Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA MACMA Nos.227 271 AND 275oF 2015 Appeal filed Under Section 173 of M.V.Act against the Judgement and Decree in MVOP No.l998 of 2006 dated 07.08.2014 on the file of the V Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court) -cum- XIX Addl. Chief Judge, City Criminal Courts at Hyderabad Between: AND 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. National lnsurance Co Ltd, Rep. by its Regional Manager, 7th floor, Moghul Courts, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. ...AppellanURespondent No.2 Yasala Jyothi, Wo Late Naresh Kumar, Aged 36 Yrs, Occ Business, R/o.H.No. 1 6-09 -817 132, Saraswathi Nilayam, Sarojini Nagar Colony, Old Malakpet, Hyderabad. Yasala Meghaj, S/o Late Naresh Kumar, Aged 15 Yrs, Occ Student, Minor, Rep.by next Guardian R-1 Yasala Bhuvaneshwari, D/o Late.Naresh Kumar, Aged 12 Yrs, Occ Student, Minor, Rep.by next Guardian Resp. No.l. Yasala Rajaiah, S/o.Narayana, Aged 69 Yrs, Occ Business, R/o.H.No.16-09- 817132, Saraswathi Nilayam, Sarojini Nagar Colony, 0.1 Malakpet, Hyderabad. Yasala Saraswathi, Wo.Rajaiah, Aged 59 Yrs, Occ. House hold, R/o. H. No. 1 6-09 -817 132, Saraswathi Nilayam, Sarojini Nagar Colony, Old Malakpet' Hyderabad' .....Respondents/petitioners Sh Shambhu Sisngh, S/o.Ganapathi, Aged Major, Occ Car Owner, R/o.Villa Rohit Post Jhundwa, Tq.Uniasa, Dist. Tonk, State Rajasthan. ...Respondents/Respondents MACMA No.227 ol 2O15:
l.A. No: I OF 2015(MACMAMP. No:646 oF 20.t5) Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to stay the execution of decree and judgment passed in o.p.No.199g of 2006 dated 07.08.2014. on the fire of the v Addr. Metroporitan Sessions Judge (Mahira court)-cum-XlX Addr. chief Judge city criminar courts at Hyderabad and pending the final disposal of the main appeal. Counsel for the AppeilanL SRI KOTA SUBBA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: SRI ANANTHULA RAVTNDER MACMA No.271OF 2015 : Appeal filed under section 173 of M.V. Act against the Judgement and Decree in o.P.No.1999 of 2006 dated 07.08.2014, on the fire of the v Addr. Metroporitan sessions Judge (Mahira court)-cum-XlX Addr.chief Judge city criminar courts at Hyderabad, Between: National lnsurance Co Ltd., Hyderabad, Rep.by its Regional Manager, 7th floor, Moghul Courts, Basheerbagh, ityderabaA. -r -' "- "vvi\ ...AppellanURespondent No.2 AND 1. Yasala Jyo$i_Wo.Late.Naresh Ku_mar, Aged 36 yrs, Occ Business, R/. o. H. No. 1 6-09 -81 7 t32, Saraswathi Niiayim, Saroii,i i Nagai C6roni, OrO Malakpet, Hyderabad. .. .. .. RespondenUpetitioner 2. Sh.Shambhu Singh, S/o.Grnapathi, Aged Major, Occ Car Owner, R/o.Vi[a Ro h it, Post J h u no-wi, ro. u n iiia, o ist io n i,' 6a-Li"Ji i stra n. ...Respondents/Respondents
l.A. No: 1 0F 2015 CMAMP. N AND o: 698 OF 15 Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the af{idavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to stay the execution of decree and judgment passed in 0.p.No.1999 of 2006 dated 07.08.2014, on the fire of rie V Addr. Metroporitan sessions Judge (Mahira court)-cum-XlX Addr.chief Judge city criminar courts at Hyderabad, pending the finar disposar of the main appeal. Counsel for the Appeltant(s):SRl. KOTA SUBBA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: SRI RAVINOER ANANTHULA MACMA No.275 of 2015 Appeal filed Under section 173 of M.V.Act against the Judgement and Decree in MVop No.2000 of 2006 dated 07.08.2014 on the fire of the v Addr. Metropolitan sessions Judge (Mahira court) -cum- xrx Addr. chief Judge, city Criminat Courts at Hyderabad Between: 1 2 il3["rl? tltig:g!3, "t" "tjti:,.[??.?. Jl: R e g i o n a I Ma n as e r, 7th noo r, ...AppellanURespondent No.2 N.Sivaram @ Sivaramaiah,-S/o.N.R.Shankaraiah, Aged 3g yrs, Occ pvt.Lecturer, H.No. 1 0/603, Main aa;ib-ha;#;;;;, Ananthapur District. Presenttv residino'at_H-N"rO_Og-_iiiii#l S]raswatni Nitayam, Sa rojin i Nagar cbbny, oio uaiiipetl f va.idoi-ol "'' ..... RespondenUpetitioner R[',]f,IRlH,r'lS]r'{i."",Xi"irf;Ll#SS,1ts"ri+"ff :r?"1:R:j:.ih", ...Respondents/Respondents
