Allowed

Syed Durwesh Mohiuddin and 2 Others v. a.P.S.R.T.C., and 2 Others

Telangana HC6 Sept 2023MACMA/1022/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In joint motor accident appeals, the High Court enhanced compensation from Rs. 13.8 lakh to Rs. 24.41 lakh by accepting 40% future prospects and granting head sums for loss of consortium and estate. The RTC's appeal on contributory negligence was dismissed for lack of evidence.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs. 13,80,000 to Rs. 24,41,800 with 7.5% interest; RTC appeal dismissed.

Syed Durwesh Mohiuddin and 2 Others Vs a.P.S.R.T.C… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

[³³⁰⁴ ]

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶8

¶9

WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶10

PRESENT

¶11

:' THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RA.JESHWAR RAO

¶12

M.AC.M.A. Nos:'t0 220F 2011 AND 3853 0F 2012

¶13

M.AC.M.A. NO: 1022 OF 2011

¶14

' Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in O.P.No.'1818 of 2018 dated 30.11.2008 on the file of the Court of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge cum XV Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad. '.

¶15

Between:

¶16

:^1. Syed Durwesh Mohiuddin, S/o late Syed Hasanuddin Pensioner Ri/o H.No. ;i' 13-5-586/17, Kawan Sahu Hyderabad.

¶17

,,1 2. Mrs. Kareemunnisa Begum, W/o Syed Duresh Mohiuddin House hold Rl/o ,jt t H.no.1 3-5-586i 1 7 , Kawan Sahu, Hyderabad.

¶18

{3. Mrs. Bushra Begum,: Wo Syed Muzffaruddin House hold Rl/o H.No.13-5586/1 7, Kawan Sahu, Hyderabad.

¶19

...APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS

¶20

AND

¶21

A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep through its Managing Director, O/at RTC Cross Roads, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

¶22

The Depot Manager,, APSRTC, Irilehidipatnam Depot, O/at Mehidipatnam,

¶23

. Hyderabad.

¶24

G.Srinu,, S/o. G.Sathaiah, Driver, R/o. H.No. 3-9-236, Saraswathi Nagar ii Colony, Chintalkunta, L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.

¶25

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶26

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI HAROON OSMAN

¶27

Counsel for the Respondents No.1 & 2: THOOM SRINIVAS^(SC FOR TSRTC)

..!

: ii

f E fiL

,i 4 ii :L + :.'

jM.AC.M.A. NO: 3853 OF 2O12:

¶34

t la :

¶35

¶36

Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in O.P.No.18'18 of 2018 dated 30.11.2008 on the file of the Court of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge cum XV Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad.

¶37

Between:

¶38

1 t,!: I i, f' f *II * $I I

¶39

1 . The APSRTC, Rep through its Managing Director, O/at Cross Roads, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

¶40

The Depot Manager,; APSRTC, Mehiclipatnam Depot, O/at Mehidipatnam, Hyderabad.

¶41

...APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2

¶42

AND

¶43

'Ilr:i -r? :::-

¶44

i.,i¹ Syed Durwesh Mohiuddin, S/o late Syed Hasanuddin Pensioner Rl/o H.No .t.;l ! 1 3-5-586/17, Kawan Sahu Hyderabad. .i2

¶45

.i2 Mrs. Kareemunnisa Begum, Wo Syed Duresh Mohiuddin House hold Fl/o

¶46

.i-^,: H.no.1 3-5-586/17, Kawan Sahu, Hyderabad. Mrs. Bushra Begum, W/o Syed Muzffaruddin House hold R/o H.No.13-5-

¶47

ii3 {. .. 586/17, Kawan Sahu, Hyderabad.

¶48

... RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS

¶49

G.Srinu, S/o G.Sathaiah Rl/o 3-9-236, Saraswathi Colony, Chintalkunta, L.B.Nagar, R.R.Diskict.

¶50

(Res.4 is formal party. Hence no notice is Necessary)

¶51

...RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT No.3

¶52

! it .li ..i{.'1 ,ifI ,. 1+: + -i.r,,r I I :1. t * 1-t f li,'t :,1: -i'

¶53

MACMAMP. NO: 1940 OF 2011

¶54

i , Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in . the iaffidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to ':grant stay of all further proceedings including execution of the award and decree 'dt. .30-11-2010 passed iniOP NO. 1818 o,f 2008 on the file of the I Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge Cum XV Addl. Chief Judge, Hyderabad pending disposal of the appeal.

