Allowed

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

Telangana HC1 Aug 2023MACMA/1969/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal concerned an order awarding compensation for a motor vehicle accident involving an APSRTC bus and a motorcycle. The High Court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for injuries, transportation, and nourishment, totaling Rs. 41,115 with interest at 7.5% p.a.

What did the court decide?

The Motor Accident Claims Appeal was partly allowed. Compensation was enhanced from Rs. 18,115 to Rs. 41,115 with interest at 7.5% p.a. The respondent is to deposit the amount within two months.

R. Sai Vara Prasad, Secunderabad Vs the Apsrtc, Rep… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY^{OF AUGUST} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY THREE}

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU^RAJESHWARRAO

¶5

M.A.C.M.A. NO: 1969^OF 2011

¶6

Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor^{Vehicles Actagainst the order and} decree in O.P.No.188 of 2006 dated 04.02.2009^{on the file of the Court of the} Special Judge for the Trial of Offences^{Under S.Cs and S.Ts (POA) Act-cum-Vl} Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge^{Additional ChairmanMotor Accident} Claims Tribunal-cum-XX Additional Chief Judge^{at Secunderabad.}

¶7

Between:

¶8

R. Sai Vara Prasad, S/o R.Chandra Sekhar,^{agedabout 16 years,Occ:Student,} R/o Flat No. 203, Manasa Apartments^{Warasiguda, Secunderabad (Minor) Rep} by his Father/Natural Guardian R.^{ChandrasekharS/o R. Mallesham,aged about} 40^years,

¶9

...APPELLANT/PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The A.P.S.R.T.C., rep by its Managing^{Director RTC X Roads Musheerabad,} Hyderabad

¶12

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶13

counsel for the Appellant: sRl. P GANGA^{RAMI REDDY}

¶14

Counsel for the Respondent:^{SRI THOOMSRINIVAS (SCFORTSRTC)}

¶15

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶16

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶17

M.A.C.M.A.NO .1969 0F 2011

¶18

JUDGMENT:

¶19

This appeal is filed by the Appellant/ petitioner under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, aggrieved by the Award and decree dated 04.02.2009, passed in O.p.No.1Bg of 2O06 on the file of the Special Judge For The Trial Of Offences under S.Cs And S.Ts (POA) Act-Cum-VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge Additional Chairman MACT_ Cum-XX Additional Chief Judge at Secunderabad (for short "the Tribunal").

¶20

For convenience, the parties wilt be hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

¶21

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.SO,OOO/- on account of his rnJurles ln a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 24.Or.2006.

¶22

3(1) It is stated that on 24.01.2006, the petitioner and his mother, as pillion riders along \l,ith his father as a rider, were proceeding from Chaderghat towards Amberpet on Hero

¶23

¶24

RRN..I J,1A(-\tA t96() l0t^,

¶25

Honda Splendor Motor Cycle bearing No.^{AP- I} IL-77O5^at about 1O:00 a.m, and when they reached near Shalem Church, Golnaka Cross Roads, an APSRTC bus bearing No. AP-11-Z-5159, which came in the same direction driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed Hero Honda Motor Cycle from behind; as a result of the accident, the petitioner, his mother and his father fell down and sustained severe multiple bleeding injuries and all of them ^/ere immediately shifted to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad. Hence, the claim petition.

¶26

Before the Tribunal, the respondent filed a counter denying all the averments in the petition and prayed to dismiss the petition

¶27

To prove his case, the petitioner examined PWs-1 and 2 and got marked Ex.Al to A7. On behalf of the respondent, neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced.

¶28

On appreciation of the evidence on record, the Tribunal found that due to the negligence of the driver of the respondent RTC Bus, the accident took place; as such, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.18,115/AS against

¶29

IrR.^I vlr\c\t/\ I969 t0Il

¶30

Rs.50,O00/ Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the petitioner

¶31

Heard both sides. Perused the record.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal ought to have awarded the compensation claimed by the appellant under different heads, treated the injuries as grievous injuries, and awarded compensation under permanent disability as claimed by the appcllant

¶33

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the Tribunal has rightly grantcd compensation, and this Court requires no interference.

¶34

A perusal of the impugned order shows that the Tribunal awarded Rs.9,OOO/- for three injuries (i.e.,Rs.3,000 per each injury). It is very meagre. This Court is awarding Rs. 10,OOO/- for each simple injury; (i.e.,Rs. lO,0O0x 3=30,OOO). Hence, the petitioner is awarded Rs.30,OO0/- for three simple injuries. The Tribunal awarded Rs.3,1 15/towards medical expenses, which needs no interference. The Tribunal au,arded Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering, which also needs no interference. The Tribunal granted an

¶35

l{liN..l N,rA( \lA l9(t) 201 ,

¶36

¶37

amount of Rs.50O/- towards transportation charges, which is a very meagre amount. Therefore, this Court is cnhancing^the said amount from Rs.500/- to Rs.2,O00/- towards transportation charges. The Tribunal also granted an amount of Rs.SOO/- towards extra nourishment charges, which is a very meagre amount. Hence, this Court is enhancing the said amount from Rs.500/- to Rs. 1,000/- towards extra nourishment.