l.A. No: 1 OF 20'ts(MACMAMP. NO:718 oF 201s) Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay the execution of decree and judgment passed in o.p.No.2000 of 2006 dated 07.08.2014, on the fire of the v Addr. Metroporitan sessions Judge (Mahila court)-cum-XrX Addr.chief Judge city criminar courts at Hyderabad and pending the final disposal of the main appeal. Counsel for the Appellant : SRI KOTA SUBBA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRt RAVINDER ANANTHULA The Court made the following COMMON JUDGEMENT
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN AND HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA M.A.C.M.A Nos.227 271 AND 275 0F 2015 COMMON JUDGMENT: ( Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman) Heard Mr. Kota Subba Rao, leamed Standing Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Ananthula Ravinder, leamed counsel for respondent (s) - claimant (s). 2. M.A.C.M.A. No.227 of 2015 is filed by IWs. National Insurance company Limited challenging the award and decree dated 07.0g.2014 in o.P.No. 1998 of 2006 passed by the v Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila court) - cum - XIX Additional chief Judge, city criminal courts ar Hyderabad, fixing liability on the Insurance Company alone. 3. Whereas, M.A.C.M.A. No.27l of 2015 is filed by the very same Insurance company challenging the award and decree dated 07.0g.2014 passed in O.P. No.l999 of 2006, while M.A.C.M.A. No.275 of 2015 is filed challenging the award and decree dated 07.08.2014 passed in o.p. No.2000 of 2006. 4. Respondent No.6 and the appellant herein, owner and Insurer ofthe crime vehicle i.e., Tata Indica Tax Car bearing registration No.Rl 26lTo 390,
2 KLJ & SKSJ tlt{cMA No_227 ot20l5 & batch are arrayed as respondent Nos. I and 2, respectively, in atl the aforesaid oPs, while the respondents are the claimants. 5. O.P. No.1998 of 2006 (relating to MACMA No'227 of 2015) is flrled by the wife, children and parents of the deceased - Yasala Naresh Kumar against the appellant and respondent No'6 herein claiming an amount of Rs.80,00,000/- towards compensation for the death caused in road accident on 16.10.2005 at 430 P.M. near Sikhwati Village, Laxmangadh' Rajasthan State' As against the said claim, rhe Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.51,76,500/- as compensation with interest @ 6o/o per annum thereon from the date of petition till its realization. 6. O.P. No. 199 of 2006 (relating to MACMA No.27 I of 2015) is filed by the wife of the deceased ctairning an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) towards compensation lor the injuries she received in the aforesaid road accident. As againit the said claim, the Tribunat awarded an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation with interesi @ 6% per annum thereon from the date of petition till its realization. 7. O.P. No.2000 of 2006 (relating to MACMA No'275 of 2015) is filed by the claimant - N. Sivaram @ Sivaramaiah claiming an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) towards compensation for the injuries he receihd in the aloresaid accident. As against the said claim, the Tribunal
3 KLJ & SKSJ MACMA No 227 ot20l5 & batch awarded an amount of Rs.3,24,963/- as compensation with interest @ 6yo per annum thereon from the date ofpetition till its realization. 8. Challenging the liability fastened on the Insurance Company as well as the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the Insurance Company filed the all these appeals. 9. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as arrayed they were arrayed in the Ops. 10. The case of the claimants in the aforesaid Ops is as under: i) The deceased - Yasala Naresh Kumar along with his wife and daughter (claimants in OP Nos. 1998 and 1999 of 2006) and other family friends, namely Mr. shivaram (claimant in oP No.2000 of 2006) and Raju went to Jaipur from Hyderabad to visit Salsar Hanuman Temple. After completion of darshan, they were retuming to Jaipur by engaging a local Taxi Car bearing registration No-RI 26lTo 390. When they reached near Sikhwali village, at about 4.30 P.M., the driver of the said car drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed against a bus bearing registration No.RI 10/PAO 148 corning in opposite direction, due to which, the deceased - Yasala Naresh Kurnar, Raju and the driver of the said car died on the spot, whereas the clai mants received grievous injuries.