¶55

.: Counsel for the Appellants: SRI THOOM SRINIVAS (SC FOR TSRTC)

¶56

'-.--.ri, .r. :;::t:* . :r:. t-i.

¶57

. Counsel^{for the} ResponAints lo.f & 2: SRI ZULFAQUAR ALAM

¶58

The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT

1 ji ti

r.\

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU^{RAJESHWAR RAO} M.A.C.M.A.No.LO22 of 2OLL AND M.A.C.M.A.No.3853 of 2012

¶63

COMMON JUDGMENT:

¶64

Both these Motor Accidents Civil^{MiscellaneousAppeals} are being disposed of by way of this^{common judgment as both} these appeals are directed^{againsl,the award and decree dated} 30.11.2010 in O.P. No.1818 of^{2008 on the file ofthe} Chairman, Motor Accident Claims^{Tribunal-Cum- l"t} Additional Metropolitan^{Sessions Judge} -Cum^{XV Additional} Chief^judge at Hyderabad.^{(Hereinafter referred to as 'the} Tribunal').

¶65

In M.A.C.M.A No. lO22 of 2011,^{the petitionershad} challenged the award and^{decree with regard to the quantum} of compensation and^{prayed toenhance thesame. In} M.A.C.M.A No.3853 OF 2012,^{RespondentNos.1 and 2/RTC} had challenged the award and^{decree by contendingthat the} Tribunal failed to consider the contributory^{negligenceleading} to the accident and^{prayed to the set-asidethe same.}

¶66

For convenience, the^facts in^{M.A.C.M.A No.1022 of 2Oll} are discussed hereunder,^{and the partiesare hereinafter} referred to as they are^{arrayed before the Tribunal.}

¶67

¶68

RRN.J MACNIA No 1022.1l0l^{I &1Eil ot20ll}

¶69

Brief facts of the case are tleat^{the petitionersfiled a} claim petition under Section^{166 of the Motor VehiclesAct} 1988, claiming compensation of^{Rs.26,OO,0OO/-on account of} the death of Muzaffaruddin^{(hereinafterreferredtoas} "deceased"), stating that on 01.09.2007,^{th,e deceased was} going to his office at about 10.00 am at^{Street No.3, Himayath} Nagar main road, near M/s Tata Motors^{on his PulsalMotor} bike bearing No.AP13K7939. At that^{time, APSRTC bus} bearing No.APl lzllo, driven by respondent^{No.3 came rashly} ald negligently dashed the deceased.^{Hence,the claim petition} is seeking compensation of Rs.26,00,000/-.

¶70

Respondents filed a separate appeal^{denying the allegations} made in the present petition regarding the^{occurrence of} accident and injuries sustained by the deceased.

¶71

To prove their case, the petitioners examined^{as PW.1 to} PW.3 and got marked Ex.A1 to A15. No^{evidence was adduced} on behalf of the respondents.

¶72

On appreciation of the evidence on record, the Tribunal allowed O.P. in part the by awarding compensation^of Rs. 13,80,000/- with interest @7.5% p.a. from the date of

¶73

¶74

RRN.J MACNIA No l02l oi20ll^&1851otl0l2

¶75

¶76

petition till the date^{of reaJization. Aggrievedby the same, the} present appeal is^filed.

¶77

B. Heard both sides^{and perused the record'}

¶78

g . Learned counsel for^{the petitionerssubmitted that the} Tribunal, while relying^{on the principles laid down by the} Hon'ble Supreme^{Court inSorla Verma Vs' Delhi Transport} Corporationi has^{erred in not taking into considerationthe} 'addition to income'^{towards future prospects'Also' the} Tribunal granted^{very meageramounts under certainheads'} He further submitted^{that the Tribunaldid not grant any} amount towards^{loss of estate'. Accordingly, prayedto al1ow} the appeal.

