Partly allowed

The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co.,Ltd. v. Shafi Ahamed and Anr.

Telangana HC10 Jan 2025MACMA/943/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cross appeals over a motor accident causing permanent paraplegia. The High Court affirmed liability, raised assessed monthly income to Rs.6,000 with 40% future prospects, and enhanced compensation to Rs.30,62,800 with interest, dismissing the insurer's appeal and allowing the claimant's appeal with costs.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.30,62,800 with interest at 7.5% p.a.; insurer directed to deposit differential amount within four weeks; claimant's appeal allowed with Rs.115/- costs; insurer's appeal dis

The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co.,Ltd. Vs Shafi… — Insurance | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

13217 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶6

M.A.C.M.A.No: 943 of 2006

¶7

AND M.A.C.M.A.No.69 ot 2O22

¶8

M.A.C.M.A.No.943 of 2006

¶9

Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act aggrieved by^{the Judgmentand} Decree dated 30-12-2005^passed in O.P.No.149^{of 20O2 on the file of the Court} of the Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims^{Tribunal-cum-ThePrincipal} District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy. ,t

¶10

¶11

Betu/een:

¶12

The Division al Manager, United lndia lnsurance Co.Ltd.,^{DivisionalOffice,16-10-} 2go-105,2N Floor, Malakpet, Hyderabad.

¶13

...AppellanURespondent No.2

¶14

AND

¶15

Shafi Ahamed, S/o.Sardar^{Ahammed,Age:33 years, Occ: Vartha Reporter} No. 4-2-8211, Rajampet Village,^{Sangareddy Mandal, Medak District.}

¶16

Mohd. Habeeb, S/o Not^know to^{the appellant, Age.Major,Occ: Owner of the} Car GAY-9996, Fyo. 19-2-1 034, Jahanuma,^{Hyderabad( Near Falaknuma)}

¶17

R2 dismissed vide Court Order dated^17-2-2017

¶18

...RespondenURespondent^No.1

¶19

LA. NO: 1 OF 2006(MACMAMP. NO:^{1979oF 2006)}

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition, the HighCourt may be pleasedto} grant stay of all further proceedings including execution^{of the decree passed in} O.p.No.tag oI 2OO2 dated^{30-12-2005on the file of MACT-cum-DistrictJudge,} Medak at Sangareddy.

¶21

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. A. Ramakrishna Reddy

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Mr. Palle Sriharinath

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: None Appeared

¶24

M.A.C.M.A.No.69 ol 2022

¶25

Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 30-12-2005 passed in O.P.No.149 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims^{Tribu nal-cu} m-'lhe Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.

¶26

Between:

¶27

Shafi Ahamed, S/o.Sardar Ahammed, Age:33^years, Occ: Vartha^ReporterR/o 4-2-8211, Rajampet Village, Sangareddy Mandal, Medak D strict.

¶28

...AppellanUC laimant

¶29

AND

¶30

1 Mohd. Habeeb, S/o Not know to the appellant, Age:Major, Occ. Owneq of the Car GAY-9996. R/o. 19-2-1034, Jahanuma, Hyderabad.

¶31

2 The Divisional Manager, United lndia lnsurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Officer, 16-10-27-105. 2no Floor, Malakpet, Hyderabad.

¶32

...Respondents/Res pondents

¶33

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶34

Petition uncler Order 6 Rule 17 r/w Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, tl-re High Court may be pleased to^permit the Petitioner to amend the claim from Rs.20,00,000/to Rs. 45,00,000/- as compensation in the Appeal.

¶35

lA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶36

Petition under Order 7 Rule 14 r/w Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petrtion, tl'e High Court may be pleased to permit the Petitioner to file some additional Xerox documents in support of the appeal vide MACMA (SR). No. 5806 of 2013 for proper adjudication of the case.

