Dismissed

Telangana State Road Transport Corporation v. Chitti Sujana @ Srujana Reddy @ Nirmala

Telangana HC5 Sept 2023MACMA/1025/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana rejected an appeal filed by the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against an award made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The court held that there was no scope for interference as the Tribunal had followed Supreme Court precedents and properly quantified compensation.

What did the court decide?

The Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1025 of 2023 is rejected with no order as to costs.

Telangana State Road Transport Corporation Vs Chitti… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁸⁶ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANAALISHETTY

¶7

M.A.C.M.A NO: 1025 OF 2023

¶8

Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and Decree made in MVOP.No.357 OF 2020 dated 26.08.2022 on lhe file of the^Court of the Principal District Judge, Karimnagar.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, represented by^{its Managing Director-} cum-Vice President, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

¶11

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT

¶12

AND

¶13

1 Chitti Sujana @ Srujana Reddy @ Nirmala, W/o Late Srinivas^{Reddy, aged 45} yrs., Occ . Housewife,are Ryo H.No.24-7-276, Ramakrishna Colony, Subedari, Hanumakonda, Warangal District,^presently residing at^{H.No.3-7-527,}

¶14

Vavilalapally locality, Karimnagar Town and District)

¶15

2 Chitti Nikhil Reddy, Son Of Late Srinivas Reddy, Occ Student,^H NO 2-47-276 Ramakrishna Colony Subedari Hanumakonda Warangal^{District Presently} Rl/o. H No 37527 Yavilalapally Locality Karimnagar Town And District

¶16

..RESPONDENTS

¶17

Maragoni Sreenu, Son Of Narsaiah Agedabout⁴³ Years,^{Caste Goud, Occ} Driver Of TSRTC Bus Bearing No TS 03 20291 Bhupalapally Depot Staff^No 652499 H No 397 Nachinpalli Duggondi Mandal, Ponakal, Warangal District

¶18

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶19

¶20

lA NO: 3 OF 2023

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit f led in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of e xecution of the Judgment and Decree of the Principal District Judge^. Karimnagar, n)ade in MVOP. No.357 OF 2O2O dt.26.O8.2O22.

¶22

Counsel for the Appellants: SRI GADDAM SRINIVAS

¶23

Counsel for the Respondents No.1 & 2: SRI M. RAMACHANDAR RAO VEMUGANTI

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: NONE APPEARED

¶25

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶26

TIIE IION'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY

¶27

ANI)

¶28

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY M.A.C.M.A.No. 1025 of 2023

¶29

.ltlDGMENT.tpcr tltm'hlc Sri .tu,sritc P.SAM IOSHYT

¶30

Heard Mr.Gaddam Srinivas. lcamed Standing Counsel for the appellant and Mr.Ramachandar Rao Vemuganti, learned counsel appearing fbr the respondcnts. Peruscd the matcrial on record

¶31

2.^'l'he instant appeal is flted challengir.rg the order dated 26.08.2(]22 passed in M.V.O.P.No.357 of 2020 by the [eamed Principal District Judge Karimnagar

¶32

Learned counsel 1br the appellant contended that it is a casc whcrc there was an element of contributory negligence which lras not beel appreciated by the court belorv. Moreover, thc court belor.a,. has also nol. properly appreciated the quantification, particularly taking the monthly income of rhe decea:icd

¶33

Perusal of tecord wor,rld show that the claimants who are the^r.vif'e and son of the deceased i.e., respor-rdent Nbs.l and 2 respectively- [he deceasc:d was working as line man i., th" tsl""t.iffiompar$r.4he clairnants got exnrnincci a rvitness PSi.i, who is the Jr-rnior Accounts

¶34

Officer in the ollicc ',l,hr:rc thc deccaseci^i.r,as urorking. Ihe lr,itness

¶35

¶36

¶37

entering ap pearance on behalf of the^{Department/Company had} produced the service record to establish the^date of^{birth of the} deceased as 04.08.1967. In addition,^{the said witnessPW3 had also} produced E>r-A6lthe salary cerlificate before the^{court below to show} that the morLthly income of the^{deceased was Rs.1,54,5701-. Paragraph} 3 1 of the said impugned award cleaily^{depictsttre table preparedby the} leamed Tribunal in the course of^{quantificationof the compensation: A} plain perusal of the table would clearly reflect^{that the learned Tribunal} has taken into consideration^{the judgments of the Hon'ble Supretne} Court passel in the recent^past both^{in the case of Sarla VermaVs.} Delhi Transport Corporationr and in^{Nationallnsurance} Corporation Vs. Pranay Sethi2^two of^{the landmark decisionof the} Hon'ble Su treme Court, so far^{quantificationof the compensation is} concerned.^'the table of compensation^{prepared by the leamed Tribunal} would also reveal that the learned Tribunal^{has deductedl/3'd of the} income of the deceased towards personal^{expenses, so also there is a} deduction of 3O%, towards income tax^{and thereafter, the compensation} was fixed @) Rs.1,10,19,800/-.^''

¶38

'arR^zoogsc:toq..