4 KLJ& SKSJ MACMA No 227 of20l, & barc ii) The deceased is a business man and having M/s. vaishnavi Traders, bunny bags and poultry feeds, Revathi Agro Farms and also getting rents from houses and other business of paddy, mirchi and wheat etc. The deceased is an Income Tax Assessee and his annual income was Rs.g,06 ,4301_ for the year 2004-05 and Rs.3,53,623/- for the year 2005-06. Therefore, the craimants in o.P.No.l998 of 2006 being the wire, children and parents of the deceased claimed an amount of Rs.80.00 lakhs as compensation. iiD The claimant in O.p.No. 1999 of 2006, the wile of the deceased, received grievous injuries in the aforesaid accident. She was given first aid and thereafter shifted to the hospitat at Jaipur and thereafter, she retumed to Hyderabad by flight and admiued in KIMS Hospital, llyderabad. Thus, she claimed an amount of Rs.20.00 lakhs as compensation. i") The claimant in o.p. No.2000 or2006 received grievous injuries in the said hospital. He was given first aid and thereafter shifted to Jaipur hospital and from there, he returned to Hyderabad by flight, went to his native place Dharmavaram. Then went to Chennai and admitted in pDR Hospital, MOIT Hospital and spent huge amount towards flight charges and treatment. Thus, he claimed an amount of Rs.10.00 lakhs as compensation. Il. The Insurance Company opposed the aforesaid claims, mainly contending as under:
5 Kl-J& SKSJ MACMA No.227 ot20l5 & batch i) The police registered a case against the driver of opposite bus, which shows that due to negligence ofbus driver only, the accident had occurred, but not due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the carloffending vehicle. The police, after conducting investigation only registered a case against the driver of the opposite bus. Therefore, the claimants ought to have claimed the compensation against the owner and insurer of the bus, but not the car. In view of the same, the Insurer of the car is not tiable to pay any compensation to the claimants and, therefore, sought to dismiss the claims. 12. On consideration of entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the Tribunal awarded the compensations in favour of the claimants in the manner mentioned above fastening tiability on the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle/car. I 3. Challenging the same, the insurance company filed the present appeals on the following grounds: The accident did not occur due to the fault ofthe driver ofthe offending I ll. vehicle/car; The Tribunal ought to have fixed the liability on the driver, owner and insurer of the bus; The claimants ought to have impleaded the driver, owner and insurer of the bus; and ul -l
6 IV KLJ & SKSJ MACMA No 227 of20l5 & bat. The Tribunal failed to appreciate the fact that the craimants have not fired any documentary proof to show the income of the deceased as well the claimants and, therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side. In view of the same, the appeals filed by it are liable to be allowed. 14. Whereas, leamed counsel appearing for the claimants would contend that the Tribunal awarded the compensation on consideration of the entire evidence and there is no error in the impugned awards. 15. In view of the aforesaid rival submissions, we have perused the entire material available on record i) PW.l is the injured claimant in O.p. No.20O0 o12006; pW.2 and pW.3 is the same person i.e., Smt. yasala Jyothi, wif-e o[ the deceased in o.p. No'1998' PW'4 is the claimant in o.p. No.200l of 2006, thc daughter of the deceased' PWs 5 to 8 are the Medical officers who treated the claimants. PWs'9' 10 and 12 are the persons who accompanied the injured craimants and deceased in flight from Jaipur to Hyderabad. pw. tl is the chartered Account, who looked after the accounts of the deceased during his life time. RW. I and RW'3 is the same person i.e., J. Suresh chandra Mohan examined twice and he is the Administrative officer of lnsurance company, whire RW.2 is the Sub- Inspector of Laxmanghad police Station.