¶37

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. Palle Sriharinath

¶38

Counsel for the Respondents: None Appeared

¶39

The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT

¶40

¶41

HONOURABLE SR! JUSTICE^{N. TUKARAMJI}

¶42

M.A.C.M.A.^{N0.9430F 2006} AND M.A.C.M.A .No.69^{OF 2022}

¶43

COMM N JUDGM NT:

¶44

I have heard Mr.Palle^{Sriharinath, learned counselfor the} appellanUpetitioner^{in MACMA No.69of 2022andrespondentNo'1} in MACMA No.943^{of 2006 and Mr.A.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned} counsel for the^{appellanUinsurer/respondent No'2 in MACMA} No.943 of 2006 and^{none appeared for the respondentNo2 in} MACMA No.69 of 2022.

¶45

The M.A.C.M.A.No.943^{of 2006has been filed by the} insurer/respondent^{No.2 contestingthe liability and quantum of} compensation and^{the M.A.C.MA.No.69of 2Q22was preferredby} the claim^{petitioner aggrievedby the quantumof compensation} awarded in the^{decreeand order daled 3O'12'2005 in OP No'149} of 2OO2 on the^{file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims} Tribunal-cum-Principal^{DistrictJudge, Medakat Sangareddy'}

¶46

Thus both the appeals^{are heard togetherand are being} decided in^{this commonjudgment.}

¶47

For convenience,^{the parties hereinafterare referredto with} their status^{beforethe Tribunal as petitioner and respondent'}

¶48

NTR,J l,lACIvlAs : 43 2006&69_2022

¶49

¶50

Brief y stated the relevant facts are that the petitioner filed claim seelling compensation of Rs.20 lakhs for the grievous injuries suffered in a motor accident dated 13.01 .2001 . The Tribunal partly allowed the petition and granted compensation of Rs.13,15,000/- with interest at 7.5o/o per annum from the date of the petition till realization.

¶51

Learrred counsel for the petitioner would contend ihat in the accident the petitioner suffered permanent paraplegia and is undergoing continuous medical treatment. The petitioner codlt not even perfo.m routine natural chores without assistance. He became pc'rmanently disabled. Further unabating medical treatment is causing severe financial hardship and the Court below should havr-. considered the pathetic physical condition of the petitioner and should have awarded just compensation. Thus prayed for irtervention.

¶52

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondenVinsurer would contend that the Tribunal ought to have considered r;ontributory negligence and should have apportioned the liability between the vehicles. Further pleaded that the Tribunal erred in fixing income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/per month without any proof. That apart the physiotherapy

¶53

¶54

NTR,J MACMAS 943 2f/l6&69 2o))

¶55

cardslEx.A-z4 and the CDR hospital bills/Ex.A_g are not reflecting the payments. Thus granting medical bills and also amount for future medicar expenditure is erroneous and unsustainabre under law

¶56

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

¶57

The point arises for determination is:

¶58

"Whether the Tibunat had properly assessed ne iliitity and^just com pe n sation? "

¶59

ln regard to liability, the petitioner,s case is that on

¶60

13.01.2001 while he was proceeding on his scooter with another person at Kandi village, one car driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner dashed the scooter and caused severe injuries all over his body. The testimony of ihe petitionertpW_1 and the police record i.e. first information reporUEx.A_1 and charge sheeUEx.A-2 are demonstrating that the accident had occurred due to the negligent driving of the car. The respondenUinsurer except denial suggestions failed to place any other material to consider otherwise. ln this factuar position, the respondent's contention that

¶61

".--€Etributory negligence between the vehicles involved in the

¶62

: iaitJ

¶63

NIR,] lvlAclvlAs 943_2006&69_2022

¶64

¶65

accident falls insignificant. Therefore the Tribunal's conclusion that the owner and insurer of the crime carlrespondents are liable to pay compensation deserves affirmation

¶66

'11. ln re-qard to compensation, the petitioner as PW-' deposed that he had suffered head injury, fracture of left leg, fracture of left side ribs, friacture of spinal cord in the accident. The evidence of doctors/PWs.6, 8 and 9, owner of physiotherapy centre/pW-S and Assistant Manger of CDR Hospital/PW-7 are establishing the facts the petitioner suffering dislocation of vertibra, , fractures of fibs in the accident resulting in paraplegia, urinary discharge difficulties with infection and bed sores and medical treatment including the surgeries undergone.

