A RAVI BABU, R.R.DIST v. B. ANJAIAH, R.R.DIST AND ANOTHER
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: M.G.PRIYADARSINI
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2024-12-17. A RAVI BABU, R.R.DIST v. B. ANJAIAH, R.R.DIST AND ANOTHER. Read the judgment and case details...
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FOUR , PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M. G. PRIYADARSINI MOTOR ACCIDENT C IVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPE AL NO: 478 OF Appea I filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against Judgment and Decree passed in O. P. No. 1204 of 2010 dated 19. 04. 2016 on file of the Cdurt of the Vlll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga District, at L. lB. Nagar. Between: pullaiah, 'Mechanic Aged about years, l&rj. 9"9t, @ Ravi Kumar, S/o 35 occ: RT-C- Working under contract Labour, Cio k. MaOnusuOnin Rdo R/o 2'19l8, Opp. S. P. Office, Saketh Nagar, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District. ... APPELLANT/PETITIONER AND 1 B Anjaiah, S/o B. Pentaiah, Aged Major, Occ: Business, R/o C_. 173, Colony, Vanasthali puram, Ranga Reddy District, A. p. 2 M/s. Roya. l Alliance, lnsurance Co Ltd, Rep 1'ndarma by its Manager, is Controlling Office, for the M. V.
Cases, offic6 si(uated P_av^ani Towers. A Block, 5'n Floor, Rajbhavan Road, Somajiguda, -500 082. ... RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: SRt. JAGATHPAL REDDY KASI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No. 2: SRt A RAMA KRTSHNA REDDY The Court made the foltowing: ORDER o THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M. G. PRIYADARSINI M. A. C. M. A. No. 478 OF 2OL7 JUDGMENT: 1. Dissatisfied with the compensation au'arded by the Chairman, lMotor Accident Claims Tribunal-cttm-Vlll Additional District Jud;3e, Ranga Reddy District at L. B. Nagar (for iihort, "the Tribunal") ir-r M. V. O. P. No. l2O4 of 2010, dated 19. O4. 2O16, the claim petilioner/ injured preferred the present Apperrl seeking enhancemen t of compensation amount. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties here inafter be referred as thev were arrayed before the Tribunal 3.
The brief facts of the case are that lhe claim petitioner/injured filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs. L5,OO,(. t00/- from the respond,3nt Nos. 1 & 2 lor the injuries sustirined b1" him in a road acciderLt 1. hat occurred on 06. 06. 2010 at about 1 1. 'f,0 p. m. at Muthyaiamnragudem of Kattangur, Nalgonda District.. It is stated by the peti ti cner/ inj ured that on 06. 06. 2OlO at a. bout 11. 00 p. m. , when the petitioner/ injured was proceeding along with others in a TATA Indicr Car bearing No. AP-29K-1765 from L. E). Nagar to Khammam zrnd when reached Muthyalammagu,lem of Kattangur, Nalgonda di,strict, a Lorry bearing No. AP 29TA 1497 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, while MACMA. No 4/8 ol 2017 overtaking another vehicle, gave dash to the Indica Car bearing No. AP-29K- 1765, due to which the petitioner sustained fracture injuries viz.
, segmental both bones left forearm, dislocation of right hip, mandible fracture maxial fractures, head injury and other multiple injuries throughout the body- Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Kamineni Hospital, Narketpally intitially and later shifted to Mamatha Hospital, Khammam, where he was operated for Head injury and on the advice of the Doctors therein, he was again shifted to Kamineni Hospital, L. B. Nagar, where the Hospital authorities demanded to deposit an amount of Rs. 3,0O,O0O/ - immediately. But, due to financial stringency, he could not deposit the same. It is further stated by the petitioner/ injurcd that his wife is working as Conductor in APSRTC and as per the advice of Doctors of APSRTC Hospital, he was shifted to Image Hospital, Ameerpet, where he was admitted as inpatient and was operated and is still undergoing treatment and the Doctors advised 3 more operations to be performed on him and hence, he incurred more than a sum of Rs.