7 KLJ & SKSJ MACMA No 22? ofDl5 & barch ii) In this case, PWs.l and Z are the eye-witness to the accident. According to them, they along with deceased, Buvaneshwari and others went to Jaipur to visit Hanuman Temple on 16.10.2005 and after completion of Darshan while they were returning in the offending vehicle when they reached near Sikhwali village at about 4.30 P.M., its driver drove rhe same in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and lost control over the car and dashed against the bus coming in opposite direction. As a result, they received grievous injuries apart from the deceased and other inmates of the ofrending vehicle. However, the driver of the offending vehicle and the deceased died on the spot. iiD The evidence of PWs. I and 2, eye-witnesses to the accident categorically deposed that the driver of the offending vehicle drove the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at high speed on account of which he lost control over the vehicle and dashed against the bus coming in opposite direction. In fact, they have also received grievous injuries in the said accident. PWs.3 and 4, who are injured claimants in O.P. Nos. 1999 of 2006 and 2001 of 2006 also deposed in the same lines. During cross-examination, nothing contra we elicited from the said witnesses by learned counsel appearing on behalf of Insurance Company. However, learned counsel for Insurance Cornpany relying on Ex.Al and A2 - certified copies of FIR and charge sheet and the evidence of RW.2 - Sub-tnspector of Police, would contend that the
8 Kr-J & SKSJ MACMA No 227 ot20l5 & barc accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus, but not the car and, therefore, the driver, owner and insurer of the bus alone are liable to pay compensation and not the insurer of the car. iv) In view of the above, it is clear that PWs. I and 2 were travelling in the offending vehicle apart from other inmates and the deceased persons, and they are the best persons to speak about the fault, the manner in which accident was occurred. They categorically deposed that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the offending vehicle/car. RW.2 is the Sub-Inspector of Police and he reached the spot only after receipt of information about the accident. Ex.Al - FIR was registered after receipt of the information with regard to the accident and Ex.A2 - charge sheet filed after completion of investigation. Therefore, the evidence of pw.1 and pw.2 - eye witnesses is in corroboration with each other and it is believable. Rw.l is not an eye-witness. He is not the competent witness to prove the rash and negligent driving ol the driver of either of the vehicle as he is only the Administrative officer of the Insurance company. At the most, his evidence would be useful with regard to issuance of policy and terms and conditions contained therein. Therefore, the contention of leamed counsel for the appellant - [nsurer that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the parr of the driver ol the bus and not on thc part of the driver of the car and that the driver, owner and ir.rsur.er
9 KLJ & SKS,J MACMA No 227 ot20t5 & bdch of the bus alone are liable to pay compensation is unsustainable. once the Tribunal on considering the evidence, both oral and documentary, gave a specific finding that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the car. The said finding is supported by reasons. It is apt to note that the Motor vehicles Act is a beneficial piece of legislation to provide solace of just compensation to the family of the victim or injured persons. Even, when two views are possible, the view which is beneficial to the claimant is to be considered. Thus, the decisions reried upon by learned counsel for the appeilant - Insurer in Machindranath Kernath Kasar v. D.S. Mylarappa r, T.O. Anthony v. Karvarnan', ApsRTc v. K. Hemarathas, orientar Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal a and Machindranath Kernath Kasar v. D.S.Mylarapps are inapplicable to the present case. 16- The next contention raised by reamed counser for the appeilant - Insurer that the amounts awarded by the Tribunat to the claimants are on higher side and the Tribunat has not considered the income of the deceased properly while computing the compensation. i) Coming to the compensation awarded ln O.P.No.1998 of 2006 (MACMA No.227 of 2015), the Tribunal awarded an amounr of Rs.5 |,76,500/- . 