Dismissed

The Managing Director v. Degapogu Aruna

Telangana HC26 Aug 2014MACMA/304/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal by the APSRTC challenging a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award. The Court held that the Tribunal's finding of unequal negligence (10:90 ratio) was not against evidence since the appellant failed to produce proof of contributory negligence by the car driver.

What did the court decide?

M.A.C.M.A. dismissed confirming the findings of the Tribunal.

The Managing Director Vs Degapogu Aruna — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶2

M.A.C.M.A.No.304 of 2011

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Challenging the judgment and award dated 18.08.2007 passed in O.P.No.256 of 2006 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- District Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District, the respondent-APSRTC preferred the present appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act.

¶5

For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in O.P.

¶6

The facts in issue are that the petitioners/claimants, who are the wife and minor daughter of one Kondamudi Manjush Babu, filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.10.00 lakhs for the death of the said Manjush Babu in a road accident that took place on 17.05.2006. The averments in the petition disclose that on the fateful day the deceased by name Kondamudi Manjush Babu, who was working as a Chef in a five star hotel at Vijayawada, along with his wife and relatives were going towards Tenali in his Maruthi Car bearing No.AP 16 AN 5785. When the said vehicle reached near Atmakuru Bus Stop, a RTC bus bearing No.AP 9 Z 6907 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came in high speed without blowing horn and hit the Maruthi Car. As a result of which the inmates of the car received injuries. Immediately thereafter all of them were shifted to NRI General Hospital, Mangalagiri, where the deceased succumbed to injuries. In respect of the above incident, a case in Crime No.72 of 2006 of Tangutur Police Station came to be registered. Since the accident took place due to rash and negligent dirving of the driver of the first respondent, the

¶7

above claim petition was filed. The averments in the petition also disclose that the deceased was earning Rs.3,700/- per month and the petitioners who are dependants on him lost a companion, guide, well wisher and also source for their livelihood. The first respondent – Corporation filed written statement denying the material allegations in the petition. They disputed the manner in which the accident took place and also the age, income and avocation of the deceased. It was further contended that the accident took place due to collision of two vehicles and as such there was contributory negligence of the drivers of both the vehicles. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

¶8

1. Whether the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle of R1?

¶9

2. What is the correct age and income of the deceased as on the date of the accident?

¶10

3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom?

¶11

4. To what relief?

¶12

In support of their claim, the claimants examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A9. The respondent examined R.W.1, who is the driver of the crime vehicle. After analyzing the evidence on record, the Tribunal held that there was collision between both the vehicles and the contributory negligence of the deceased was estimated at 10% and that of the driver at 90% and accordingly awarded a sum of Rs.4,66,200/- as compensation. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed. Therefore, the only point that arises for consideration is whether the accident took place due to contributory negligence of the drivers of both the vehicles in equal proportion.

¶13

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-corporation and the counsel for the respondents.

¶14

The evidence on record would disclose that the first claimant examined herself as P.W.1 and an eyewitness to the accident was examined as P.W.2. P.W.2 in his evidence deposed that on 17.05.2006 at about 7.00 p.m. while the deceased along with his wife and relatives were going towards Tenali in his Maruthi Car bearing No.AP 16 AN 5785 and when they reached near Atmakuru Bus Stop, a RTC bus bearing No.AP 9 Z 6907 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and in high speed without blowing born hit the Maruthi Car resulting in all the passengers sustaining injuries. The deceased succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment. The said evidence of P.W.2 gets corroboration from Ex.A1 the First Information Report registered and Ex.A4 copy of charge sheet filed against the driver of the RTC bus. The claimants also rely upon Exs.A1 and A4 the FIR and charge sheet filed by the police against the driver of the vehicle to show that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. The driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1. In his evidence he deposed that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Maruthi Car. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 however gets corroboration from Ex.A1 FIR and Ex.A4 charge sheet. But the respondents failed to produce the xerox copies of scene of offence and photographs of scene to establish that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the car in the accident. In fact, the respondents failed to produce the report of Motor Vehicle Inspector to corroborate their version. In the absence of any evidence to substantiate the plea of contributory negligence of both the drivers in the ratio of 50:50, the Tribunal assesses the negligence of the driver of the car at 10% and that of the driver of the bus at 90%. The said finding is questioned by the counsel for the appellant – Corporation stating that it is without any basis. But at the same time, it is to be noted that no oral or documentary evidence from any independent quarters was produced by the Corporation to show that the driver of the car was also negligent and responsible for

¶15

the accident. In the absence of any such evidence, the finding of the Tribunal needs no interference. Though the appeal is filed by the Corporation questioning the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, but there is no dispute with regard to the quantum of compensation awarded. Therefore, I see no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal warranting interference of this Court.

¶16

Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed confirming the findings of the Tribunal. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶17

________________________ JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶18

26^th August 2014, Rns

The Managing Director v. Degapogu Aruna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Managing Director v. Degapogu Aruna

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

The United India Insurance Company Limited, Vs Smt. Konka Latha

The National Insurance Company Limited, Vs Nalabothula Sanjeevarayudu

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Vaddempudi Narayanamma

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, Vs Sandu Bhagya Lakshmi

Smt.Lavanya, Vs The State of Telangana

Ifrfco Tokio General Insruance Co. Ltd. Vs Harijana Chowluru Nagaraju