Partly allowed

The Managing Director, Apsrtc, v. Ruqia Begum

Telangana HC2 Feb 2012CMA/2482/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this compensation claim appeal, the appellant challenged the Tribunal's award as excessive. The court held that even though the appeal sought reduction, the court could enhance compensation if evidence justified it. Discarding the appellant's claim, the court enhanced the amount to Rs. 5,50,624/- and raised the interest rate from 4% to 7.5% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 5,50,624/- and interest rate increased to 7.5% per annum from the date of petition.

The Managing Director, Apsrtc, Vs Ruqia Begum — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶2

CMA NO. 2482 OF 2001

¶3

DATED: 02.02.2012

¶4

Between: APSRTC .. Appellant And Ruqia Begum and others .. Respondents

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶6

CMA NO. 2482 OF 2001

¶7

JUDGMENT:

¶8

This appeal is filed by the APSRTC against the Award dated 19.06.2001 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum VII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in M.V.O.P.No.1422 of 1996.

¶9

2. The only point urged by the learned counsel at the time of hearing of the appeal is that the compensation granted by the learned Tribunal is on higher side and therefore, it requires to be reduced.

¶10

3. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants contended that the Tribunal even though arrived at a decision that the respondents/claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.5,50,624/-, restricted the award to the amount of Rs.4,50,000/- claimed by the claimants in the claim petition and the said finding of the Tribunal is not in accordance with law. According to the learned counsel, the Tribunal has to award compensation which in its opinion the claimants are entitled to even though the claim is for a lesser amount.

¶11

4. In support of his contention, he relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in IBRAHIM v RAJU AND OTHERS^[1] wherein the Supreme Court expressed its view as follows:

¶12

“The High Courts and Tribunals are not paying serious attention to the imperative of awarding just compensation to the claimants despite repeated pronouncements of guiding principles by the Apex Court for determination of compensation.”

¶13

5. I n NAGAPPA v GURUDAYAL SINGH AND OTHERS^[2] wherein the Supreme Court held as follows:

¶14

“Where there is evidence on record justifying enhanced compensation for medical treatment which is required because of the injury caused to a claimant due to the accident, there is no reason why such amendment or enhanced compensation should not be granted.

¶15

It is further held that:

¶16

“In such cases, there is no question of introducing a new or inconsistent cause of action and evidence remain the same is only a question of application of law as it stands.”

¶17

6. I n ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT

¶18

CORPORATION v PATAN SHUMSHUD BEGU M^[3] wherein the Division Bench of this Court held as follows:

¶19

“Though the appeal is filed by the State Road Transport

¶20

Corporation under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by virtue of the provisions contemplated under Order 41 Rule 33 of Civil Procedure Code, this Court is empowered to enhance the compensation amount even though the respondentsclaimants have not filed any appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal below, in a given case.”

¶21

7. From the above judgments relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants, it is obvious that even though the present appeal is filed by the APSRTC, basing on the evidence on record, if the claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation, this Court can award the enhanced compensation. The learned Tribunal below arrived at a conclusion that the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.5,50,624/-, but restricted it to a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- claimed by the respondents/claimants in the claim petition. The approach of the Tribunal being erroneous can be interfered with in this appeal and this Court can grant the compensation which is just and reasonable.

¶22

8. After going through the award passed by the learned Tribunal, this Court is of the view that the learned Tribunal is right in arriving at the conclusion that the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.5,50,624/- and therefore, the said amount can be granted to the claimants/respondents. Though, the appeal is filed by the APSRTC, an amount of Rs.5,50,624/- is granted to the claimants/respondents as compensation. The enhancement therefore, would be Rs.5,50,624/minus Rs.4,50,000/- = Rs.1,00,624/- (Rupees one lakh six hundred

¶23

and twenty four only). The rate of interest i.e. 4% per annum granted by the Tribunal being low, is enhanced to 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶24

8. With the above enhancement in the compensation, the appeal filed by the APSRTC is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶25

___________________ Date: 02.02.2012 R. KANTHA RAO, J

¶26

kvrm

¶27

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶28

CMA NO. 2482 OF 2001

¶29

DATED: 02.02.2012