2008 ACJ 1964 , (2008) 3 SCC 74E . 2008 (s) ALD I 16 (SC) . 2007 Ac.t l2t4 . (2008) 13 scc l9E \ \ I 2 l 4 5
l0 KLJ & SKSJ NIACMA No 227 0f 2015 & bar, as compensation to the claimants. wife, children and parents of the deceased. In this case, it is the contention of the claimants that during the life time of the deceased, he was doing business by running M/s. Vaishnavi Traders, Bunny Bags & Poultry feeds, Revathi Agro Farms and also getting rents from houses and other business of paddy, mirchi and wheat etc. and thereby used to eam Rs.50,000/- per month. Claimants have filed Exs.19 and 20 - Income Tax retums for the years 2004-05 and 2005-06 and Ex.A2l - shopping complex propefty document. Ex.Al9 - income tax retums for the year 2004-05 shows the annual income of the deceased as Rs.8,06,433/-, while Ex.A20 shows rhe annual income ofthe deceased as Rs.3,53,820/- for the year 2005-06. They are the authenticated documents. The claimants have also examined PW.l I, the Chartered Accounlant, who was looking after the accounts of the deceased. Learned Tribunal on consideration of the said evidence arrived the annual income of the deceased at Rs.5,80,000/- out of which, 30oZ was deducted towards expenditure and remaining amount of Rs.4,06,000/- as the net income of the deceased per annum. As per the decision in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation5 , 1146 of the annual income i.e. Rs. I ,0 I ,500/- was deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased during his life time and the remaining amount of Rs.3,04,500/- was considered as loss of dependcncy by the Tribunal. u. (zoog) o scc rzr
ll KLJ& SKS.J MACMA No 227 of20t5 & barcfi ii) As per the evidence available on record, the age of the deceased was considered as 30 years as on the date of accident. Accordingly, multiplier.lT, was taken and applying the same to the annual income of the deceased arrived at Rs.51,76,500/- as the loss of dependency to which the claimants are entitled. Accordingly, the same was awarded to the claimants. In fact, the claimants are also entitled certain amounts under different heads which were not awarded by the Tribunal. iii) Considering the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the Tribunal awarded the aforesaid compensation to the claimants and there is no error in it to interfere by this court. In view of the same, there is no error in awarding the compensation of Rs.5l,7 6,500/- to the claimants as compensation for the death of the deceased and, therefore, the appeal filed by the lnsurance Company vide MACMA No.227 of 2015 is liabte to be dismissed. 1 7. Now, coming to the compensation awarded in O.p.No.l 999 of 2006 (MACMA No,271 of 2015), the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.4,00,000/_ as against the claim of Rs.20,00,000/- towards compensation for the injuries received by the claimant. Out of Rs.20,00,000/- an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/_ was claimed towards perrnanent disability. To prove the same, the claimant relied upon the evidence of PW.7 and Exs.Al, 2 and A36. It is not in dispute that the claimant had received injuries in the accident and the same is evident