2,00,OOO/ -towards medical expenses. The hnding of the Doctors is that the petitioner is unf rt for the post of mechanic and other works as the fractures and injuries sustained by him are very serious and he became disabled. - 3 MA(MA. No. 478 of 2077 4. Based on a compiaint, Police of Kattangur Poli,::e Station, Nalgonda District, registered a case in Crime No. 8O of 201O under Sections 3O4-A and 337 of IPC. It is statecl by the petitioner/ injured that as on the date of accident, he u,i,rs aged 30 years and rvas working as a Mechanic in RTC under contract Labour and earning an amount of Rs. 10,OOO/- per month from APSRTC through the Contractor. As the Doctors opined that if the petitioner forcibly attends to any work, there is a chance for fits and other problems on account of Head injury and otherr multiple injuries sustained by him, he is declared as unfit to do alry job. As the petitione::/ injured sustained loss of earnings 1009,6, @ became dependant and may incur atleast Rs.
5,000/- per mon[h till his end towards medical expenditure, he filed claim petitiort seeking compensation of Rs. 15,00,0O0/ against Respondcnt Nos, 1 & 2. 5. Respondent No. 1, owner of the crime Lorry bearir. rg No. Ap_ 29-TA-7497, remained ex-parte. Respondent No. 2/. insurance Company filed its counter denying the avermen ls marle in the claim petition including, involvement of crime lorry, rash and negligence on part of the driver of lorry, age. incomr:, health condition of the petitioner, occurrence of a,:cident, injuries sustained bv the petitioner, treatment undergone b,v the petitioner and incurring of medical expenditure. It also contended that the MACMA No 478 oJ 2017 accident took place due to gross negligence on part of the rider of TATA Indica Car bearing No. AP-29K-1765 in which the petitioner was travelling a the time of accident.
It also denied that the driver of the crime vehicle is having valid and subsisting driving license t drive the crime vehicle and the vehicle was roadworthy to ply and further contended that the claim of compensation is excess and exorbitant and hence, prayed to dismiss the claim against it. 6. Based on the pleadings made by both the parties, the learned Tribunal had framed the following issues:-o Whether the pleaded accident occurred resulting injuies to the pet[tloner. If so, utas due to th. e fault of the diuer of the TATA l,orry baring No. AP-29TA-1497 of the petitioner and if both are responsible, uhat is the responsibilitg of each? (il Whether the TATA lorry in question belongs to respondent No. l and stood insured with respondent No. 2 and if so, whether lhe policg couers the nsk of the petittoner? (iil Whether the petitoner is entitLed to compen-sation and if so, to Luhat amont and what is the tiabilttg of respondet Nos. l & 2? (iu) To what retteJ? 7 .
Before the Tribunal, the petitioner/ injured, in order to substantiate his claim, was examined himself as PWl and also got examined PWs 2 & 3 and got marked Exs. Al to A26 on his behalf. On behalf of Respondent No. 2/lnsurance Company, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. MACMA 478 o12017 ^! o S. AftercorLsideringtheoralanddocumentaryevidenoeand the learned by the petitioner' arguments submitted also the writterl by of [he petitioner the claim petition Tribunal had prartly-allowed along 'with inl. erest @ of Rs'7'67'000/ awarding compensation deposit date of petition till the dzrte of 7.. 5%o pet annlrm from the Nos'1 & 2 jointlv and severally' payable by both the Respondent the Being not sadsfied with the said compensation amot-rnt' the present A'ppeal seeking petitioner/ injured preferred compensation amount' enhancement rlf the for g.