¶38

Therefore, this Court is inclirred to enhance the quantum of compensation as under:

¶39

Sl.No	Naturcofhead	Amount awardcdby Tribunal	Amount awardcd by thisCourt
I	PainandSuffering	Rs.5,O00/-	Rs.5,o0o/-
2	Injuries Rs.10,O00/-each for 3 simple injuries)	Rs.9,000/-	Rs.30,000/-
3	MedicalBills	Rs.3,115/-	Rs.3,115/
4	Transportation charges	Rs.5OO/-	Rs.2,OO0/-
5	Extra Nourishment	Rs.soO/-	Rs.1,OO0/-
	Total	Rs.18,115/-	Rs.41, 115/-

¶40

1 l. A perusal of the impugned Award shows that the Tribunal awarded interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till deposit. However, this Court awards interest (u) 7.5o/o p.a on the enhanced arnount from the date of petition till deposit

¶41

llttN,.l i\l A('\1A t9(' 10,

¶42

Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is allou,ed in part by enhancing the compensation amount from Rs. l B, 1 15/ to Rs.41,115 /- (Rupees Forty one thousand, one hundred and fifteen only) with interest at 7.5o/o p.a. on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till the date of realization. The respondent shall deposit the said compensation amount together with interest and costs after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to u,ithdraw the same. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶43

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand

¶44

closed.

¶45

Sd/- MOH D. L ASSISTANT RE S R //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶46

To,

¶47

The Special Judge for the Trial of Offences Under S.Cs and S.Ts (POA) Act-cum-Vl Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge Additional Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XX Additional Chief Judge at Secunderabad. (With Records if any)

¶48

One CC to SRl. P GANGA RAMI REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. THOOM SRINIVAS, SC FOR TSRTC [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies

ASR,/pr

f ^^q.

HIGH COURT

RRN, J

DATED: 0110812023

JUDGMENT MACMA.No.1969 of 2011

¶55

1\ \E STATE o
q
]J o
C
(.) 31 JIN 2[2[ "},
I n". n
j+_:1

¶56

PARLW ALLOWING THE MACMA

¶57

@x*'" tq,>t.'

¶58

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

¶59

TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶60

PRESENT

¶61

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU^RAJESHWARRAO

¶62

M.A.C.M.A.NO: 1969 OF^201'l

¶63

Between:

¶64

¶65

:R.^Sai Vara^{Prasad, S/o R.Chandra Sekhar, aged about'16 years,Occ:Student,} iRl/o Flat No. 203, Manasa Apartments Warasiguda, Secunderabad (Minor) Rep by his Father/Natural Guardiah R. Chandrasekhar^{S/oR. Mallesham, agedabout} 40 years,

¶66

...APPELLANT/PETITIONER

¶67

AND

¶68

The A.P.S.R.T.C., rep by its Managing^{Director RTC X Roads Musheerabad,} Hyderabad

¶69

...RESPONOENT/RESPONDENT

¶70

i Appeat filed under Section 173 of Motor^{VehiclesAct against the order and} decree in O.P.No.188 of 2006 daled^{O4.O2.2O09on the file of the Court of the} Special Judge for the Trial of Offences Under^{S.Cs and S.Ts (POA) Act-cum-Vl} Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge^{Additional ChairmanMotor Accident} Claims Tribunal-cum-XX Additional^{Chief Judgeat Secunderabad'}

¶71

ORDER: This appeal coming on^{for hearingand upon perusing the grounds of} appeal, the Judgment and^Decree of^{the Lower Court andthematerialpapers in the} MVOP and upon hearing the arguments^{of SRl.P GANGARAMI REDDY,Advocate} for the appellant and of Sri THOOM SRINIVAS,^{SC for TSRTC for the Respondent.}

¶72

This Court doth Order and Decree as^follows:

¶73

1 That the MACMA be and hereby is^{partly allowedby enhancingthe} compensation amount from Rs.18,115t^{to Rs.41,115/-(Rqp-ees Fortyone} thouland, one hundred and fifteen only)^{with interest at 7.5% p.a. on the} enhanced amount from the date of^{petition till the date of realization;}

¶74

2 That the respondent shall deposit the^{said compensationamounttogether} with interest ind costs after^{giving due credit to the amountalready deposited,} if any, within two months from the date of^{receipt of a copy of thisjudgment;}

¶75

3 That on such deposit, the^petitioner be^{and herebyis permitted to withdraw} the same;

¶76

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

¶77

That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal.

¶78

Sd/- MOHD. ISMAIL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// v SECTION OFFICER

¶79

¶80

The Special Judge for the Trial of Offences Under S.Cs and S.Ts (POA) Act-cum-Vl Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge Additional Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XX Additional Chief Judge at Secunderabad.

¶81

Two CD Copies

pr llr^cI i I I I

HIGH COURT

RRN, J

DATED: 0110812023

i I

DECREE MACMA.No.1969 of 2011

¶88

PARLTY I\LLOWING THE MACMA

¶89

Pnt', lor!rr*r.

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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.Yadaiah, Vs v.v.Chowdary

Syed Noor , Mohd Noor Vs a.Raghuveer Reddy and Anr.

Suryavamshi Gopal Vs v. Mohan and Anr.

R.Chandrakala Vs the Ap State Road Transport Corporation

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

Shivarla Rajender, R.R. Dist. Vs Smt. P. Renuka and Another