t2 Kl-,J & SKSJ MACMANo.227 of20l5 & brt( from trxs.Al and 2 and also Fx-.A27. Though the claimant pleads that she sustained permanent disability, no documentary evidence is placed to that effect. PW.7, the doctor, who treated the claimant, did not speak on the said aspect. i) It is also not in dispute that immediately after the accident, the claimant was taken to the hospital at Jaipur for treatment and from there to Indraprastha Apollo Hospital at Delhi. Thereafter, she came back to Hyderabad and took the treatment in KIMS Hospital as inpatient from 19.10.2005 to 29.10.2005 as per Exs.Al3 and27 to 30, medical bills. The claimant travelled all the way from Jaipur to Hyderabad by flight for which certainly she must have incurred certain amounts towards transportation. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, awarded an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs.1,00,000/- towards extra nourishment and medicines and Rs.1,50,000/- towards transportation charges including flight charges of one attendant making a total amount of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation. The claimants did not file any appeal challenging the said award. ii) As discussed above, the Tribunal has rightly awarded the aforesaid amount of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation to the claimant for the injuries, she sustained in the aforesaid accident, and there is no error in it to interfere hy this
l3 KLJ& SKSJ MACM^ No 221of2ott & batch court' Thus, the appear filed by the Insurance company vide MACMA No.27l of 201 5 is liable to be dismissed. 18. With regard to O.p. No.2000 of 2006(MACMA No.275 of 2015), as stated above, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.3,24,963/- as compensation as against the claim of Rs.10,00,000/- for the injuries he received in the aforesaid accident. i) To prove the craim, the claimant himself examined as pw.l. It is arso not in dispute that the claimant received injuries in the accident. The claimant also examined PWs.5 and 6, the doctors, who treated him at chennai. pws.5 and 6 deposed with regard to the injuries sustained by the claimant and the treatment which they have given to the claimant. However, they did not depose about the disability suffered by the claimant. During cross-examination, pw.5 specifically admitted that there is no affect to the vision due to the injury and further admitted that he has not mentioned any disabirity in Ex.Ar0. pw.6, another doctor also did not depose with regard to the disability suffered by the claimant. Thus, on perusar of the said evidence, it is crear that the claimant did not suffer any disability. ii) However, as per the evidence of pws.l, 5 and 6 and Exs.Al0 to Ar3, the claimant received grievous injuries and that he had taken treatment as in patient in covemment Hospitar at Jaipur for the period from 17.10.2005 to
t4 KIJ &SKSJ MACMA No.227 ot20l5 & batc' 18.10.2005 and also taken treatment as in-patient in Santokba Duriabhiji Memorial-cum-Medical Research Institute, Jaipur from 1 8. 10.2005 to 25.10.2005 and later he had taken treatment in MOIT Hospital, Chennai lrom 28.10.2005 to 03.11.2005 and thereafter again he has taken treatment as in patient in PDR Orthopedic Hospital at T.Nagar, Chennai from 03.11.2005 to 09.11.2005 and also from 03.10.2006 to 05.10.2006 in Shanker Netralaya Hospital, Chennai, the Tribunal considered the pain and suffering and accordingly, an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- was awarded towards pain and suflering and an amount of Rs. | ,52,8931- towards extra nourishment and medicines iii) The Tribunat also considered the fact that after the accident, the claimant was shifted to nearby local Government Hospital, later admitted in a private hospital in Jaipur and thereafter he was shifted to Delhi and again lrom Dethi to Hyderabad by flight. Ex.A35 shows that he spent an amount of Rs.21,035/- towards flight charges from Jaipur to Hyderabad. The claimant needs assistance ofone attendant in order to shift him from the place of incident to Hyderabad and thereafter to Chennai and accordingly granted an amount of Rs.42,07 0l- towards transport charges iv) The Tribunal also considered the loss of income observing that the claimant was working as employee in Birla Institute of Scientihc Research at
