Thota Prasad v. 1. T.Ramesh

Counsel for the Appellant : Sri Krishna Kishore Kowuri Counsel for the Respondent No.1: None appeared Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Sri M Satish Reddy The Court delivered the following: Judgment I{ON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO M.A.C.M.A No.94O OF 2014 JUDGMENT: This rppeal rs filecl l)-y the claimant agqrreved by the orcler date:l 0(r.03.2O1? passed b1, the Chirirman, Motor Acr--iclents , ilziims Tr ibr-rnal (l ndditional Disrrrct Judge) at Khzrmmam (for slrort 'the Tribunal') in M.V.().P.No.1212 of 2O02, seekng erlherrrcement of compensation by invoking the provisions of Section 173 ol Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-

2. Hearcl Sri Krishna I(rshore Kol,vtrri, lerirned counsel :rppcaring Irr tllc altpcllant and Sri M. Satish l{r:ddy, Icarned cotrnsel appezrring for rcspondcnt No.2 / Insurit rice Company ancl peruserl thc entirc material on record.

3. In spi e ol servic--e o[ notice, therc is no -t'presentation orr beherlf o' rr:sJronclent No.1. Responde nt No-.1 is shown as drcd ancl profbrrna party

4. Brief facts of the case:

1.1. On 1O 0(r.2002, rvhile thc appellant as a I)illion rider on a motorc\-cl(' drrven lrv his lriencl namely Jupurli Ravi Kumar lvas proceecling to Kothagudem from BhaclrachalzLm, one auto clr-iven by r<'sponclenl No.3 came lrom opposite direction in a ) rash and negligcnt manner and hit against the motor cycle , as a result of which, the appellant sustained grievous injuries i.e. fracture of right lcg femur bone ancl ri61ht hand. Immediately, rhc appellant rvas shifted to the Government Hospital, Bhadrachalzrm for treatment and thereafter, he was shifted to a Private Nursing Home at Kothagudem for better treatment. A case in crime No.55 of 2OO2 for the offence under Section 337 of tPC was registered in pS., Burgampad, against respondent No_3 i.e, driver of the auto. He filed claim petition vide O.P.No. 1212 of 2072 claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,OOO/- on accoLutt of the injuries sustained by him. The Tribur-ral has awarded compensation of Rs.4l,9OO/- along with interest (i) 7.5o1' per annum against respondent Nos.l to 3 joir-rtly anci severzrlly.

5. Submissions of learned counsel for the ao ellant:

5.1. Learncd counscl for thc appellant contendcd that as on the date of accident, the appellant was working as cooli and earning an amoLrnt ol Rs.100/ per day. As there is no cvidence adduced by the appellant in proof of income, the Tribunal has taken the rnonthly income at Rs.l,2OO/- per month and calcLllated the Ioss of income at Rs.'/,200/ for a penod ol si-' months. He furthcr suttmittcd that -lic appellant sustainccl trvo rtrajor fracturcs rvhich zLre griev()Lrs in nature. Hou,errer, lhc Tribunal has not au,ardcd anv lr'-rorrnt uncler the head of- li-actLtres.

6. Submissions of learned counsel for respondent No.2:

6.1. Per co,ttra learr-red counsel altpearing lc r rr.sltondent No.2 contertrled that the :rppellant as pW I in itis cviclence specificallv r leposed that he wzrs working uncler- a Contactor as on thc clate of accident ernd the Contracto- rvirs paying Rs,1,2OO/ l)er mollth torvards Itis salary. IJc ftrrlher submitted ll:rt taking into consideration the sairl cieposition of PW 1, tl're "nbunaI has rightl-y :rwardecj jr_rst ar-r: reasonable compens:tllon and thc appcll:rnt is not enti lccl for any enhanccmcn. o1' compensation.

7. Aqaly5js o! the case

7.1. This Cr rrtrt <:onsiderccl tht: rival submissir. rrs rnzrcle by the respccl rvr' Jrartics and pcruscd thc l'naterial lrvailzrblc on record. It is r n r-ltdisputed fact that due to the rrt:ciclcnt, the 1 appellant had sustainccl grievous fracture injuries i.c. compound fracturc of right leg femur bone and right hand. To establish the said lactum, appellant got marked documents under Ex. 43 to A I 9. Though the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the a1:pellant sustained trvo factures, it has awarded an amount ol Rs.30,0OO/ towards pain and suffering but has not au,arded any amount under the head of grievous injuries.

7.2. ln such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the appellant is entitled for an amount of Rs.1,OO,00O/- to each fracture toraling Rs.2,OO,0O0/- for two fractures. 7 .3. In so far as the clarim o[ appellant regarding loss of income is concerned, ltasing on the evidence adduced by the appellant himsclf as PW1, the Tribunal has rightly considered the income at Rs. 1,200/- per month and awarded Rs.7,200/ towards loss of incomc for a period of six months. Hence, the appellant is not entitlecl to claim Rs.3,000/- per month.

