Partly allowed

Apsrtc by G.M. and Ors. v. Aisha Siddiqui W/O Mohimmith 9 Ors.

Telangana HC21 Jun 2012CMA/309/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of an appeal by APSRTC and cross-objections by claimants against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal judgment. The bench upheld the Tribunal's finding of shared liability between a bus and a jeep driver. Compensation was affirmed at Rs.8,12,500 despite lower claim, but interest was reduced from 9% to 7.5% per annum. The appeal and cross-objections were disposed accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Compensation fixed at Rs.8,12,500 with interest at 7.5% per annum; appeal dismissed, cross-objections allowed.

Apsrtc by G.M. and Ors. Vs Aisha Siddiqui W/O… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶2

CMA NO.309 OF 2003 And CROSS OBJECTIONS SR NO.46736 OF 2003

¶3

DATED: 21.06.2012

¶4

C.M.A.NO.309 OF 2003

¶5

Between: APSRTC and another And Aisha Siddiqui and others X OBJS. SR NO.46736 OF 2003 Between: Aisha Siddiqui and others

¶6

.. Appellants And

¶7

.. Respondents

¶8

.. Cross Objectors And

¶9

APSRTC and another

¶10

.. Respondents

¶11

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶12

CMA NO.309 OF 2003 And CROSS OBJECTIONS (SR) NO.46736 OF 2003

¶13

COMMON JUDGMENT:

¶14

The appeal is filed by the APSRTC and the cross objections are filed by the claimants against the judgment dated 09.09.2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Nizamabad in O.P.No.627 of 1997.

¶15

2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the APSRTC and the learned counsel appearing for the claimants and the insurance company.

¶16

3. APSRTC filed the appeal challenging the judgment of the learned Tribunal holding that the driver of the APSRTC bus bearing No. AP 10 Z 179 as well as the driver of the jeep bearing No.AP 1 C 1742 are equally responsible for causing the accident and thereby fastening the liability of 50% each on APSRTC as well as the New India Assurance Company limited and also the quantum of compensation on the ground that it is on higher side.

¶17

4. The claimants specifically pleaded in their claim petition that

¶18

the accident was on account of the rash and negligent driving of the drivers of both the vehicles. PW.1 in her evidence before the Tribunal had categorically stated that the accident took place on t h e Nagpur to Hyderabad National High Way while she was travelling in the jeep bearing No.AP 1 C 1742. According to her, the driver of the jeep in which she was travelling as well as the driver of the APSRTC bus which was coming in the opposite direction respectively drove the vehicles in a rash and negligent manner at fast speed. Thus, her version clearly indicates that the accident was as a result of rash and negligence on the part of the drivers of both the vehicles. Learned counsel appearing for the APSRTC contended that the police filed Ex.A.4-charge sheet after thorough investigation into the case alleging that the driver of the jeep alone caused the accident by his rash and negligent driving, the said document being relied on by the claimants themselves, the Tribunal went wrong in totally relying on the evidence of PW.1. I absolutely see no force in the contention. The contents of Ex.A.4charge sheet cannot be taken as substantive piece of evidence. The evidence of PW1-injured eyewitness to the accident indicates that the accident was as a result of rash and negligent driving of the drivers of both the vehicles. Either APSRTC or insurance company did not adduce any evidence to show that it was otherwise. At least they should have examined their drivers to prove their respective versions. In the absence of any evidence adduced by the respondents, the learned Tribunal in my view rightly relied on the evidence of PW1-injured eyewitness whose

¶19

version is consistent with the averments of the claim petition. Therefore, I am not inclined to take any different view to that of the learned Tribunal below. The contention of the APSRTC on this question is therefore not accepted.

¶20

5. As regards the quantum of compensation, the learned Tribunal basing on the evidence adduced by the claimants rightly considered the age of the deceased as 43 years and his salary as Rs.4,969/-, by following the judgment of the Supreme Court in GENERAL MANAGER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRIVENDRUM v MRS SUSAMMA THOMAS

¶21

AND OTHER S^[1] rightly arrived at the compensation of Rs.8,12,500/-. However, the learned Tribunal is not correct in restricting the compensation to Rs.8 lakhs which was actually claimed by the claimants in the claim petition. It is now well settled that either the Tribunal or the Court can grant the compensation in excess of what actually claimed in the claim petition. Therefore, I am of the view that the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.8,12,500/-. The interest granted @ 9% per annum, however is on higher side and the same is required to be reduced in this appeal. The interest is therefore, reduced to 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation.

¶22

6. With the above enhancement in the compensation and reduction in the rate of interest, the appeal filed by the APSRTC is dismissed and the cross-objections filed by the claimants are

¶23

allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶24

___________________ Date: 21.06.2012 R. KANTHA RAO, J kvrm

¶25

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶26

CMA NO.309 OF 2003 And

¶27

CROSS OBJECTIONS (SR) NO.46736 OF 2003

¶28

DATED: 21.06.2012

¶29

[1] AIR 1994 SC 1631ss

Apsrtc by G.M. and Ors. v. Aisha Siddiqui W/O Mohimmith 9 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Apsrtc by G.M. and Ors. v. Aisha Siddiqui W/O Mohimmith 9 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

United India Insurance Company Limited, Vs C. Shekar

United India Insurance Company Limited, Vs Tumma Posani

Smt. Narsamma Vs P. Raji Reddy

M/S United Phosphorus Limited Vs M/S Watsol Organics Limited

Kantam Karyavardhi Raju Vs Shaik Kamal Basha

Chikati Sivarama Krishnaiah Vs Komaravolu Venkateswarlu