¶67

These aforenoted aspects are demonstratng that after the accident the petitioner is confined to bed and unable to move on his own and proving the petitioner's complete occupational disability.

¶68

The Tribunal basing on date of birth in driving licence/Ex.A-28 rightly concluded his age by the date of the accident as 33 years. Further as per the petitioner he is lournalisVpress reporter and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month

¶69

NTR.] MACr.1As,94l-2m6&59²⁰²²

¶70

¶71

The Tribunal considering^{the wages of relevant period had taken} Rs.4,500/-^per month.^{However, havingregardto the fact thatthe} petitioner was^journalist and^{would certainlya better income than} the manual labourer^{as such counting the probabilities,taking} Rs.6,0001 as monthly^{income is found appropriate'}

¶72

lt is also well settled^{that future prospects in the cases of self} employed shall be^{included in assessmentof compensationeven} in injury cases. Having^{regard to the age and occupation of the} petitioner 4Oo/o of the income^{towardsfuture prospects has'io be} added. Thus the^{monthly incomeof the petitioner wouldbe} Rs.8,4001 and annual^{income at Rs.1,00,8001.}

¶73

lS.lfthismultiplicandismultipliedwiththerelevantmultiplierto the age of the^{petitioneri.e. 16, the total comes to Rs"l6'12,8001'} This amount shall^{be awarded towards lossof future income'}

¶74

The petitioner^{claimedRs.2,00,0001 towardsmedical} expenditure. ln this^{regard, the Assistant Manger of CDR Hospital} was examined as^{PW-7. He deposed thatas per case sheeUEx'A-} 43 the^{petitionertook treatment in their hospitalfor about six} months and Ex.A-8^{is the final bill for Rs'3,03,1041 towards} hospitalization and^{the petitionerpaid Rs'29,000/- and rest of the}

¶75

II ri;i &:

¶76

¶77

t.lTR,] MACr.4As 943_2006&69_2022

¶78

amount has to be settled by the insurance company. ln addition, the doctor/PW-9 deposed that the petitioner was admitted in MNR Medical College Hospital for a period of two months for treatment of tvvo bedsores over the buttocks which resulted pressure over arca of spinal injury and they have issued discharge summary/Ex.A-'10 and validated the bills/Exs:A-11 and A_12. Further examined the physiotherapisUpW-S in regard to treatment of physiotherapy to the petitioner and validated Exs:A_24 to Ex.A-26 bills. On this evidence, the Tribunal has awqrded Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical expenditure and Rs.50,000/_ for future medi,:al expenses. However having regard to the physical condition ol the petitioner and possible future medial expenses, enhancing the amount under these heads to Rs.6,00,000r is found proper.

¶79

Furthelr the condition of the petitioner is making out the requirement of attendant all along. Though appointment of attendant is not specifically pleaded, considering the fact that the family memtrers would be helping him as attendants and for such services under the head of aftendant charges Rs.4,0Cr,000/- is granted.

¶80

NIR,] HACHAS-943-2006&69²⁰²²

¶81

¶82

I I

¶83

For continuous^{pain and suffering the compensation} awarded under this^{head is enhanced to Rs.1,50,0001. The} petitioner's condition would definitely^{require extra nourishment} and at times transportation^{for medical treatment and this possible} intangible affect the enjoyment^{of amenities of life. Thus' under} these three heads^grantingRs.1 ,00,0001^{each is found} appropriate- Accordingly^ordered

¶84

't9. Thus, in all the appellant^{is entitledfor compensation as}

¶85

under

¶86

Sl.No.	Description	Amountawarded (inrupees)
1	Lossoffutureearnings^dueto dibili	16,12,800t-
2	sa Future medicalexPenditure	6,00,000/-
3	Attendant charges	4,00,000/-
4	Painandsuffering	1,50,000/-
5	Extra nourishment	't,00,000/-
6	Transportation charges	1,00,000/-
7	Lossof amenities	1,00,000/-
	TOTAL	30,62,800/-

¶87

Resultantly, the^{petitioner is awarded compensation of}

¶88

Rs.30,62,800/-^{(Rupeesthirty lakhs sixty two thousand and eight}

¶89

. ii. :?| ,,.

¶90

NlR.J MACMAS_943_2006&69_2022

¶91

¶92

hundred orrly) with interest at 7.Sok per annum from the date of the petition till realization. The respondent No.2/insurer is directed to deposit ther differential compensation amount within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon such deposit, the petitiont-.r is permitted to withdraw the entire amount.

¶93

21 . Accordingly, the decree and order daled 30.12.2005 in Op No.149 of 2002 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, stands modified. ,^!

¶94

ln the result, the M.A.C.M.A.No.69 of 2022 fited by the petitioner is allowed with costs and the M.A.C.M.A.No.943 of 2006 filed by the insurer/respondent No.2 is dismissed without costs.

¶95

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions if any, stands

¶96

closed.

¶97

Sd/- I. JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// /'ir - .l $ecrION OFFICER

¶98

To,

¶99

The Chairrnan, Motor Vehicles Accidents Clainrs Tribunal-cum-The Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy. (with records, rf any)

¶100

One CC to lvlr. A. Ramakrishna Reddy Advocate [OPUC]

¶101

One CC to lr,lr. Palle Sriharinath Advocate [OPUC]

¶102

Two CD Copies

Kam,/gh

rlr!.-j-rrt

*i,. w \

,':- ' :r-ifu

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 010112025

e STArt
I O6
. !:<br>(
'(
19 l1l't T1l1 I
r1)
,",/
- ,,i/
t c ,: r,l, i 1-l' .:/'

¶112

COMMON JUDGMENT+COMMoN DEcREE MACMA.No.943 of 2000 AND MACMA No.69 ot 2022

¶113

MACMA No,943 of 2006 tS DISMISSED WITHOUT COSTS MACMA No,69 of 20ZZ tS ALLOWED WITH COSTS

¶114

132171

¶115

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

¶116

FRIDAY, THE TENTH^{DAY OF JANUARY} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY FIVE}

¶117

PRESENT

¶118

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^N.TUKARAMJI

¶119

M.A.C.M.A.No^{: 943 of 2006}

¶120

AND

¶121

M.A.C.M.A.No.69^{of 2022}

¶122

M.A.C.M A.No.943^{of 2006} Between:

¶123

The Divisional^I/anag er, United lndia^{lnsuranceCo.Ltd., Divisional Offlce, 16-10-} 230-105,2n0 Floor,^M alakpet, Hyderabad.

¶124

.AppellanUResPondent^No.2

¶125

AND

¶126

1 Shafi Ahamed,^{S/o.Sardar Ahammed,Age:33-years, Occ:} !a{ha^Reporter [ib. a-)-sri,^{'nrimpetVillage,SangareddvMandal, Medak District}

¶127

2 Mohd. Habeeb, S/o^{Not knowto the appellant, Age:Major,Occ: Owner of the} ii;;'Gdi:9996, nlo i-s-2-tos+,^{Jahanuma, Hvderabari ( Near Falaknuma)}

¶128

R2 dismissed^{vide CourtOrderdaled 17-2-2017.}

¶129

' ...ResPondenUResPondentNo'1

¶130

M.A.C.M.A.No.69 o12022 Between:

¶131

Shafi Ahamed,^{S/o.SardarAhammed, Age:33yealg'} 9gciyq+l?^{Reporter R/o'} ili:diil, n"-iii.^{pJi Vit tig} ", Sins ared o/Mand-al,^{I\Ieda k Di strict}

