Partly allowed

The General Manager, Apsrtc., Mushirabad,Hyderabad, v. Sri Abdul Bari Khan

Telangana HC7 Feb 2012CMA/2964/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court partly allowed the appeal by APSRTC against the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award. The Court corrected the compensation calculation by reducing the disability percentage and applying the appropriate multiplier from Sarala Varma, reducing the total amount to Rs. 1,53,000 plus other heads totaling Rs. 1,91,000. The interest rate was also reduced to 7.5%.

What did the court decide?

Compensation awarded reduced to Rs. 1,91,000; interest rate reduced to 7.5% per annum; cross-objections dismissed.

The General Manager, Apsrtc., Mushirabad,Hyderabad… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶2

CROSS-OBJECTONS (SR) NO.19299 of 2002 AND CMA NO. 2964 OF 2002

¶3

DATED: 07.02.2012

¶4

CROSS-OBJECTONS (SR) NO.19299 of 2002

¶5

Between: Abdul Bari Khan .. Crossobjectors And The G.M., APSRTC and another

¶6

.. Respondents CMA NO. 2964 OF 2002 The G.M., A.P.S.R.T.C and another .. Appellant And Abdul Bari Khan .. Respondent

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶8

CROSS-OBJECTONS (SR) NO.19299 of 2002 AND CMA NO. 2964 OF 2002

¶9

COMMON JUDGMENT:

¶10

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/APSRTC and the respondent-claimant.

¶11

2. This appeal is filed by the APSRTC against the Award, dated 27.04.2002 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum District Judge, at Nizamabad in M.V.O.P.No.110 of 1996. Whereas, the Cross-Objections (SR) No.19299 of 2002 were filed by the claimant.

¶12

3. Challenge to the award by the A.P.S.R.T.C. is on the grounds viz. that the finding of the Tribunal below that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the R.T.C. bus is erroneous and that the compensation granted by the learned Tribunal is on higher side. Whereas the claimant filed

¶13

Cross-objections (SR) No.19299 of 2002 contending that the Tribunal below erred in restricting the award to only Rs.2 lakhs having determined the compensation at Rs.2,02,000/- and the learned tribunal ought to have granted the compensation arrived at by it keeping the rulings of the Apex Court.

¶14

4. According to the claimant, he was proceeding on scooter bearing No.AP-25-7449 as pillion rider on 27.12.1995 at about 3.30

¶15

p.m. and while the scooter was on the way, the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No.AEZ-2327 driven in a rash and negligent manner came in the opposite direction and dashed the scooter. Both the rider and pillion rider fell down from the scooter and the front wheel of the bus ran over the right leg of the claimant. The manner of occurrence of the accident pleaded by the claimant is denied by the appellant-APSRTC in the written statement stating that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the scooterist who drove it in a drunken condition.

¶16

5. The evidence of PW-1-claimant before the Tribunal as to the manner of the occurrence of accident is reliable and is inconfirmity with the averments of the F.I.R. which was lodged at the earliest point of time. There is no contra evidence let in by the A.P.S.R.T.C. Therefore, the learned Tribunal is correct in holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus.

¶17

6. The learned Tribunal below allowed the claim petition filed by the claimant granting compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- claimed by him in the claim petition with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization. The claimant is fruit vendor, according to the averments in the claim petition and also his oral evidence before the Tribunal below. But, no documentary evidence was adduced in proof of his income. The learned Tribunal without considering his age and believing that the claimant is fruit vendor, fixed the income at Rs.3,000/- per month which needs no interference in this appeal. The learned Tribunal instead of considering 50% disability spoken to by PW-2, the doctor and mentioned in Ex.C-2

¶18

disability, took into consideration only 25% of the disability and basing on the same, computed the compensation by adopting the multiplier 18, thereby arrived at total loss of earnings at Rs.1,62,000/-. As per the judgment in Sarala Varma and others V Delhi Transport Corporation and anothe r^[1] , the appropriate multiplier to the age of claimant is ‘17’ but not ‘18’. Therefore, the compensation has to be awarded by applying the multiplier ‘17’. By applying the multiplier ‘17’, if it is calculated, it comes to Rs.36,000/- x 25/100 x 17 = Rs.1,53,000/. The amounts granted under other heads being reasonable, need no interference in this appeal. The reduction in the compensation therefore would be Rs.9,000/- (Rs.1,62,000/- minus Rs.1,53,000/-). Therefore, the claimant is entitled for total compensation of Rs.1,91,000/-. The rate of interest being on higher side, is reduced to 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization.

¶19

With the above reduction in the compensation amount as well as in the rate of interest, the appeal filed by the A.P.S.R.T.C. is partly allowed. The cross-objections filed by the claimant are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶20

___________________ Date: 07.02.2012 R. KANTHA RAO, J ccm

¶21

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶22

CROSS-OBJECTONS (SR) NO. 19299 of 2002 AND

¶23

CMA NO. 2964 OF 2002

¶24

DATED: 07.02.2012

¶25

[1] 2009 ACJ 1298

The General Manager, Apsrtc., Mushirabad,Hyderabad, v. Sri Abdul Bari Khan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The General Manager, Apsrtc., Mushirabad,Hyderabad, v. Sri Abdul Bari Khan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Veesam Venkata Satyanarayana Murthy, Vs Polavarapu Chandra Rao

M/s. United India Insurance Co., Ltd., Vs Maddala Kotaiah

The Manager Vs K.Anil Kumar, S/o.Kishan, Aged 6 Years, Minor, Under

National Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs Aktharunnisa Begum

K.C. Rajender, Vs Apsrtc., Represented by its Managing Director

M. Guruvaiah Naidu Vs K. Valarmathi