Dismissed

N.Suresh Reddy v. The A.P.S.R.T.C.

Telangana HC18 Oct 2012CMA/3952/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court dismissed appeal challenging quantum of motor accident compensation. Upheld lower Tribunal's award considering depreciation for a 9-year-old vehicle and finding of 50% contributory negligence by appellant despite criminal court fine imposed on bus driver.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed with no costs awarded. The compensation awarded by the lower Tribunal remains.

N.Suresh Reddy Vs The A.P.S.R.T.C. — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

¶2

C.M.A.No.3952 of 2003

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Aggrieved by quantum of compensation awarded by the lower Tribunal, this appeal is filed by the injured/owner of opposite vehicle. As against claim of Rs.1,50,000/-, the lower Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.24,466/- to the appellant.

¶5

As per Ex.A2 wound certificate, the injured sustained three simple injuries. The lower Tribunal awarded Rs.3000/- towards compensation for pain and suffering for three simple injuries. The said amount is reasonable amount for three simple injuries. Apart from the said amount, the lower Tribunal awarded Rs.2,000/towards medical expenses and extra-nourishment, inspite of there being no documentary proof like medical bills for the same. A total of Rs.5000/- was awarded for the

¶6

injuries on all heads.

¶7

The appellant claimed compensation for damages caused to his car. According to the injured as P.W.1, he incurred expenditure of Rs.1,50,000/- towards repairs to his car. He examined P.W.2 who is insurance surveyor and loss assessor. P.W.2 assessed the damage and arrived at value of damage to the parts of the car at Rs.1,09,830/-. The car is of 1992 model. P.W.2 did not deduct any depreciation for value of the car parts damaged. The accident took place in the year 2001. By then the car was 9 years old. Even as per crossexamination of P.W.2, the amount of Rs.1,09,830/- is required for replacing damaged parts of the car with new parts in the year 2001. By adopting depreciation method and by considering that more than half of the life of the car was spent on road by the time of accident, the lower Tribunal gave discount of 60% of the value of parts towards depreciation. Even if life of a car is taken as 15

¶8

years, 60% of the value is appropriate towards depreciation for 9 year old car. The lower Tribunal did not disturb quantum of damages to the car as assessed by P.W.2. After deducting 60% of the value as depreciation, the lower Tribunal noted damage to parts of the car as Rs.43,932/-. Thus, total compensation was arrived at Rs.48,932/-.

¶9

The lower Tribunal came to the conclusion that there is contributory negligence on the part of the injured also for this accident and divided negligence between the injured and RTC bus driver at 50% each; and awarded 50% of Rs.48,932/- being Rs.24,466/- as compensation for the injured/claimant. It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that finding as to contributory negligence is unsustainable as the bus driver admitted his negligence before the Magistrate Court and paid fine for the offence under Section 337 IPC. The lower Tribunal noticed that

¶10

the road where the accident took place is a double road

¶11

and straight road. P.W.1 admitted that he observed the bus coming in opposite direction from a long distance. Inspite of it P.W.1 did not avert the accident. In those circumstances, the lower Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that there is contributory negligence on the part of the claimant also for this accident. The criminal court did not give any finding as to negligence, as the accused therein who is driver of the bus admitted his guilt. In any event, finding of the criminal Court is not binding on a civil Court and on the lower Tribunal while dealing with motor accident’s claim. The lower Tribunal is expected to arrive at finding as to rashness or negligence of the vehicles on the basis of evidence which is placed before the Tribunal during enquiry. In these circumstances, finding of the lower Tribunal about 50% contributory negligence on the part of the claimant is unassailable. I find no reason to interfere with amount of compensation awarded by the lower Tribunal to the

¶12

appellant.

¶13

In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.

¶14

____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J.

¶15

18^th October 2012 Rns

N.Suresh Reddy v. The A.P.S.R.T.C.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Suresh Reddy v. The A.P.S.R.T.C.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Guda Sreenivasula Reddy (A1) Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M.v.Sarojamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Rokkala Venkateshu Vs The State of Ap.

Gannavarapu Sankar Vs The State of A.P.

Suresh Agarwal, , Suresh Kumar Agarwal, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gorle Appa Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh