Dismissed

Smt. Fareeda Begum v. Mr.Nasruddin Shah

Telangana HC20 Jan 2011CMA/3151/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged the assessment of income by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in a death claim case. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal's presumption of Rs. 2,500/- per month was reasonable due to lack of documentary proof for the claimed higher income.

What did the court decide?

The civil miscellaneous appeal was dismissed, upholding the Tribunal's award of compensation.

Smt. Fareeda Begum Vs Mr.Nasruddin Shah — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.3151 of 2003

¶3

DT.20.01.2011

¶4

Between:

¶5

Smt.Fareeda Begum and others

¶6

… Appellants

¶7

And

¶8

Nasruddin Shah and another

¶9

… Respondents

¶10

Counsel for the Appellants: Sri C.S.Chakravarthy

¶11

Counsel for Respondents: None appeared

¶12

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶13

JUDGMENT:

¶14

This civil miscellaneous appeal arises out of award, dated 17.03.2003, in O.P.No.1007 of 1999, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad (‘the Tribunal’).

¶15

The appellants are the claimants in the OP. The said OP was filed claiming compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- for the death of one Saleem Khan, who left behind him the appellants as his family members. The Tribunal in its award framed the following issues.

¶16

“1. Whether the accident is due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle bearing No.MP-15-G-0168. 2. Whether R.2 is liable to pay any compensation to

¶17

the petitioner.

¶18

3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation, if so to what amount?”

¶19

Upon finding that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by respondent No.1, the Tribunal has assessed the quantum of compensation and awarded in all a sum of Rs.3,60,000/- under various heads, holding the respondents as jointly and severally liable.

¶20

At the hearing, Sri C.S.Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the appellants, has confined his submissions to the aspect relating to the assessment of income by the Tribunal. The learned counsel submitted that while it is the pleaded case of his clients that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.3,500/- per month as a lorry driver, the Tribunal has taken Rs.2,500/- per month as his salary.

¶21

Admittedly, except the oral plea and testimony of the claimants regarding the income of the deceased, no documentary evidence, such as, salary certificate, was filed to substantiate their plea that the deceased was earning Rs.3,500/- per month. In the absence of such documentary proof, the Tribunal has presumed that the deceased would have been earning Rs.2,500/- per month. In my opinion, this reasoning cannot be said to suffer from any illegality warranting interference of this Court.

¶22

For the above-mentioned reasons, I do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶23

(C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J)

¶24

Date: 20.01.2011 VGB

Smt. Fareeda Begum v. Mr.Nasruddin Shah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Fareeda Begum v. Mr.Nasruddin Shah

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

V.Varadhi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mohd. Mumtaz Ali Vs The District Panchayat Officer

Bonasi Sankarappa Vs The State of Andhra PRadesh, Rep. by its

S. Dharma Lingam, Vs The District Collector Cum Project Director

Kum.D.Shoba Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt.G.Ghanti Bai