Reddy Kasi Reddy' learned coirnsel Heard Sri Jagathpal learned and Sri A Ramakrishna Reddy' the appellant/ injured Penrsed the Insurance ComparLy' counsel for 12'd respondent/ record 10. The contentions of the learned Counsel lor etppellan r/ injured tLLe income to have consirlered are that the barned Tribunal ought - per month and loss o i earning of the injure d Rs. 1O,00O/ @ contended that the learnecl Tribunal capacity IOO<%. He also Q, failed to awa::d compensation towards medical hrills anc erred in considering the multiplier as 17 instead of 18 and alsc failed to award compe:nsation under the head of treatmcnt an(l medical expenses, damage to clothing, loss of amenities in lif::' loss of marital 1ife, continuance of permanent disability and future MGP. I MACMA. No-47A of 2017 modical expenditure and hence, prayed to allow the Appeal by enhancing the compensation amount. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.
2/Insurance Company contended that the learned Tribunal, after considering all the aspects, had awarded adequate compensation and interference of this Court is not necessary. 12. Now the point that emerges for determination is , 0 Whether the order passed bg the learned Tibunal requires interference of this Court? POINT:- 13. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner/injured himself was examined as PW1 and reiterated the contents of the claim petition and deposed about the manner of accident and injuries sustained by him. He also got examined PWs 2 to 5 on his behalf and got marked Exs. Al to 426.. Ex. A1-FIR shows that Police of Kattangur Police Station, Nalgonda District, registered a case in Crime No. 80 of 20lO under Sections 304-A and 337 of IPC, conducted investigation and filed charge sheet against the driver of crime TATA lorry bearing No. AP-29TA-1497 under Ex. A2. Ex.
A3 is the Medico Legal Case record issued by Kamineni Institute of Medical Sciences, Narketpaly, Naigonda District. Ex. A4 is the MLC record issued by Image Hospitals, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. MGP. ) - MACI lA. No 478 of 2O17 Ex. ASrstheMedicalCertifiCateissuedbyMalnathaHospital, by Image Summary issued the Discharge Khammam. Ex. A6 is recorrls issue'1 by NIMS Hospital. E>:s. A7 to A10 are the discharge Ex AI2 is the Bitling the prescriptions' Hospital. F)x. Al1 are Khammarrr ' trx l' 13 are the statement issued by Mamata Hospital, merticalbills. Ex. Al4istheCTBrainPlainreportissuedby Khammam' Ex A15 is the estimation given by Mamata Hospital, Image Hospr. tals, Ameerpet, Hyderabad' Ex A16' is the Provisional National Trade Certificate issued by the Depa':tment of Employmen: and Training. Ex AlT is the Certilicate isr';ued to the gx ntS is the petitioner blr Boys Town Industrial Training CerLtre' Mahindra Automotive Sec[or' Certificate issued to the petitioner by Ex.
Alg is ttre skill certifrcate issued to the petitioner b'r' Mahindra ancl Mahindra Lt. Automotive Sector, Zaheerabad. Ex r\2O are the X-rays. Ex. A21 is the Disability Certificate issued by he Medical Board of NIMS Hospital showing the extent of disabil'ry as 50%o' trx. A22 aro the photographs showing the disability of the petitioner i ej r. rred. Ex. A23 is the copy of Secondary School / Certificate ;. ssued by the Board of Secondary Education' Andhra Pradesh. Ex. lt24istheAadharcardofthefatherofth.. )petitioner. trx. A25 is 1. he Household card of the petitioncrs Ex 'A26 is the Caste certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer of Khammam District. M MACMA. No. 478 14. In order to prove the injuries sustained petitioner/ injured, he got examined the Doctor who treated PW2-Orthopaedic Surgeon working in NIMS Hospital deposed his evidence that the petitioner came to their Hospital alleged history of road trafhc accident and admitted as inpatient from 3O. 1O. 201O Lo 13. 72.
2070 for the injuries of "one and year old neglected posterior dislocation of right hip with fast and infected non-union fracture both bones left forearm with drop. " He further stated that the petitioner was operated O1. O5. 2O12 for replacement of right hip joint and was dischhrged on 14. 05. 2012 and the injuries sustained to him are grievous in nature and assessed his disability 50% which is permanent @ nature. deposed 15. PW3, Duty Medical Ofhcer, Image Hospitat, evidence that the petitioner was admitted in their Hospital with and was multiple injuries suffered in road accident treated inpatient frorn 17. 06. 2010 to 08. 07. 2010 and u'as operated 22. 06. 2O1O and 23. 06. 20 10. 16. Though PWs 1 to 3 were cross-examined by the Insurance Company, nothing worthwhile was eiicited to disbelieve their testimony. Thus, from the evidence o[ PWsl to 3 coupled documentary evidence marked under Exs Al to A15 and Ex MACt,tA-No.
