment;}

¶75