Dismissed

M/s. Apsrtc, rep. by its General Manager, v. Thipparabayam Anitha

Telangana HC3 Jul 2012MACMA/2780/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellate court dismissed the Motor Vehicles Act appeal filed by A.P.S.R.T.C. against the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's award of compensation to the legal representatives of a deceased scooter rider killed by the appellant's bus. The court held the Tribunal correctly found sole negligence on the bus driver. Compensation quantum based on the deceased's status as a labourer was upheld. The a

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by A.P.S.R.T.C. fails and is dismissed without any order as to costs.

M/s. Apsrtc, rep. by its General Manager, Vs… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO

¶2

M.A.C.M.A.NO.2780 OF 2012

¶3

JUDGMENT:-

¶4

Heard Sri Karri Venkata Reddy, learned counsel representing S r i C.Sunil Kumar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the A.P.S.R.T.C. and Sri V.Venu Gopal Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants.

¶5

2. This appeal is filed by A.P.S.R.T.C. against the order, dated 16.06.2009, passed by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District in O.P.No.590 of 2007. The legal representatives of the deceased T.Ganesh filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on account of his death in a road accident allegedly due to involvement of the A.P.S.R.T.C. Bus bearing No.AP 10 Z 1706. The accident took place on 11.05.2007 at about 8.40 p.m. while the deceased Ganesh was proceeding on his scooter bearing No.AP-9-8473 from HAL Colony, Hasmatpet. When he reached near Kendriya Vidyalaya, Bowenpally, according to the claimants, the A.P.S.R.T.C. Bus bearing No. AP 10 Z 1706, driven in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, hit the scooter. The deceased, having received severe head injury and multiple fractures, died on the spot. It was contended by the A.P.S.R.T.C. in its written statement that the deceased was driving the scooter without following the traffic rules and in fact, he, without noticing the A.P.S.R.T.C. Bus, crossed the road and was involved in the accident and therefore, there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. The learned Tribunal, after making an enquiry into the claim, found that the accident was solely on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C. Bus and accordingly, held that the A.P.S.R.T.C. is liable to pay compensation to the claimants, who are the legal representatives of

¶6

the deceased. The learned Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.4,81,000/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment.

¶7

3. The Award passed by the learned Tribunal is assailed by the A.P.S.R.T.C. on two grounds namely (1) that the learned Tribunal ought to have given a finding that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and (2) that the compensation granted by the learned Tribunal below at Rs.4,81,000/- considering the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month in the absence of any evidence in proof of the income is on higher side and requires to be reduced in this appeal.

¶8

4. Having heard both the learned counsel and upon perusing the order passed by the learned Tribunal below, it seems that the Tribunal arrived at an appropriate finding on the issue of negligence. The reason being that P.W.2, an eye witness, had categorically spoken to the fact that the driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C. Bus had driven the said bus in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed and caused the accident. This apart, the averments in Ex.A-1- certified copy of First Information Report disclosed that the accident was on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus. Ex.A-2certified copy of charge sheet also revealed that the police, after thoroughly investigating into the offence, filed charge sheet against the driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus for the offence under Section 304-A IPC.

¶9

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant A.P.S.R.T.C. contended that the Tribunal below ought to have applied the principle of Res ipsa loquitor and ought to have recorded a finding that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased also. It is not possible to accept the contention of the learned counsel because it is not a case where there is no evidence regarding the occurrence of the

¶10

accident. The claimants have let in positive evidence showing that the accident was solely on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus. In support of their contention, the appellant-A.P.S.R.T.C. did not adduce any evidence and did not atleast examine the driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C. Bus to explain the circumstances under which the accident had taken place. This is a case wherein the appellant-A.P.S.R.T.C. failed to discharge its burden and therefore, it cannot be said that there was material before the learned Tribunal below to hold that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. Consequently, this point is answered against the A.P.S.R.T.C.

¶11

6. The next question requires determination is the quantum of compensation. According to the appellant, the compensation granted by the learned Tribunal below is on higher side and requires to be reduced. The main contention is that in the absence of any documentary proof regarding the income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal went wrong in taking his income at Rs.3,000/- per month. According to the claimants, the deceased was a Labourer. It is very difficult to produce any documentary evidence regarding the income of the Labourer. It is now well settled that the income of a Labourer can be safely taken at Rs.3,000/- per month. The deceased was aged 35 years on the date of accident. The learned Tribunal made 1/3^rd deduction, applied multiplier “16” and granted compensation of Rs.4,81,000/- under various heads. If the compensation is computed basing on the judgment of Sarla Verma, it works out to more amount. However, it could not be granted since there is no appeal by the claimants. Therefore, I see no merit in the contention that the compensation granted by the learned Tribunal below is on higher side. Thus, this point is also answered against the appellantA.P.S.R.T.C.

¶12

7. For the reasons aforementioned, the appeal filed by the

¶13

appellant/A.P.S.R.T.C. fails and the same is dismissed without any order as to costs. The claimants, who are majors, can approach the Tribunal below for withdrawal of the amounts of their respective shares and the Tribunal shall permit them to withdraw the said amounts.

¶14

____________________ R. KANTHA RAO, J

¶15

03^rd July, 2012 AMD

¶16

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO

¶17

M.A.C.M.A.NO.2780 OF 2012

¶18

Date: 03.07.2012

¶19

AMD

M/s. Apsrtc, rep. by its General Manager, v. Thipparabayam Anitha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Apsrtc, rep. by its General Manager, v. Thipparabayam Anitha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Syed Afzal Hussain Vs T.M. Gnaneswar Rao

The National Insurance Company Limited, Vs Kandregula Venkata Ramanamma

A.P.S..R.T.C. Vs Sheelam Vinoda

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Vs Jadhav Madhu

B.M. United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Kalakada Fathima BEE.AND5 Others

Shaik Abdul Razaak, Vs S. Babu