478 oJ 2O17 is clearly esttrblished that the petitioner sustained grievous multiple injuries in the motor vehicle accident that occur. ed clue to the rash ancl negligent driving of the driver of crime vt:hicle i. e,. Lorry bearing No. AP-29TA- 1497, which finding of the Tribunal attains finality and requires no interference by thrs Court 17. Coming to the quantum of compensation, as the petitioner failed to pro're his job and income, the learned Tribur:al, taking into consideration that the petitioner is a skilled worker hxed his monthly earnings Rs. 6,0OO/-, considered disability (i) 50% by @ relying uporl the evidence of PW2 and Ex. A27- Disabilify Certihcatc, applied relevant multiplier and calculated t. :re loss ol future earnings on account of permanent disability rvhich arrived @ Rs. 6, i2,OOU/ Apart from this, the learned Tribunal alsio granted certain amoun',-s under various heads which are mentionr'd beiow:- S.
No Name of the Head Amount av,arded by Tribunal Pain and suffering Rs. 1,0O,OO(1,/- 1 Ai-tendant charges Rs. 20,000/ 2 E;<tra nourishment Rs. L5,0O0/ Loss of future earnings Rs. ii,12,OO0/- 4 'lransport charges Rs. 2)O,0OO1 5 t-, MACMA. No 478 ol 207/ 18. The learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 7,67,OOO/-towards compensation to the petitioner/inJured. Being not satisfied with the said compensation, the appellant/ injured is before this Court by way of the present Appeal. 19. The first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/injured in the present Appeal is that the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the income of the injured @ Rs. 10,000/- per month and loss of earning capacity lOO"/o. ln @ this regard, it is pertinent to state that though the appellant/ injured contended that he was employed under a contractor as a Mechanic in APSRTC and drawing salary of Rs. iO,0O0/- per month, but he failed to produce any documentary proof to that effect.
Instead, he hled the certificates issued by the Industrial Training Centre and Mahendra Automatic Sector showing that he is well experienced in total assembly of Mahindra 3 wheeler, glass htment, door htment and alignment, head lining, instrument panel fitment, Harness fitment and connection, Wiper fitment, Brake and clutch connections, rectification and replacements and had successfully completed training in Fitter Trade. 20. Hence, this Court, taking into consideration the above said certilic{tes, hereby come to a conclusion that the petitioner is a 1r MGP,I MACN\4. No. 478 oJ 2017 Rs 6,5OO/- by skilled worker and hereby hx his monthly income @ learned calculate interfering with the finding of the Tribunal and the compenszrtion which is detailed as under:- S. No. Name of the Head Amount awarded bY this Court - M onthly income Rs. {r,5OO / I Annual income Rs. 'Z8,OOO/- 2 L,rss of future earnings Rs. 6,63,O0{l/- Rs. 96 000 )t 5Oo x17 2t.
In addition to this, the learned Tribunal had also awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rsr'2O,000/- towards attendant charges, Rs. 15,000/- towar<is extra nourishment and Rs. 20,O0O towards transport charges, this 'vhich Court finds . :easonable and is not inclined to rnterfere with the same. Hen,:e, upon calculating the said amounts, the total compensation to which the appellant/injured is entitled to comes to Rs. 8,18,O0O/-. 22. It is also contended by the learned counse for the appellant / inj ure d that the Court below failed l. o award compensation under the heads of treatment and medical expenses. \ ,1 I '12 (\ MGP'] MACMA. No. 478 ol 2017 23. In this connection, it is pertinent to refer to the cross-examination of PW1 wherein he deposed that his wife is working as a permanent employee in APSRTC and he took treatment in various Hospitals through the reference of APSRTC Hospitai.
He aiso categorically admitted that the inpatient bills wili be paid by APSRTC. Furthermore, the bills filed under trxs. A12 and A13 do not disclose that they are born by him personally and are not rermbursed by APSRTC. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled for any amount towards medical expenditure. 24. In the resuit, M. A. C. M. A. No. 478 of 2Ol7 filed by the appellant/injured is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs. 7,67,0O0/- to Rs. S,18,000/ . The enhanced compensation amount shall carry . inLerestl@ 7 . Sok per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization payable by both the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon such deposit, the appellant/ injured is entitled to withdraw the same without furnishing any securit5r. There shall be no order as to costs. MACN|A. No. 478 o12017 25.
Miscell,ar-reous appiications, if any' pending shall stand closed REDDY Sd/- A. SREENIVASA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// S CTION OFFICER To Additional District 1 The Chairmarr, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Vlll Nagar' (With Rec-ords) nanga Reddy District at L'B and Sessions . luOge, KASI REDDY' Advocate toPucl 2 il cC 6 snt licnrHpnl nroov ' REDDY' Advocate IoPUCI one CC to SII. I A RAMA KRJSHNA J 4 Two CD CoP es PR rl .. , :],. \ HIGH COURT DATED: 1711212024 gE ST47" 1 {' I DTAftS) JUDGMENT+DECREE (2 /\- ,,,t (' -. r 1 MACMA. N o. 478 oI 20'17 I I rrtAB 2025 a . '... 't-, , D PARTLY ALI-OWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M. G. PRIYADARSINI MOTOR ACC IDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEO US APPEAL NO: 478 OF 2017 Between: puilaiah, Aged about llgrj. 9rpt, @ Ravi Kumar, S/o 35 years, occ: Mechanic in RT-c.
, workin_g undgr contract Labour, c/o k. ruadnusudtrin Rao R/o H. No. '- +--i- 21918, Opp. S. p. Office, Saketh Nagar, Vikarabad, nangi ReOOybisiriit. ... APPELLANT/PETITIONER AND 1 S/o BPentaiah, Aged Major, Occ: Business, Q . Anjaiah, FVo C:j73, NGOs Colony, Vanasthali puram, Ran-ga Red6y District, A. p. 2 M/s. Roya. l S^undarma Alliance lnsurance Co Ltd, Rep by its Divisional - Managej, is Controlling O. [ice, for the M. V. Cases,'omce siiuated;i Jil;i P_av_ant lowers, A Block,5"' Floor, Rajbhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad -500 082. ... RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under section 173 of the Motor Vehicres Act against the Judgment and Decree passed in o. p. No. 1204 of 2010 dated 19. 04. 2016 on the file of the court of the vlll Additional District and sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L. B. Nagar. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of .
appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the court below and the mateiial palpers in tne rraVop and upon hearing the arguments of SRl. JAGATHPAL REDDV KASI REDDY, Advocate for the appellant and of sRI A RAMA KR|SHNA REDDY, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows,, 1. That the MACMA filed by the appellanvinjured be and hereby is aprfly allowed by enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs. 7,67,0001 to Rs. 8,18,000i- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Eighteen thousand onty); 2. That the enhanced compensation amount shall barry interest 7. 5o/o pet @ annum from the date of petition till the date of realization payable by both the respondent N,cs. 1 and 2 iointly and severally within a perlod of two months from the date cf receipt of a copy of this order; 3. That upon such deposit, the appellanUinjured be and hereb'y is entitled to withdraw the same without furnishing any security; 4. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. Sd/.
A. SREENIVASA REDDY ASSISTANI REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// TION OFFICER ,N) To 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Vlll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L. B. Nagar. 2. fwo CD Copiers PR l HIGH COURT DATED: 1711212024 DECREE MACMA. N o. 478 ot 2017 PARTLY ALI. OWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS )
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.