¶132

...AppellanUClaimant

¶133

AND

¶134

1 Mohd. Habeeb, S/o^{Not know to the appellant, Age:Major,Oic: Owner of the} Car GAY-9996,^{Ryo.19-2-'1034, Jahanuma, Hyderabad'}

¶135

2 TheDivisionalManaqer,UnitedlndialnsuranceCo.Ltd.,Divisionalofficer, 16-10-27 -105. 2nd^{Fi-oor,Malakpet, Hyderabad.}

¶136

...Respondents/ResPondents

¶137

Appeals f iled under Section 173 of M.V.Act aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree datr:d 30-12-2005 passed in o.p.No.149 of 2oo2 on the file of the court of the chairman, Motor Vehicres Accidents craims Trirrunar-cum-The Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.

¶138

These appeals 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 case and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. A. Ramak.rishna Reddy, AdvocEte for the appellant in MACMA No.943 of 2006 and Mr. palle sriharinath, Advocate for the Respondent No-'r in MACMA No.943 of 2006 ard Appeflant in MACMA No.69 of 2022 and None Appeared for the Respondent Nr.2 in MACMA No.69 of 2022 arrd in MACMA No.943 of 2006.

¶139

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

¶140

That the M.A.c.M.A.No.943 of 2006 fired by the insurer/respondent No.2 be and hereby is dismissed without costs;

¶141

2 That the IVr A. c M.A. No.69 of 2022 fred by the petitioner be and hereby is allowed witr costs,

¶142

3 That the petitioner be and hereby is awarded compensation of Rs.30,62,g00i(Rupees th rty Iakhs sixty two thousand and eight hundred onry) with interest at7.5o/o per annum from the date of the petition till realization;

¶143

That the respondent No,2/insurer be and hereby is directed to deposrt the differentiar compensation amount within four weeks from the date of recerpt of a copy of this order;

¶144

That on such deposit, the petitioner be and hereby is permitted to withdraw the entire amount;

¶145

6 That the de,:ree and order dated 30-12-2005 in op N0.149 of 2,102 on the fire of the cherirman, I\irotor Accidents craims Tribunar-cum-prilcipar District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy be and hereby stands modified;

¶146

T That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Lower Tribuna shal stand conflrmed ir all other aspects; and

¶147

That the appeflants be and hereby are entifled costs of Rs. 115i- to be paid by respondents.

¶148

	MEMO RANDUMOFCOSTS MACMA.No.69ot2022
S.No.	Particulars	Rs.Ps.
1	Stam s forVakalatnama	05.00
2	Stam used fortheMemo/Court^fee	'10.00
3	Stam sfor Jud ment^{of the Lower Court}	01.00
4	for decree oftheLowerCourt Stam	01.00
5	er used forenclosures Stam Valueof Co	38.00
6	Advocate's fee FeeCertiflcate^{not filed}	00.00
7	Batta and Pos e	60.00
8	Char Translation andPrintin e	00.00
	TOTAL	115.00

¶149

Sd/. T. JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶150

//TRUE COPY//

¶151

ECTION OFFICER To, '1. The Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims^{Tribunal-cum-The} 1' Principal District Judge,^{Medak at Sangareddy.} 2. Two CD Copies kam

To,

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 010112025

COMMON DECREE

MACMA.No.943 of 2006 AND

¶157

MACMA No.69 ot Z0Z2

¶158

MACMA No.943 of 2006 lS DISMISSED WITHOUT COSTS MACMA No.69 of 202215 ALLOWED WITH COSTS

The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co.,Ltd. v. Shafi Ahamed and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co.,Ltd. v. Shafi Ahamed and Anr.

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

Polala Anitha Vs M. Venkat Reddy

Abbas Bee Vs Parveen Begum

Kalaveni Thirupathi Vs Sayyad Nazeer

Shafi Ahammed Vs Mohd. Habeeb

S.Amrick Singh Bagga Vs T.Bhaskar and Anr.

Boinapally Papa Rao Vs Boinapally Sadwi Rao