Dismissed

Apsrtc, v. K.Ranganath

Telangana HC16 Sept 2016MACMA/1989/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Tribunal's award of compensation was upheld. The Court found no error in assessing liability, disability percentage, income, or multiplier application, and confirmed the lower order against the Corporation.

What did the court decide?

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal dismissed; order and decree dated 27.01.2006 confirmed.

Apsrtc, Vs K.Ranganath — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA

¶2

M.A.C.M.A. No.1989 of 2009

¶3

JUDGMENT :

¶4

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”), is preferred by the appellant - erstwhile A.P. State Road Transport Corporation (for brevity “the Corporation”), challenging the order and decree dated 27.01.2006, passed in O.P.No.265 of 2000 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunalcum-VI Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Gooty, Anantapur District (for brevity “the Tribunal”), whereby and whereunder a sum of Rs.1,24,500/- was awarded towards compensation, as against the claim of Rs.1,52,000/- laid by respondent – petitioner, under Sections 140 and 166 of the Act, for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident that occurred on 08.06.1999.

¶5

The manner in which the accident had occurred in the instant case is not disputed and the liability of the appellant – Corporation is also not disputed, except the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶6

Heard Sri A. Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant – Corporation and Sri Maheswara Rao Kunchem, learned counsel for the respondent – petitioner.

¶7

2 ASN,J

¶8

MACMA.No.1989 of 2009

¶9

Perused the order under challenge and also the evidence on record, both oral and documentary.

¶10

The Tribunal has taken the disability sustained by the respondent – petitioner at 50% basing on evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, who are Assistant Professor, Ortho, Medical College Hospital, Anantapur; and Assistant Professor in Orthopaedic in Government Hospital, Anantapur, respectively, and the injuries sustained by the respondent - petitioner were mentioned under issue No.2. The Tribunal has applied the structural formula by taking the income of the respondent – petitioner at Rs.15,000/- per annum, which is applicable upto the age of 15 years, and by applying the appropriate multiplier ‘15’, arrived at the loss of future earning capacity at Rs.1,12,500/- (Rs.15,000/- x 15 = Rs.2,25,000/- x 50/100 = 1,12,500/-). The other amounts granted by the Tribunal under other heads are also proper and arrived at basing on evidence. Even the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal at 7.5% per annum is also in accordance with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in RAJESH AND OTHERS V. RAJBIR SINGH AND OTHERS¹ . Therefore, there are no merits in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶11

Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed, confirming the order and decree dated 27.01.2006,

¶12

1 2013 ACJ 1403

¶13

3 ASN,J

¶14

MACMA.No.1989 of 2009

¶15

passed in O.P.No.265 of 2000 by the Tribunal. No order as to

¶16

costs.

¶17

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶18

___________________________________ JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA

¶19

16.09.2016. Msr

¶20

4 ASN,J

¶21

MACMA.No.1989 of 2009

¶22

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA

¶23

M.A.C.M.A. No.1989 of 2009

¶24

16.09.2016 Msr

Apsrtc, v. K.Ranganath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Apsrtc, v. K.Ranganath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sree Rama Publishers Vs Sastrulu Krishna Murthy Siddanti

Bandi Lingaiah Vs a.Sampath Reddy

Badiga Shankar Vs Bommidi Gopala Krishna

The New India Assurance Company Limited, Vs M.Thimakka

N. Govindaswamy Vadayar Vs Sri K. D.Munirathnam

Sherla Narsa Goud Vs Garjala Ganga Goud