Dismissed

Smt. M. Ramulamma and Another v. the Regional Manager, Apsrtc, Hyd

Telangana HC9 Nov 2023MACMA/1974/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the claimants seeking higher compensation following a fatal scooter-RTC bus collision. The Court upheld the Tribunal's finding of no rash and negligent driving, confirming the ex-gratia award of Rs. 50,000/- under no fault liability.

What did the court decide?

The Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed, confirming the Tribunal's award and decree.

Smt. M. Ramulamma and Another Vs the Regional… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

THURSDAY,THE NINTH^{DAY OF NOVEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA}

¶5

MOTOR AC^CIDENT CIVIL^{MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1974 OF 2OO8}

¶6

Appeal Under Section 173 of^{Motor Vehicles Act againstthe order and decree} in O.P.No.524 of 1997 dated^{29.O3.2OO4on the file of the Courtof the Chairman} Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-ll^{AdditionalDistrict Judge,R.R.Distat L.B.} Nagar.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Smt. M. Ramulamma,^(died)

¶9

M. Srinivas, S/o. Late^M. Laxmaiah,^{R/o. 1-3-843, Kawadiguda, Hyderabad.}

¶10

...APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS

¶11

AND

¶12

The Regional Manager, APSRTC,^{lmblibun Bus Station, Gowiiguda, Hyderabad.}

¶13

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶14

Counsel for the Appellant:^{SRl. Y. ASHOK RAJ}

¶15

Counsel for the Respondent:^{NONE APPEARED}

¶16

The Court made the following:^JUDGMENT

¶17

1 I i : I

¶18

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶19

M.A.C.M.A.No.t974 O F 2008

¶20

JUDGMENT:

¶21

This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the appellants/claimants, aggrieved by the award and decree, dated 29.03.2004 passed in O.p.No.524 of L997 on the file of Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District (for short "the Tribunal").

¶22

For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

¶23

BrieF facts of the case are that the on 11.04.1997 while Sri M. Mallikarjun @ Mallesh was proceeding on his scooter bearing registration No.Ap-11-C-6776 from Bailramalaguda towards Hyderabad side on the left side of the road and when he reached near Karmanghat cross roads at about 0930 hours, the driver of the ApSRTC bus bearing No.Ap-g-Z-6977 who was proceeding in the same direction drove the said RTC bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Scooter from its behind, as a result of which the deceased fell down and the said RTC bus ran over him and deceased died

¶24

¶25

NBK, J MACMA 1974 2008

¶26

on the spot. The^{Police Saroornagarregistered a case in} Cr.No.20B of 1997^{under Section 304-A of IPC against the} driver. Thus, the^{motherof the deceasedhas claimed} Rs.2,50,000/- towards^{compensationfor the untimely deathof} the deceased.

¶27

Before the Tribunal,^{the respondent filed counterand} denied the manner^{of accident narrated by the petitionerand} stated that he is^{not liable to pay the compensationand} prayed to dismiss the Petition.

¶28

Basing on the^{above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the} following issues:

¶29

1. Whether the^{accident occurred on 11'04'1997at} about 09:30 am^{due to rash and negligentdrivingof} driver of APSRTC^{bus bearing No'AP-09-2-6977?}

¶30

1. Whether the^{petitioner isentitledtoany} comPensation,^{if so, howmuch?}

¶31

1. To what^relief?

¶32

During trial, on^{behalf of the petitioners,PW-1 to PW-3} are examined and^{Ex.A-1to Ex.A-6are marked'On the other} hand, on behalf of^{respondent,driver of the APSRTCbus was} examined as RW-1^{and no documents are marked'}

¶33

¶34

NBK, J MACMA 1974 2008

¶35

I I

¶36

After considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal though held that the accident was not occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC bus but however awarded an amount oF Rs.50,000/- with interest @ 9o/o per annum from 28.04.1997 to 19.03.2001 and again from 05.01.2004 to tilt the date of realization with costs. Aggrieved by the said award and decree, the claimant No.2 has filed the present appeal.

