Partly allowed

R.Chandrasekhar v. the Ap State Road Transport Corporation

Telangana HC2 Aug 2023MACMA/1923/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal partly. The court enhanced the compensation awarded by the below Tribunal from Rs. 39,525 to Rs. 75,525, increased interest rate to 7.5% p.a., and enhanced amounts for pain suffering and monthly income while confirming other heads of claim.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs. 39,525 to Rs. 75,525; Interest enhanced to 7.5% p.a.; Respondent directed to deposit the enhanced amount within two months.

R.Chandrasekhar Vs the Ap State Road Transport… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰⁴¹

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶6

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1923 OF 2011

¶7

Appeal Under SectionlT3 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in O.P.No. 189 of 2006, datd 04.O2.2009,^'on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for the Trial of Offences under SCs and STs (POA), Acl -Cum-Vl Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-Additional Chairman MACTCum XX Additional Chief Judge, At Secunderabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

R.Chandrasekhar, S/o.R.Mallesham, Occ: Business Ryo-Flat No.203, Manasa Apartments, Warasiguda, Secunderabad.

¶10

...APPELLANT/PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The AP State Road Transport Corporation, rep by its Managing Director O/o.RTC X Roads, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

¶13

,..RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶14

Counsel for the Appellant :SRl. P GANGA RAMI REDDY

¶15

Counsel for the Respondent : SRI N. PRAVEEN REDDY^(SC FORTSRTC)

¶16

The Court made the following:

¶17

¶18

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶19

M.A.C.M.A. No.1923 OF 2()ll

¶20

JUDGMENT:

¶21

This M.A.C.M.A. is preferred by the appellant/^petitioner aggrieved by the order and decree dated 04.02.20O9 in O.P.No.189 of 2006 on the fiie of the Specizrl Judge for Trial of Offences under SCs and STs (POA) Act-cum-Vl Additionai Metropolitan Sessions Judge-Additional Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cumXX Additional Chief Judge, Secunderabad

¶22

2 For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter relerred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

¶23

J The brief facts ol the case are as lollows :

¶24

On 24.O1.2006 at about 10.00 a.m., while the petitioner rn/as proceeding along with his wife and son from Chaderghat to\'ards Amberpet on Hero Honda Splendor Motorcycle bearing No.AP-I l-L-7705 and when they reached near Shalem Church, Golnaka Crossroads, one APSRTC bus bearing No.AP-11-Z'5159 came in the same direction driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the Hero Honda Splendor Motorcycle from behind, as a result of^q,hich, the petitioner along w,ith his wife and son fell dou,n along with Hero l{onda Motorcycle and the / /

¶25

¶26

petitioner slrstained severe m ultiple bleedins; inj uries. Immediatelv, after the accident, trre petitirner rvas shifted to osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad and subsequently he rvas shilted to Vijaya Hospital, Dilsukhnagar for treatment. The police Amberpet registered a case in Cr.No.24 of 2006 for the offence punishable under Section 337 of Ipc agai.st the drivet of the offending vehicie. The petitioner u/as running a bookbindi,g a,c Xerox business under the name and style of sri sai Baba Bookbinding and Xerox works at Shivam road and ear-nlng a sum of Rs. 19,419 /_ per month. Due to the injuries susrained by him, the petitioner has closed his shop for two rnonths and incurred a loss of Rs.3g.g2g/-. As such, he filed the clairn petition claiming compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-.

¶27

The respondent has frled a countr:r a.ffidavit den5,ing all the averments made in the claim petitior_., inclucling the manner in which the accident took place, age, avocation and income of the petitioner' It is also stated that the acciderrt t.ook place due to the negligence of the petitioner and therefore, the respondent is not liable to pay compensation and prayed to dismiss the claimpetition.

¶28

¶29

¶30

To prove his case, the petitioner got examined pWs. I to 4 and marked Exs.A I to A9. On behalf of the respondent, neither oral nor documentary evidence was produced.

¶31

Alter considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle and accordingly, awarded an arnount of Rs.39,52S l_ with proportionate costs and interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of petition till deposit to be paid by the respondent. Chaltenging the same, the present appeal is filed by the petitioner seeking enhancement.

¶32

7 Heard both sides and perused the record 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that though the petitioner sustained grievous injuries, the Tribunal erroneously awarded an arnount Rs.9,000/-, which is very meager. The Tribunal has not considered the loss of earnings as claimed by the petitioner bl.taking into consideration the evidence of pW.4 and Ex.A 6. The Tribunal has not awarded just compensation under other heads and therefore, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is very meagre and unjustifiable and sought for enhancing the same.

