In this appeal against the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, the Court held that the compensation awarded to the appellant for property damage was adequate and based on just and reasonable grounds, requiring no interference. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Award of Rs. 10,000 by the Tribunal upheld; appeal dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO
CMA NO. 3451 OF 2002
DATED: 10.02.2012
Between:
Bandlamudi Mangadevi
.. Appellant
And
K.Subramanyeswara rao and others
.. Respondents
THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO
CMA NO. 3451 OF 2002
JUDGMENT:
Heard Sri N.Subba Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri Srinivasa Rao Vutla, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2/insurance company and the third respondent/APSRTC.
2. This appeal is filed against the order dated 24.09.2002 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum I Additional District Judge at Guntur in M.V.O.P.No.1076 of 1998.
3. The appellant filed claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages caused to his house on the road side.
4. The case of the claimant is that on 09.04.1998 at about 2.30 PM a lorry bearing No. AEW 7488 belonging to the first respondent and APSRTC bus bearing No. AP 10Z 2699 dashed against each other and as a result, the lorry rammed into the western side of the house of the claimant near road margin and caused damage to the house. An amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was claimed as damages.
Apart from filing the photographs and negatives showing the damage caused to the house, the claimant filed an estimation prepared by PW.2, who gave evidence before the Tribunal below to the effect that the damage caused to the house would be Rs.21,000/-. Against the said claim, the learned Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.10,000/- apportioning the amount 50% each and fastened the liability on the first respondent/owner of the lorry and the second respondent/insurance company and the remaining 50% on the third respondent/APSRTC. Since no convincing evidence with regard to the damages caused to the house has been placed before the leaned Tribunal, I am of the view that the compensation granted by the tribunal is said to be adequate. It would appear that it is just and reasonable which requires no interference.
5. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the claimant fails and the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
___________________ Date: 10.02.2012 R. KANTHA RAO, J kvrm
THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO
CMA NO. 3451 OF 2002
DATE:10.02.2012
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to the appellant for damage to her house needs to be interfered with on appeal.
Bandlamudi Mangadevi
K.Subramanyeswara rao
R. KANTHA RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