t5 't KI-J & SKS,J MACMA No.227 of20l5 & batch Jaipur on a monthly salary of Rs.15,280/- and due to the accident, he was constrained to take bed rest for a period of six months for which he lost his eamings. Though the petitioner deposed in his evidence that he was getting monthly salary of Rs.15,280/-, he himself averred in the claim petition that he was getting monthly salary of Rs.10,000/-, which is contrary to his evidence and, therefore, considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of eamings for a period of tfuee (03) months @ Rs.10,000/- per month. Thus, the Tribunal in all awarded an amount of Rs.3,24,935/- as compensation as against the claim of 10,00,000/- for the injuries he sustained in the aforesaid road accident. v) Considering the evidence of PWs.l, 5 and 6 and Exs.AlO to A13, medical bills, the Tribunal has rightly awarded the aforesaid amount of Rs.3.,24,935/- as compensation and there is no effor in it to interfere by thrs Court. Thus, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company vide MACMA No.275 of 2015 is liable to be dismissed. 19. As far as rate of interest awarded by the Tribun al @ 6Yo per annum on the respective amounts is concemed, the same is also in tune with the pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and does not warrant any interference by this Court. Therefore, the rate of interest @ 6Yo per annum is also confirmed. t
KLJ & SKS,J MACMA No.227 of20l5 & bat 20' In the right of rhe aforesaid discussion, a, these appeals fail and accordingly the same are dismissed confirming the awards and decrees dated 07.08.2014 in O.P.Nos.t998, 1999 and 2000 of 2006 passed by leamed V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court) - cum - XIX Additional Chief Judge, city criminat courts at Hyderabad. The appelrant - Insurance company shall pay barance amounr awarded by the Tribunat within one (0r) month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. However, there shall be no order as to costs As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the appeals shall stand closed Sd/- A.V.S PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR t6 //TRUE COPY// <r/ U" SECTION OFFICER To, 3. The V Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court) -cum_ XIX Addl. . Chief J^udge_., City Criminal Courts at Hyderabad (with records if any) 4. One CC to SRt. KOTA SUBBA RAO Advocate tOpUCI 5. One CC to SRt. RAVTNDER ANANTHULA Advocate tOpUCI 6. Two CD Copies NAI-
HIGH COURT DATED: 24101n024 ./: .,.:,; E'i,..IF C .1':': 1s ltt tut * :) ') a= + ,,!1 t,'. COMMON JUDGEMENT MACMA.Nos.227,271 AND 275 of 2015 DISMISSING THE MACMAS WITHOUT COSTS. L\ I I I \ 'l:' f, ?
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY,THE TWENry FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRl JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA MACMA Nos. 227 271 AND275 0F 2015 MACMA No.227 of2015:, Between: AND National lnsurance Co Ltd Rep.. by its Regional Manager, 7th floor, Moghul Courts, Basheerbagh, Hyderabid. ' ...AppellanURespondent No.2 1. Yasala Jyotli, W/o Late Naresh Kumar, Aged 36 yrs, Occ Business, Rr/.o.H..No.. 1 6-09 -B1t t32,saraswathi Nitayim, Sarojini n;g"rc;i;;i: Old Malakpet, Hyderabad. 2. Yasala Meghaj, S/o Late Naresh Kumar, Aged 15 yrs, Occ Student, Minor, Rep.by next Guardian R-1 Y.asala_Bhuvaneshwari, D/o Late.Naresh Kumar, Aged 12 yrs, Occ Student, Minor, Rep.by next Guardian Resp. No.l. rgsala Rajaiah, S/o.Narayana, Aged 69 yrs, Occ Business, R/o.H.No.16_09- 17l32,.Saraswathi Nitayim, Sar5lint Nagarbotony, O.t tr{daipet, - rderabad. lala Saraswathi, Wo_Rajaiah, Aged 59 yrs, Occ. House hold, H.No.16-09-817/32, SaraswathiNitayam, Sarojini Nagar Colbny, Old kpet, Hyderabad. ambh.uSisngh,s/o.Ganapathi,ngeaNaaioi,'6*"i"t*xrit*?::{r:ilr"* lost Jhundwa, Tq.Uniasa, Dist. Tonk, State Rajasthan. ...Respondents/Respondents
