Partly allowed

A.P.S.R.T.C. v. Pingili Posavva

Telangana HC20 Dec 2013MACMA/1832/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this appeal against a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal order, the APSRTC challenged the compensation awarded for an accident involving one of its buses. The High Court found no contributory negligence. The Tribunal's compensation amount was upheld, but the interest rate was reduced from 9% to 7.5% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Rate of interest in the award was modified from 9% per annum to 7.5% per annum.

A.P.S.R.T.C. Vs Pingili Posavva — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR

¶2

M.A.C.M.A.No.1832 of 2006

¶3

ORDER:-

¶4

This appeal has been filed by the APSRTC, challenging the order dated 24.09.2004 passed in O.P.No.1010 of 2002 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – District Judge, Adilabad (‘the Tribunal’, for brevity).

¶5

The appellant herein is the respondent and the respondents herein are the claimants before the Tribunal and for the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as per their array before the Tribunal.

¶6

The first claimant is the wife and claimants 2 to 5 are the children and the sixth claimant is the mother of the deceased Pingili Ramulu. The brief facts of the case are that on the fateful day of 05.09.2002, at about 08:00 PM, the deceased was proceeding on a bicycle and when he reached Sonia nagar, Srirampur, the bus belonging to APSRTC bearing registration No.AP-11-Z52, being driven by its driver – Sondilla Narsaiah in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed, came and dashed against the deceased. As a result of the said accident, the deceased sustained grevious injuries and he was shifted to Government Hospital, Mancherial and from there, he was shifted to Karimnagar for better

¶7

treatment. However, while undergoing treatment, he succumbed to injuries on 07.09.2002. The claimants, contending that the deceased was aged about 35 years as on the date of accident and was working as general Mazdoor in Singareni Collieries Company Limited and earning Rs.5,872/- per month, filed the claim petition before the Tribunal.

¶8

The respondents filed counter and denied the material averments made by the claimants.

¶9

The Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:-

¶10

1. Whether the deceased viz., P.Ramulu died in the motor accident dated 05.09.2002 involving vehicle No.AP-11Z-52?

¶11

2. If so, whether the accident took place on account of fault of the driver of the respondent?

¶12

3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom;

¶13

4. To what relief?

¶14

On behalf of the claimants, the first claimant – Pingili Posavva was examined as P.W.1 and the eyewitness of the accident – Mogadampula Posham was examined as P.W.2 and Exs.A.1 to A.7 were marked. No oral and documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of the respondents.

¶15

On issue No.1, the Tribunal, relying on the evidence of P.W.2, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC Bus. On issue No.2, the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.5,872/- per

¶16

month and after deducting 1/3^rd towards personal expenses, awarded a total compensation of Rs.6,84,393.96 ps. Challenging the same, APSRTC filed this appeal.

¶17

Learned standing counsel for the APSRTC submitted that the Tribunal failed to consider that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. It is also his submission that the claimants have not filed any certificate showing the age of the deceased and nobody from Singareni Collieries Company Limited were examined to speak about the genuineness of the salary certificate of the deceased. It is also his submission that the Tribunal awarded excess interest at the rate of 9% per annum.

¶18

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants supported the award of the Tribunal and submitted that the Tribunal awarded just and reasonable amount as compensation and there is nothing to interfere with the same.

¶19

The points that arise for consideration in this appeal are whether there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and whether the amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive.

¶20

As far as the issue of contributory negligence is concerned, P.W.2 (eye-witness of the accident) was examined on behalf of the claimants, who categorically

¶21

deposed that on the date of the accident, at about 08:00 PM, he was standing in front of a Kirana shop and that the deceased was proceeding on his cycle towards Chennur side and the offending bus came from the opposite direction and dashed against the deceased and that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. The claimants have also filed the required copies of documents viz., Ex.A.1 – Certified copy of the FIR in Crime No.93 of 2002 of CCC Naspur Police Station; Ex.A.2 – Certified copy of the Inquest Report; Ex.A.3 – Certified copy of the PME Report; Ex.A-4 – Certified copy of MVI Report; and Ex.A.5 – Cetficied copy of the charge-sheet. The Tribunal, having regard to the evidence of P.W.2 and the above referred documents, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. Admittedly, the respondents have not adduced any evidence. The driver of the bus was also not examined. In a case where a party pleads that there is contributory negligence, it is obligatory on the part of such party to prove the same. The driver of the bus is the only competent witness who could have thrown some light on the aspect of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. Admittedly, the driver of the bus did not lodge any complaint with the police against the deceased immediately after the accident. In the above circumstances, I do not see force in the contention of the learned standing counsel for the appellant corporation.

¶22

As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, though the claimants seems to have not filed any certificate from the employer of the deceased showing his age, but there is nothing on record to show that the age of the deceased taken by the Tribunal is incorrect. It appears that the copy of Inquest Report and the Post-mortem Report reveal the age of the deceased.

¶23

As far as the amount awarded as compensation is concerned, admittedly, the claimants have filed Ex.A.6 – Salary Certificate of the deceased showing the gross wage of the deceased as Rs.6,736/- per month. However, the Tribunal has taken only Rs.5,872/- per month as the income of the deceased. Admittedly, the deceased was a permanent employee of Singareni Collieries Company Limited. Admittedly, there was no addition to the income of the deceased in view of the prospective increase of the salary of the deceased in future. In view of the above, I do not see any reason to interfere with the amount awarded by the Tribunal.

¶24

However, as far as the rate of interest is concerned, the Tribunal awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum. However, in view of the settled legal position, the award of the Tribunal is modified by reducing the rate of interest from 9% per annum to 7.5% per annum.

¶25

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part only to

¶26

the extent of modifying the rate of interest as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶27

________________________ Justice B.Chandra Kumar 20^th December, 2013 Bvv

A.P.S.R.T.C. v. Pingili Posavva

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.P.S.R.T.C. v. Pingili Posavva

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

G.Padmavathamma and Another Vs Dorasanipalle Mosa

A.S. Hitavachani, Vs Prof. P. Vijaya Lakshmi

Penumalli Venkataramana Reddy Vs Gunupati Dayakar Reddy

Mubarak Awad Al-Kasari Vs Gulam Mohammed Moizuddin

Polam Reddy Venugopala Reddy Vs Smt. Vuggumudi Kalpana

B.V.S.R. Murthy, Vs Sri. A.K. Khan, IPS