¶79

Per contra,^{learned counsel for therespondents} submitted that the^{Tribunal has rightly awardedthe} no compensation against^{petitioners,this Courtrequlres} interference.^{Accordingly, prayed to dismissthe appeal'}

¶80

11 With regard to the^{future prospects, learned counsel for} the petitioners^{relied upon the judgmentofNational}

'^{(zoos) 6 scc tzt}

RRN.,I MACI,IA No.I022 ol20I I &185.1 of 2012

¶85

Insurantce Cornpang Limited as. Pranag Sethi and othersz as follows:

¶86

"46. At this stage, we must irnmediatelg sag that insofar as the aforesaid multiplicand/multiplier is concerned, it has to be accepted on tlrc ba,sis of income establistted bg the legal representatiues of the deceased. Future prospects are to be added to the sum ort tle percentage basis arud "income" means actual income less than the tax paid. The multiplier has alreadg been Jrxed in Sarla Verma uhich has been approued in Resltma Kumari with uhich ute corucur.

¶87

In our considered opinion, if the same is follouted, it shall subserue the cause of justice and the unnecessary contest before the tribunals and tLLe courts uould be auoided.

¶88

In view of the above submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, the deceased was also entitled to future prospects. He further submitted that with regard to the income of the deceased, the petitioners were relying on Ex.Al1 Salary Conformation Letter dated 26.05.2007 which was issued much prior to the death of the deceased and evidence of PW2 apart from Exs.All, Ex.Al2 and Exs.Al to 4.6 for proving the income of the deceased. The evidence of

¶89

')(2o17)^{t6 scc 680}

¶90

RRN.I N,lA( IIA No l0ll ol201l &.135.1ol.l0ll

¶91

¶92

--=

¶93

PW2 is that the deceased^{r.r'asgetting a salary of Rs.1B,OO0/} per month. During cross examination^{of PW2, it was elicited} that PW2 was not concerned^{with theAccounts of} Department of M/s Riya^{Tours and Travels (India) Private} Limited and he was not a^{signatory of Ex.A11 document, and} he was giving evidence^{in his individualcapacity and not on} behalf the employer.^{Further, he has stated that the basic} salary of the deceased is^{Rs.1 L,3g3} I^{-.The salary certificate} Ex.A 1 1 was a letter addressed^{to the deceased, wherein} House Rent Allowance,^{Conveyance Allowance and Medical} Reimbursement were added to^{the Basic sa,lary.The income} tax returns filed are showing^{that the Tax payablewas nil,} and the income of the^{deceasedis to be assessedin the light} of the above evidence.^{In trx.All} ,^{House Rent Allowance,} Conveyance Allowance^{and Medical Reimbursement were} shown apart from basic^{salar5r.A11 these headscan be} considered as allowances^{which the deceased might have} spent even if he^u,as alive.^{With the evidence availableon} record, particularly^{educationalqualification,etc., the income} of the deceased can accepted^{at Rs.10,OO0/per month. But} as per Ex.A1, the salary certificate was^{showing Rs.1B,O00/} per month and the Tribunal observation that^{the House Rent}

¶94

¶95

RRN.J I!{ACIUA No I022 ol20ll &1E51ol20l2

¶96

Allowance and Conveyance Allowance can be considered as Allowances which the deceased has spent even though he is alive is correct. These two allowar ces are part and parcel of the salary of the deceased, and w'ith regard to the medical reimbursement, cannot be treated as salar5r.

¶97

With the above observation, it is clear that the deceased's salary must have been more than Rs.10,OOO/-. Further, the income tax returns show that there was no tax liability on the deceased, and the tax payable was 'nil'. The Act is a beneficiary legislation; therefore, this Court is inclined to gralt Rs.12,OOO/ per month to be treated as salary of the deceased. To this, 4OYo of future prospects are added, as the deceased's age was 27 years, as per the decision in Pranag Sethi (supra). Thus, annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.2,O1,6O0/ (Rs. 12,OOO/- xl2 +4O%)

¶98

14 . Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the deceased is an Assistant Manager ald the Tribunal rightly deducted the deceased's income towards his personal expenditure as 1/3ra of the income, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Vertna I/s. Delhi Transport

¶99

RRN I NIACIIA No.l0.]l oil0l l^{&1851 ol 20l2}

¶100

¶101

Corporation-r.^{Accordingly,the sameis to be deducted from} the annual income,^{i.e. Rs.L,34,4OO|-, (Rs.2,O1,6OO( -)} Rs.67,20o). Hence, income^{of thedeceased is} be multiplied with '17'^{i.e. Rs'22,84,800} Rs. 1,34,4O0 l-, .to /-^{(Rs.1,34,aOOl- x l7l.Thus, the total loss of dependency} would come to Rs.22,84,800/-.

¶102

The Tribunal^{granted Rs. 15,000/- towardsloss of} consortium, Rs.1O,OOO/-^{towards funeral expenses and did} not grant any amount^{towards loss of estate' However,as per} the decision of the^{Hon'bleApex Court in PranagSethi} (supral, this Court^is inclined^{to grantcompensationunder all} the three heads.^{Accordingly, this Court grants Rs'44,O00/-} (Rs.40,000+ 1O7oJ towards^{loss of consortium to the petitioner} No.3 (Wife),^{Rs. 16,500/-(Rs.15,000+10%)towards loss of} estate and enhances^{the compensationunder the head of} The funeral expenses to^{Rs'16,500/-(Rs.15,000} /-^+lo%l' Petitioners No.1 and 2^{are the parents of the deceasedand} aged about 61 to 55^{years as perMagmaInsuro,nce} Compang Ltd. Vs.^{Nanu Ram} @^{ChuhruRama, this Court is} inclined to grant^{Rs.4O,OOO/-each.}

¶103

' lzooo)^{o scc tz t.} a2O18 l,aw Suit (SC) 904

¶104

¶105

RTIN I Nl.A(lNlA No 1022 ol20l I &1851ol20l2

¶106

Therefore this Court is inclined to enhdnce the quantum

¶107

of compensation as under:

¶108

Head	Amount arrivedatby theTribunal	Amount arrivedatby thisCourt
Iossof dependency	Rs-13,60,00O/	Rs.22,a4,8OO/
[,ossofconsortium	Rs.1O,OOO/-	Rs.44,000/
Lossof estate	ni1	Rs.16,500/-
Funeralexpenses	Rs.1O,OO0/-	Rs.16,500/-
Lossoffrlial consortium	nil	Rs.80,O00/ (4O,OO0 +40,OOO)
Total	Rs.13,8O,O00/-	Rs.24,41,8OO/-

¶109

In the result, the M.A.C.M.A No. 1022 of 2Ol1 is allowed in part arrd the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.13,8O,0OO/- to Rs.24,41,BOO/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs Forty One Thousand and Eight Hundred only) with interest @7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of reafization. Respondents are directed to deposit the said arnount with costs and interest after deducting the amount, if any, already deposited within two months from the date of copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the petitioners are permitted to withdraw the same in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶110

¶111

RRN I N1A( [14 No l0]l ol lol I &lSir ol20l:

¶112

¶113

¶114

M.A.C.M.A.No.3853 of 2OL2:

¶115

The above M.A.C.M.A. was filed by the respondents/RTC, contending that the Tribunal failed to consider the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, and that the Tribunal w.rongly took the income of the deceased at Rs.1O,00O/- per month and awarded excessive compensation In view of the hndings in M.A.C.M.A No.lO22 of 2011, this M.A.C.M.A No.3853 ol 2Ol2 is liable to be dismissed as no evidence either oral or documentarJi was adduced by the respondents r.vith regard to contributory negligence and other aspects clearly discussed above.

¶116

Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A No.3853 of 2Ol2 filed by the Appellant/ Respondents/ RTC is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶117

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand

¶118

closed.

¶119

ri -. ,{ SD/-A.V.S.PRASAD t ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// .:'I . ,.1i.t 1 SECTIO OFFICER r,.i.r il ..1Lo til :lj ++. 1 .^'The I Additional Metropolitan^{Sessions Judge-cum-XV Additional Chief Judge} r'.: :.; ! .i 1E at Hyderabad .^.i :{ 2. One CC to Sri Haroon Osman, Advocate [OPUC] ',i( 3. One CC to Sri Zulfaquar Alam, Advocate [OPUC] .$s 4. One CC to Sri Thoom Srinivas, SC^FORTSRTC [OPUC] . .Two CD Copies :. i ri,.$ TYH/plp ! s

HIGH'COURT

DATED:0610912023

: t ! i: f

1 ;' 5 ,tl.f : COMMON JUDGMENT I'ti. t1. 1.. MACMA.Nos.1022 of 2011 ! AND 3853 0F 2012 '

¶125

1 EL4
e

t'/)
s
u 6
F{. (rJ
o s

I .a)

¶126

.i.{ IIt.:r I { tx. AILOWING THEIM.A.C.M.A. No.1022 OF 2011 ! +, And DISMISSING THE M.A.C.M.A.No.3853 OF 2012 t- + '!