l.A. No: I OF 2015(MACMAMP. No:646 oF 20151 Petition under section 1s1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay the execution of decree and judgment passed in o.p.No.199g of 2006 dated 07.08.2014, on the file of the v Addl. Metropolitan sessions Judge (Mahila court)-cum-XlX Addl. chief Judge city criminal courts at Hyderabad and pending the final disposal of the main appeal. MACMA No.271OF 2015 : Between: AND U3["r],? Uffi H:1 i,T, 3& Hiu',TH,?Ei"t1o:"0 o, its R e g io n a I M a n a g e r, 7th,oo r, ...AppellanURespondent No.2 lgy]g.{yot!i Wo.Late.Naresh Kumar, Aged 36 yrs, Occ Business, R/o.H.No.16_ 09-817132, Saraswathi Nitayam, Sarojiiri Nagar Cotoiry, Or- Mii;kptf'- ' ''" '- Hyderabad. RespondenUPetitioner Sh.Shambhu Singh, S/o.Gan posr Jhundwa, rd Uniasa, rfi?$,l,-iEi*yfif:,pr*;;;owner, R/o Vira Rohit, ...Respondents/Respondents 2 l.A. No: I OF 20{ 5(MACMAMP. No: 698 OF 2015) Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to stay the execution of decree and judgment passed in o.p.No.1999 of 2006 dated 0r.08.2014, on the file of lie V Addr. Metroporitan Sessions Judge (Mahira court)-cum-XrX Addl.chief Judge city criminar courts at Hyderabad, pending the finar disposar of the main appeal.
MACMA No.275 of 2015 Between: National lnsurance Co.Ltd.,, Rep.by its Moghul Courts, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. AND 2. Sh.Shambhu Singh, R/o.Villa Rohit, Post l.A. No: I OF 201S(MACM Regional Manager, 7th floor, ...AppellanURespondent No.2 1. N.Sivaram @.$lyarqqqi_a-n, S/o.N.R.Shankaraiah, Aged 38 yrs, Qcc Pvt.Lecturer, H.No. 1 0/603, Main Bazar, Dharmavarah, Ananthhdur Diskict. Presently.residing at H. No. 1 6 -09-81 7 132, Saraswathi Nilbyam, Sarojini Nagar Colony, Old Malakpet, Hydcrabad. S/o.Ganapathi,Ageoraajoi,ci[:"8;",ffilgietitioner Jhundwa, Tq.Uniasa, Dist Tank, State Rajasthan. ... Respondents/Respondents AMP. NO: 718 OF 2015) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the execution of decree and judgment passed in O.p.No.2000 of 2006 dated 07.08.2014, On the file of the V Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court)-cum-XlX Addl.Chief Judge City Criminat Courts at Hyderabad and pending the final disposal of the main appeal. These Appeals filed Under Section 173 of M.V.Act against the Judgement and Decree in MVOP Nos.1998,1999 & 2000 of 2006 dated 07.08.2014 on the file of the V Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court) --cum- XIX Addl. Chief Judge, City Criminal Courts at Hyderabad ORDER: These appeals coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeals, the order and Decree of the Lower Tribunal and the material papers in these cases and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Kota Subba Rao, Advocate for the Appellant in all appeals and for the Respondents in all the appeals Sri Ananthuala Ravinder.
The Court doth order and decree as follows 1. That these Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Appeals are hereby is dismissed by confirming the awards and decrees dated 07.08.2014 in OP Nos.1998,1999 and 2000 of 2006 passed by the V Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court) -cum- XIX Addl. Chief Judge, City Criminal Courts at Hyderabad' 2. fhal the lnsurance Company shall pay balance amount awarded by the Tribunal within one (01) month from the date of receipt of copy of this Judgement. 3. That save as aforesaid these decree of the Lower Court Tribunl shall stand confirmed in all other aspects. Sd/- A.V.S PRASAD ASSISTAN Gts To SGaTrotl q(1<e€- 1. The V Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court) -cum- XIX Addl' Chief Judge, City Criminal Courts at Hyderabad 2. Two C.D. CoPies. \ Rvr (ct officer) \')f-
HIGH COURT DATED: 2410112024 COMMON DECREE MACMA.Nos.227,271 AND 275 ot 2015 DISMISSING THE MACMAs WITHOUT COSTS. @5*