¶33

¶34

¶35

Per^{contra,leerrnedCounsel appeanngiorthe} 9 respondent/APsRTc^{submits that thougl-rthe pet'itionerhas not} filecl^{any income proofand oni;u filed a xerox copy of the Income Tax} ret.urn,^{the Tribuna.I' afterconsideringthe evidence availableon} record,^{has awarded justconrp€nsation 'rvhichneedsng} interference.

¶36

A perusal^{of the impugned drder discloses ihat the} Tribunal^{lraving framed issuOh*o l} '^{as td'rtlietherthe accident had} occurred^{due to rash and neglige,t drivingof. the offendingvehicle} by its Criver,^{and havingconsidered the'evidenceof'PWs'1 to 4} coupled^{with the documentary e'*riclencei'e'' Ex A- i-FlR' concluded} that the^{accident occurred rlue to the rasli and negiigent cirivingof} the driver of^{the offendingvetricleand has ansu'eredin favour of} ttre petitioner^{and againstthe RTC' TJrerefore'there are no reasorls} to interfere with^{the finciing of the Trjbunal that thc accident} oc.curred dtte to the rash^{anil negligenttlrivtng of the drit'erof tlie} RTC bus.

¶37

Insofar as the quantum of corirpensation is concented, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.9,000/- towards three simple injuries i.e., Rs.3,000 /- each. This court in ge.eral awards an amount of Rs.l0,000/- for each simrrle injury. Therelore. the

¶38

¶39

I t

¶40

petltioner is en rr ttleci to a sum of Rs. rnjuries insteacr for three simpre '' rf Rs.g,000/- u" .,nu..to'ooo/as awarded by the Tribunar. The petitioner stateci rh,r .^ ls'4.s/-permonth and in view of the iniurie. .r.;,.*-:t]-,'o" arned by -:^::'.'re him, he took bed rest for two monrhs. The Tribunar fixed ,r^ I the monthly income of the petitioner at Rs.5,000/_ and ar.r,arded an amounr of Rs. 10,000/_ towards loss of income for trn.o rnonths. Considering the nature of work done by the petitioner, thrs Court is ir_rclined to fix the monthly income of the petitioner at Rs.10,000/. Therefore, the petitioner is entided to a sum of Rs.20,000/ towards loss of income for two months. The Tribunal has rightll. au,arded an amount of Rs.5, 15S/_ towards medical charges, Rs.8,370/_ to.;r,ard s motorcycle repairing charges, Rs. i,000/- tou,ards transportation charges, Rs. 1,O00/_ towarcls extra nourishment and the same needs no interference by this Court. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.5,000/_ towards pain and suffering, w.hich is meagre. Therefore. considering the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards pain and suffering.

¶41

¶42

In all, the petitioner is entitled to a compensation of Rs.75,525/-

¶43

¶44

¶45

The^{Tribunai has awarded the rate of interest at 6 oh per} 13 annum,^{prevailing at that time and thesame is not interferedwith} However,^{the petitloner is entitled to interest A'' 7 5oh per annum on} the^{enhanced amount'}

¶46

¶47

t4 Accordingly,^{the appeal is partlyailowed by enhanctng} the compensation^{from Rs'39'525/- toRs.75,525/-(RuPees} Seventy^{Five thousandfive hundred and twenty five only)} The on the^enhanced petitioner^{is entitled to interest @ 7 '5o/o p'a'} the said^amount amount.^{The respondentis directed to deposit} amount,^ifanY with^{costs and interest'aJter deductingthe} deposited,^{within t p"tiod of two months from the date of receiptof} the copy^{of this judgment'On such deposit' the petitionerts} permitted^{to withdrawthesaid amount' Thereshallbe no order as} to costs'

¶48

As a^{sequelthereto,miscellaneousapplications, if any are} pendins^{in this- apP94r} thall^sQld "]gl"-{

¶49

D4 /ffRUE^COPY// SECTION^OFFICER

¶50

To, I

¶51

'ii1rt'''E"*tl'i':is*',,,li:ljti*"**l^

¶52

z. ine^{cc to sRl' P GANGA RAMI REDDY' AdvocatetoPucl}

¶53

One^{CC to SRI' N PRAVEEN REDDY (SC FOR TSRTC) [OPUCI}

¶54

Two^{GD CoPies}

¶55

ASR-2/DL

¶56

-+..:..4./.._--:k-*-,

II I I .t I j

{ HIG H COURT

RRN J {

DATEDlo 2t08t2023

! ,I ,rr"i", ,o"rI No.1923 of 2011 I i i

¶62

EIAIE g A
$tt, Ns ).o
)a\ \
o +
I oes P,fi

¶63

i t i

¶64

i f

¶65

MACMAIS^{PARTLY ALLOWED}

¶66

\L)
r ' 1-\k$^
!

¶67

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

¶68

i weor.rESDAY,THE^{sEcoND DAY oF AUGUST} i TWOTHOUSAND^{ANDTWENTYTHREE} I PRESENT i I

¶69

¶70

rile xoNouRaeLE sRt JUsrlcE^{NAMAvARAPU RAJESHWARRAo} I MOTOR ACCIDENT^{CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEALNO: 't923 OF 20l'l}

¶71

Between:

¶72

I R.Chandrasekhar, S/o.R.Mallesham,^{Occ: BusinessRl/o FlatNo 203,Manasa} Apartments, Warasiguda,^{Secunderabad.}

¶73

...APPELLANT/PETITION^ER

¶74

AND

¶75

TheAPStateRoadTransportCorporation,repbyitsManagingDirectorO/oRTC X Roads, Musheerabad,^HYderabad.

¶76

¶77

..RESPoNDENT/RESPoNDENT

¶78

Abpeal Under sectionl^{T3 of Motor Vehicles Act agEinst the orderand decree} in o.P.N.o. 189 of 2006,^{dated04.02-2009,on the file of the court of the Special} Judge f6r the Trial of Offences^{under SCs and STs (POA), Act} -Cum-Vl^Additional Metiopolitan Sessions Judge.Additional^{Chairman MACTCumXX Additional Chief} Judge, At Secunderabad.

¶79

¶80

ORDER! This appeal^{coming on for hearing and upon perusing the groundsof} appeat,lne Judgment^{and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papersin the} I "".u^rnb I^{upon hearing the argumentsof sRl. p GANGARAM; REDDY, Advocate} for the dppellant and of^{SRI N. PRAVEEN REDDY(SC FORTSRTC)'for the} Responttent.

¶81

This Court doth Order^{and Decreeas follows}

¶82

¶83

That the Appeal be^{and hereby is partlyallowed by enhancingthe} i

¶84

cbmpensation from^{- Rs. 3s,5251- to Rs- 75,S25l-(RupeesSeventyFive} :

¶85

Thousand Five Hundred^{and twenty Five only);}

¶86

¶87

¶88

That the^petrtioner be and hereby is entitled to interest @ 7.5%^p.a. on the I

¶89

enhanced amount;

¶90

That the Respondent be and hereby is directed to deposit the said amount i

¶91

with costs and interest, after deducting lhe amount, if any deposited, within a period ! of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this Judgment;

¶92

That on such deposit, the petitioner be and hereby is permitted to withdraw the said amount,

¶93

That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Lower Court shall^stands confirmed in all other respects; and

¶94

That there be no order as to costs in this appeal

¶95

Sd/. MOHD. SANAULLAH ANSARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶96

¶97

I To,

¶98

//TRUE COPY// ,>.i "' SECTION OFFICER

¶99

The Special J udge for the Trial of Offences underSCsand STs^(POA), Act -Cum-Vl Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-Additional Chairman MACT-Cum XX Additional Chief Judge, At Secunderabad ((With records)

¶100

Two CD Copies

ASR-2/DL

Nr-

I I I I I 4t I I !

I I I I

i I .t II

HIGH CbURT DATED:O2tOAt2023

¶110

i i t I I

¶111

DECREE

¶112

llacui.No.rsz 3 of 2011

¶113

jI
I
I
,
I
I
Ij- I
iI
MACMAIS PARTLY ALLOWED

¶114

,.
v
v
Iti

R.Chandrasekhar v. the Ap State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Chandrasekhar v. the Ap State Road Transport Corporation

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

R.Chandrakala Vs the Ap State Road Transport Corporation

R. Sai Vara Prasad, Secunderabad Vs the Apsrtc, Rep by Its Md, Hyderabad

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Dudekula Aslam and Another

Shaik Mohammed Ali , Mohd. Mahmadali and 2 Others Vs the Depot Manager and Another

A. Krishna Veni Vs The State of Telangna

P. Srikanth Vs The State of Telangana