¶127

ftt jL

¶128

:]ti.i ' ';,;ir rJl ; ll . ir i F. t. : ,8,[ ,;: i

¶129

i;i.i, l5 i :.t'i ai i^j ti'L i 1f , iI;!'l i {a a h:* a-' 'Et { ifi i

¶130

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

.l;. -i-

f.i..t E

i:1iI - rL-1 J-6,

-6,

WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE

¶137

PRESENT

¶138

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU^RAJESHWARRAO

¶139

M.AC.M.A. Os:1022OF 2011 AND 3853 O^F 2012

¶140

M.AC.M.A NO:^'1022 OF 2011 i- .* '!+ Between: 'i;i* T

¶141

it Syed Durwesh Mohiuddin, S/o^{late Syed Hasanuddin PensionerRi/o H.No.}

¶142

.]l 13-5-586i 17, Kawan Sahu^Hyderabad. 1,2 Mrs. Kareemunnisa Begum, Wo^{Syed Duresh Mohiuddin Household Rl/o} H.no.13-5-586/'1 7, Kawan Sahu,^Hyderabad.

¶143

:i, i ;3 Mrs. Bushra Begum,. Wo Syed^{MuzffaruddinHouse hold Rl/o H.No.13-5-} 586/17' Kawan sahu' Hyderabad

¶144

.) . ...AppELLANTS/pETrroNERs

¶145

¶146

¶147

r 1. A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep through its^{Managing Director, O/at RTC Cross Roads,} i Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

¶148

...1 z. The Depot Manager,, APSRTC,^{Mehidipatnam Depot, O/at Mehidipatnam'} it* r Hyderabad. i;'.{ i. G.Srinu,, S/o. G.Sbthaiah,^{Driver, Fl/o. H.No. 3-9-236, Saraswathi Nagar} ,, .*, " ,}: Colony, Chintalkunta, L.B.Nagar,^{R.R.District.} '$,

¶149

,i .i ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1E $ .. 'r,B * 'f^iF ! Aooeal under Seciion,'173 of^{Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree} i-'iri^ci.e. tto.t Ate of 2018 dateh 30.11.2008^{on the file of the Court of the Metropolitan} i^, SesSions Judge cum XV Additional^{Chief Judge, Hyderabad.}

¶150

CinOgR: This appeal^{comingon for hearingand uponperusingthe grounds of} appbal, the Judgment and^{Decreeof the Lower Court andthe material paperin the} ,, caie anO upon hearing the^{argumentsof Sri Haroon Osman, Advocatefor the} r App'ellants and of sri Thoom Srinivas,.s.c. for TSRTC, for he Respondents^No.1 ' aind 2.

¶151

t :-. t 1:i : .: i I i .: 1

¶152

.: l, .a , , M.AC.M.A" Ngjlqs3 OF 2012: ,}t T: 5ll '^Between: t 5 :l 2 Ir' ,i,l1l 2f ;, ,,. t*. '+. +^1. The APSRTC, Rep ithrough its Managing Director, O/at Cross Roads, { Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 't2. The Depot Manager,; APSRTC, Mehidipatnam Depot, O/at Mehidipatnam, $t ::, !:!i Hyderabad. ...APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 ,i -i.: ANO it .:: Syed Durwesh Mohiuddin, S/o late Syed Hasanuddin Pensioner Ri/o H.No :: '1 3-5-586/17, Kawan Sahu Hyderabad. ,. !2 Mrs. Kareemunnisa Begum, Wo Syed Duresh Mohiuddin House hold Fl/o ' |^.., H.no. 1 3-5-586/1 7, Kawan Sahu, Hyderabad. II .;3 Mrs. Bushra Begum, Wo Syed Muzffaruddin House hold R/o H.No.13-$ 586/17, Kawan Sahu, Hyderabad. T. tai+!1i lr Lt I :.,.:'i. ir :). .. RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS lt {I i ,! 1r i. t!x IEta G.Srinu, S/o G.Sathaiah R/o 3-9-236, Saraswathi Colony, Chintalkunta, * .'-Ii (Res.4 is formal L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.party., Hence no notice is Necessary) s' ...RESPONDENT/ 1,, :. l ,; t6 r+: . RESPONDENT No.3 ,l : $ Appeal under Section^'173 of [Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in O.P.No.1818 of 2018 dated 30.11.2008 on the file of the Court of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge cum XV Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad.

