Dismissed

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, v. Kunduri Venkamma

Telangana HC3 Feb 2012MACMA/486/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court affirmed the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award in a vehicle accident compensation claim. The court rejected the bus operator's challenge on contributory negligence and the claimants' request to enhance compensation, but reduced interest from 9% to 7.5% annually, dismissing both the cross-objections and the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Affirmed the Tribunal award; interest reduced from 9% to 7.5% per annum; dismissed appeal and cross-objections.

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶2

CROSS-OBJECTONS (SR) NO.12501 of 2006 AND MACMA NO. 486 OF 2006

¶3

DATED: 03.02.2012

¶4

CROSS-OBJECTONS (SR) NO.12501 of 2006

¶5

Between: Kunduri Venkamma and others .. Cross-objectors And APSRTC .. Respondent MACMA NO. 486 OF 2007 A.P.S.R.T.C .. Appellant And Kunduri Venkamma and others .. Respondents

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶7

CROSS-OBJECTONS (SR) NO.12501 of 2006 AND MACMA NO. 486 OF 2006

¶8

COMMON JUDGMENT:

¶9

This appeal is filed by the APSRTC against the Award dated 30.04.2005 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum District Judge, Ongole in M.V.O.P.No.199 of 2001. Whereas, the crossobjections were filed by the claimants.

¶10

2. I have heard Smt. K.Sarada Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/APSRTC and Ms. Kavitha Gottipati, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants.

¶11

3. Challenge to the award is on the grounds that the learned Tribunal did not take in to consideration the contributory negligence of the deceased, who was driving the motorcycle at the time of the accident and also that the compensation granted to the claimants is on higher side. Whereas the claimants filed cross objections (SR) No.12501 of 2006 contending that the compensation granted by the Tribunal is not adequate and therefore, it deserved to be enhanced.

¶12

4. Insofar as the contributory negligence of the deceased is

¶13

concerned, the learned Tribunal in paras 9 and 10 of its judgment categorically held that except self-serving testimony of RW.1, there is no other material to show that the deceased was also at fault to some extent in happening of the accident. The learned Tribunal recorded a finding that the deceased was preceding on the left side of the road which is very wide and that there was no occasion to come and dash the APSRTC bus by his rash and negligent driving. The learned Tribunal also observed that there is nothing to show that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the motorcycle. Therefore, I am not inclined to take different view to that of the learned Tribunal to hold that there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased also in the occurrence of the accident.

¶14

5. The next question to be determined is the quantum of compensation. The deceased is an agriculturist and he was said to be doing real estate business. According to the claimants, the deceased was selling tobacco worth Rs.3,00,000/- every year and it is established by Ex.A.6-certificate issued by the Auction Superintendent, Tobacco Board. Ex.A.7 is the pattadar pass-book, and Ex.A.8 is the title deed pass-book which reveal that the deceased was having Ac.20.00 of land. Ex.A.9 and A.10 pass-books also reveal that the deceased was keeping a minimum account of Rs.35,000/- in his savings bank account.

¶15

6. Considering all these factors, the learned Tribunal rightly fixed the supervisory loss occasioned to the appellants on the death of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- and also rightly applied multiplier ‘13’ and arrived at total compensation of Rs.5,35,000/-. The Tribunal however,

¶16

granted interest at the rate of 9% per annum and it being on higher side, deserves to be reduced in this appeal to 7.5% per annum and is accordingly reduced as such.

¶17

7. For the foregoing reasons, the Award dated 30.04.2005 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum District Judge, Ongole in M.V.O.P.No.199 of 2001 is affirmed and the appeal filed by the APSRTC and the Cross objections filed by the claimants are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶18

___________________ Date: 03.02.2012 R. KANTHA RAO, J Kvrm

¶19

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶20

CROSS-OBJECTONS (SR) NO.12501 of 2006 AND

¶21

MACMA NO. 486 OF 2006

¶22

DATED: 03.02.2012

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, v. Kunduri Venkamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, v. Kunduri Venkamma

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

M/s. United India Insurance Company Kimited, Vs Katakam Poolamma

Kodam Raghu Vs Panja Sammaiah

The Managing Director, Apsrtc, Vs Ruqia Begum

Mangilipalli Parvathamma Vs Anjamma

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs Kantayapalem Ramesh

C.Kusumakumari Vs a.Venkatasubbaiah