¶39

'1zot;^{lnc.t 27oo (;c))}

¶40

¶41

-:--T '" .. ,/,,

¶42

After due consideration^{of the submissions made by the leamed} counsel for the appellant,^{we do not find any scope of interferenceto} the impugned award^{mao- out' Theawardhasbeen strictlypassed by} following the dictum^{of the Hon'bleSupremeCourt in the cases of} Sarla Verma and^{PranaY Sethi.}

¶43

For the aforesaid^{reasons, the appeal fails and is accordingly}

¶44

rejected. No costs.

¶45

As a sequel, miscellaneous^{applicationspending if any,shallstand} closed.

¶46

SD/-A.V.S.PRASAD / ASSrsrANr({E9}i7(AR^{ //TRUE^COPY// V

¶47

SECTION^OFFICER

¶48

To, 1. The^{PrincipalDistrict JudgeKarimnagar} 2. One^{CC to Sri Gaddam snnivas' Advocate [OPUC]} 3. One^{CC to Sri RamachanO'lil"Vt"Santi' Advocate [OPUC]}

¶49

Two^{CD CoPies}

JAr/plP

HIGH COURT

DATED:0 510912023

JUDGMEIIT

g STAIA
19 ttB 202[ b(.
olo
*
t oE3i.t1 ::;

¶56

MACMA.IIo.1025 of 2023

¶57

M.A.C.M.,. lS REJECTED.WITHOUT COSTS

¶58

G@
w_
f,'i

¶59

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶60

TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶61

PRESENT

¶62

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA^ALTSHETW

¶63

M.A"C.M.A. NO: 1025 OF 2023

¶64

Between:

¶65

Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, represented^{by its Managing Director-} cum-Vice President, Musheerabad,^Hyderabad.

¶66

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT

¶67

AND

¶68

Chitti Suiana @ Srulana Reddy @ Nirmala, Wo Late Srinivas^{Reddy, aged 45} yrs., Occ . Housewife,are Rlo H.No.24-7 -276, Ramakrishna Colony, Subedari, Hanumakonda, Warangal District,^presently residing at^{H.No.3-7-527,} Vavilalapally locality, Karimnagar Town and^District)

¶69

2 Chitti Nikhil Reddy, Son Of Late Srinivas Reddy, Occ Student,^{H NO 2-47-276} Ramakrishna Colony Subedari Hanumakonda Warangal District^Presently Rl/o. H No 37527 Vavilalapally Locality Karimnagar Town And^District

¶70

..RESPONDENTS

¶71

Maragoni Sreenu, Son Of Narsaiah Agedabout 43^{Years, Caste Goud, Occ} Driver Of TSRTC Bus Bearing No^TS 03 Z^{0291 Bhupalapally DepotStaff No} 652499 H No 397 Nachinpalli Duggondi^{Mandal, Ponakal, Warangal District}

¶72

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶73

Appeal filed under Section^'t73 of Motor Vehicles Act against the^{Order and} Decree made in MVOP.No.357 OF 2O2O dated 26,08.2022 on lhe file of the^Court of the Principal District Judge, Karimnagar.

¶74

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 Gaddam Srinivas, Advocate for the Appellants an(l of Sri M. Ramachandar Rao Vemuganti, Advocate for Respondents 1 & 2, and of Respondent No.3 not appeared either in person or by Advocate.

¶75

This Court dotlr Order and Decree as follows

¶76

That the, Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is rejected; and

¶77

That th€,re shall be no order as to costs in this appeal

¶78

//TRUE COPY//

¶79

SDIA.V.S.PRASAD ASSTSTANTEEGtSTRAR v

¶80

SECTION OFFICER

¶81

To, '1 . The Prir cipal District Judge, Karimnagar 2. Two CD Copies W

HIGH COURT

DATED:0r510912023

DECREE

MACMA.I{o.1025 of 2023

¶86

M.A.C.M.,A. IS REJECTED.WITHOUT COSTS

¶87

kcc$at W zr\tlz\

Telangana State Road Transport Corporation v. Chitti Sujana @ Srujana Reddy @ Nirmala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Telangana State Road Transport Corporation v. Chitti Sujana @ Srujana Reddy @ Nirmala

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

M/s Durga Granites, Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1

Commissioner of Central Tax Vs M/s Rayalaseema Steel Re-rolling Pvt. Ltd.

Principal Commissioner of Customs, Vs Khan Sadaf

National Insurance Company Limited Vs Kudupuganti Rama

Ali Asgar Junagadhwala Vs The Union of India

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Mutyala Vijaya Lakshmi