7.4. It is pertinent to rnention that though the Tribunal found that the appcllant r,vould have taken rest lor a period of ,) si.x rrlonths, it has arvardcd only an amount li Rs 2'000/- undcr tl-tc hcacl of extra nourishment. IIcncc, this Court is inclrnt:cl to <r.lnt alt 2lnlount of Rs 5O,0OO/ lou'ards cxtra nourislrrncn in :rcldition to thc abovc said atnotrnt grant<:cl by the Tribr-rnel. As per the judgment ol the Apex Cotrrt in V.Mekala t,. M.Malothi and another, the appellernt is entitlecl for an amollnt of Rs.10,00O/- tor,'ards cost o[ Iitigi,rtion. At cordingly, the appellant is entitlccl [or an amoutrt of Rs.2,(>O,O,lO/ (2.00,O00+5O,00O+ l0,OOO) in :rddition to the amount alvirrded bv tl're Tribunal Accordingly, the appellant is gr.rnted total compensation amontrt o[ ts.3,01,9t)O/- (Rs.2,trO.0O(. +Rs.4 1,90O).

7.5. In tlre r-esuit, thc M.A.C.M.A is partly alloueci cnhancing thc cotnpensation alnount granted bl' tl-'" 'l'r:lrttnal to tltc appellzrnt frrm Rs.4 t,900/- to Rs.3,01,()0O/-(ltupces l'hrce Lakhs Onc Thousancl Nine Hundrecl onll'). 'I1c cnhanccd alnoLrnt shatl be cleposited b5r responclent Nos l and 2lointly ancl scvr:ral)y urithin a pcriod of two (2) tnontl-rs from thc cl:rte ' 2014 (5) ALD 4 2 (sc) (t of receipt of a copy of this order. The enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest (g1 7.5o/o per annum from thc date of claim petition till realization. On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to urithdraw the amount rvithout furnishing any security. Holever, the appellant is directed to deposit the deficit Court fee. There shall be no order as to COSTS Pending miscellaneous petitions, if ar-ry, shall stand closed. No order as to costs. //TRUE COPY// SD/. T TIRUMALA DEVI, ASS T NT REGISTRAR. S CTION OFFICER To, Judge at Khmmam(With records, if any) 'L The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- I Additional District 2. One CC to Sri Krishna Kishore Kowuri, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri M Satish Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies ADK vr- HIGH COURT DATED:2010112025 JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.No.940 of 2014 J o o AT5Etl1 Fr o^ t o \ ( 17 APn l[25 c t ! PAT Cr{ ei, { * 2 DRAFTS PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS t, J G,"t( Ih,,, IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD IVONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCE LLANE OUS APPEAL NO: 940 OF 2014 Between: Thota Prasad, S/o.Devaiah, Occ: Coolie, Ft/o.Ramavaram [VJ, Kothagudem [M], Khammam District. ...Appellant AND I 2 3 T.Ramesh, S/o.Rajeswara Rao, Owner of Auto No.AP 20 U 9688 Rl/o.H. No. 1 1 -'1 -68, Library Centre, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District. The Orientalk lnsurance Company Limited, rep by its Branch lvlanager O/o.Nalgodna Branch, W Road, Ramagiri, Nalgcinda. Kandika Kumar [Died], [R3 is profarma and not necessary party in this appeal] ...Respondents Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,19B8 against the Order and decree in fv.V.o.P.No.1212 of 2002 dated.06. 03.2012 on the file of the court of the chairman, lvlotor Accident claims Tribunal-cum- | Additional District Judge at Khmmam. 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 Case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Krishna Kishore Kowuri, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri M Satish Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No.2 and none appeared for the respondent No.1 and Respondent No.3 is not a necessary party. [his Court doth Orde. and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is partly allowed enhar cing the compensation amount granted by the Tribunal to the appellant frorr Rs 4.1 ,900^ to Rs.3,01,9001(Rupees Three Lakhs One Thousand Ninr: Hundred only);

2. That the enhanced amount shall be deposited by resoondent Nos. 1 and 2 .iointly and severally within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;

3. That the enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest @ 7.5o/o per annum from the date of claim petition till realization;

4. That on such,leposit, the appellant be and hereby is permitted to withdraw the amount witrout furnishing any security;

5. That the appellant be and hereby is directed to deposit the deficit Court fee; 6. That save as erforesaid, the decree of the Tribunal shzrll stands confirmed in all other respe(ls; and

7. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPY// SD,/. T TIRUMALA DEVI, ^'ri:f,"'*=l''y* [ \L.'.-*";FF..ER To,

1. The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- | Additional District Judge at Khmnram

2. fwo CD Copies; ADK (k- HIGH COURT DATED:2010112025 DECREE MACMA.No.94O o12014 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS Lir''q(.'\ Yt ,J.;\'r"