Dismissed

The Vice-Chairman and Managing Director of Apsrtc v. Bandi Annapurna and 8 Others

Telangana HC20 Jul 2018MACMA/342/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal by APSRTC assailing the judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, the High Court dismissed the appeal. The court held that composite negligence applies even if the deceased was a third party to the lorry and found no error in the Tribunal taking the deceased's income at Rs. 3,500 per month, which is reasonable even for a coolie.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the impugned judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal was upheld.

The Vice-Chairman and Managing Director of Apsrtc Vs Bandi Annapurna and 8 Others — Telangana HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

SMT JUSTI CE T. RAJANI

¶2

MACMA.No.3 4 2 of 2 0 1 2

¶3

JUDGMENT:

¶4

This appeal is preferred by the appellant - APSRTC, who is the second respondent before the Court below, assailing the judgment of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Eluru in OP.No.260 of 2007 dated 02.08.2007 on the grounds that the Court below did not consider the negligence aspect properly in spite of the fact that it is a case of head on collision and that the Court below erred in taking the income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/ - per month.

¶5

Heard both sides.

¶6

This is a case of death of the deceased in a motor accident, which occurred on 13.04.2006. The deceased is stated to be working as a clerk cum coolie and his income was stated to be Rs.5,000/ - per month, but the Court below took the income of the deceased as Rs.3,500/ - per month and awarded compensation.

¶7

Now the counsel for the appellant assails the judgment of the Court below on the aspect of negligence, stating that it is a head on collision between two heavy vehicles and hence, negligence has to be attributed to the driver of the lorry in which the deceased was travelling.

¶8

Even if negligence is concluded against the driver of the lorry, in respect of the deceased, who is a third party to the lorry, it would be a case of composite negligence and he has an option to choose the

¶9

¶10

tortfeasors against whom he has to proceed. Hence, that cannot be a ground for disallowing the claim of the claimants.

¶11

With regard to the income taken by the Court below, the counsel for the appellant made a feeble attempt to assail the same. But the law is well settled that even a coolie would be earning Rs.4,500/ - per month. Hence, there is absolutely no error in the approach of the Court below in taking Rs.3,500/ - per month as the income of the deceased.

¶12

Hence, the appeal fails on both counts and is dismissed.

¶13

As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand

¶14

closed.

¶15

__________
T. RAJANI, J
July 20, 2018
DSK

The Vice-Chairman and Managing Director of Apsrtc v. Bandi Annapurna and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Vice-Chairman and Managing Director of Apsrtc v. Bandi Annapurna and 8 Others

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 Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, Secbad. Vs Bommapala Ramulu and 3 Others

Irrinki Naga Narsimha Murthy , Nagulu , Nagu Vs Kinthadi Srinu and 4 Others

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Tadi Dhanalakshmi and 9 Ors.

Thadaka Sudhakar Vs Nune Bhadraiah and Anr.

D.Kesava Rao Vs M/S. United India Insurance Company Ltd., and 6 Others

The Ap State Road Transport Corporation Vs Nagaram Janardhan