¶153

¶154

j! ORDER: This'appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material paper in the ,.', case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Thoom Srinivas, S-C. for TSRTC, I{ Advocate for the Appellants and of Sri Zulfaquar Alam for the Respondents No.1 and 2.i I (i ThiS Court doth Order and Common Decree as follows: & { I '.r'i i * .,d :i. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal NO. 1022 of 201'1 be and f ii I iiffi. .--1 r i;:if_E herebyris allowed: in!part and the. compensation amount awarded by the s Tr Tribunal is enhancbd, from Rs.13,80,000/- to Rs.24,41 ;820/- (Rupees Four -

¶155

i.{- ,, l.: .:i*,* .I Lakhs Forty One Thbusand Eight Hundred and Twenty Only) with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization; ,I $ rt l. {L .!., l. ,i,iⁱ # r, t- 2. -That the Respondenti one directed to deposit the said amount with costs and

¶156

r:4 i interest after deducting the amount, if any, already deposited within two "t .- .;-.',:) :':1. are permitted to withdraw the same months from the date of copy of this.judgment on such deposit, the petitionersin accordance with law; *::t{l &It i *t

¶157

¶158

That the M.A.C.M.A. No.3853 of 2012^{filedby the AppellanURespondenVRTC} is dismissed; and

¶159

¶160

That there shall be^no order as^to costs^{in thisappeal}

¶161

i ]l -a .a SD/-A.V.S.PRASAD ri 't _ Ii .'r ASSISTANT REGISTRAR r.E /ffRUE COPY// .3i . -I:,i i :l,I # SECTIO OFFICER :* .: {i,l ;'iL,tr i'! '$i . The I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-XV^{Additional Chief Judge} at Hyderabad njll ir[''r3 ;i9r: !.S ,. . Two CD Copies .1 .I I . .:E t .'Y8 hl l, I lj .& ,,,ts iI 'i r, J i ':. ) : I ! + ii:i ;ilEI ,.{.4 {. :; i 'i f-r( :J. i t r*:. Y ;i ,r,{l,,^,{ i'^,t. ' .i J {&:g', l. t .il' I:,,1. rtr* .i-a iilN:l l. lrt^ril i,: I .r,. ,if'tt "j ! i :} It- r tf E i. $* .i. .

¶162

SECTIO OFFICER

¶163

: i. jt n ] '}i, I iiii ibH'counr t .)L ,.i ,: l ,l! i'tI D'r'ATED:06/0912023l :7 .: + .. ,I tiIti t' I t I ,, !i i t i i ., riti '[ i : ;-J'ii I^.:1 s&z 1 '- .,!!*,& '11.,tr MACMA.Nos.1022 , of 2011 AND 3853 0F 2012 ;, l il''.i,:i € .5i t ,f-i F I! .i t :

¶164

EL*
n'tl
a7
.$
F. llc.
0,.18
c
c, <br>s ^o
) 'f qat$ ,t

¶165

3 ALLOWING TH E}M:A.C.M.A:' NO 1022 OF 201 1
.'1
lr ;'r' .1.lr '.9.Er'E ":;And D S M lSSl NG !/:'? .1r=-*TH E M.A:C: ' M.A. No.38 53 OF 2012
.f
: ,' L:i.e? 1.,ti
t :'! ,} U4-
1, €t ,1,i
ii

Syed Durwesh Mohiuddin and 2 Others v. a.P.S.R.T.C., and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Durwesh Mohiuddin and 2 Others v. a.P.S.R.T.C., and 2 Others

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

The Depot Manager,Apsrtc, Hyd and Another Vs Sirisinagala Devender

Mangali Siddavva, and 3 Others Vs A.P. Mohammad and Another

Sirisingala Devender Vs Depot Manager, Apsrtc

Smt. Gudala Balamani , G.Shobha Vs the a.P.S.R.T.C., and Another

Kilaru Tharaka Prasad, Khammam District Vs K. Ajay Babu and Anr, Khammam

Boina Padmamma and 3 Others Vs D. Venkatesh and Another