¶37

B. Heard both sides and perused the record.

¶38

The learned counsel For the appellant/cla ima nt strongly contended that the learned Tribunal erred in finding that the driver of the offending vehicle was not rash and negligent and was carried away by the judgment in criminal proceedings wherein the driver was acquitted. He further contended that the learned trial judge ought to have believed the evidence of PW-3 an eye witness to the accident and grossly erred in rejecting his evidence on the faulty ground that he is not an list of witness in criminal proceedings.

¶39

¶40

NBK, J MACMA 1974 2008

¶41

A^perusal of^{the impugnedaward would show that the} Tribunal has framed^{Issue No.1 as to whether the accident} has occurred due to^{rash and negligent act of driving of the} driver of the bus and^{cameto the conclusionthat the accident} had not occurred due to^{negligence of the driver of the bus'} For an instance, even^{if we assume that the accident occurred} on account of the^{rash and negligentdriving of the driver of} APSRTC as contended^{by the learned counselfor the} appellant, no cogent^{evidence is adduced on the aspect of} rash and negligence^{on the part of the driver of the offending} bus. Therefore, the^{learned tribunal in the impugned} judgment held that the accident occurred^{not due to the} negligence of the^{APSRTCdriver, but howeverthe learned} tribunal awarded an^{amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensatlon} under "No fault liability",^{is very reasonableone.}

¶42

In view of the^{foregoing discussion, I see no reason to} interfere with the finding of^{the Tribunal and there are no} grounds to interfere with the^{findings arrived at by the} Tribunal and the appeal^{is liable to be dismissed.}

¶43

¶44

NBK, J MACMA 1974 2008

¶45

¶46

Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed, conFirming the award and decree dated 29.03.2004 passed in O.P.No.524 of 1997 on the file of the on the file of Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-II Additional District ludge, Ranga Reddy District. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶47

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand

¶48

closed

¶49

SD/. T. VIJAY KUMAR ASSISTANT R GISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION FFICER

To, 1 . The Chairman Motor Accident Claim Tribunal-cum-ll Additional District Judge, R.R.Dist at L.B. Nagar.

¶54

One CC to Sri. Y. ASHOK RAJ, Advocate [OPUC].

¶55

One CC to The Regional Manager, APSRTC, lmblibun Bus Station, Gowliguda, Hyderabad.

¶56

Two CD Copies

*;&z-

HIGH COURT

DATED:09/1'll2023

JUDGMENT

MACMA.No.1974 of 20OA

¶62

1 HE ST4 14:
q
oo 1 i JAN 2021 o
.:
.a-
*
t
D5 S PATCSrp

¶63

DISMISSING MACMA WTHOUT COSTS

¶64

ex
z

¶65

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

¶66

THURSDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF^NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶67

PRESENT

¶68

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{NAGESH BHEETT,IAPAKA}

¶69

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVI L MISCELLANEOUS^{APPEAL NO: 1974 OF 2008}

¶70

Between:

¶71

Smt. M. Ramulamma,^(died)

¶72

I\4. Srinivas, S/o. Late M.^{Laxmaiah,Ryo.1-3-843, Kawadiguda, Hyderabad.}

¶73

...APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS

¶74

AND

¶75

The Regional Manager, APSRTC,^{lmblibun Bus Station, Gowliguda, Hyderabad.}

¶76

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶77

Appeal Under Section^{173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree} in O.P.No.524 of 1997 dated^{29.03.2004on the file of the Courtof the Chairman} Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-ll^{AdditionalDistrict Judge,R.R.Distat L.B.} Nagar.

¶78

ORDER: This appeal coming^{on for hearing and uponperusingthe grounds of} appeal, the Judgment and Decree^{of the LowerCourt and the material papersin} the case and upon hearing^{the argumentsof Sri. Y. Ashok Raj, Advocatefor the} Appellants and of for the soce^{Respondentnot appeared either in person or by} Advocate.

¶79

This Court doth Order and^{Decreeas follows:}

¶80

That the Motor Accident Civil^{MiscellaneousAppeal be and hereby is} dismissed confirming the^{awardand decree dated 29'03.2004 passedin} O.P.No.524 of 1997 on the^{file of the on the file of Chairman, Motor Vehicles} Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-ll^{Additional DistrictJudge, Ranga Reddy} District; and

¶81

That there shall^{be no order as to costs in this appeal;}

¶82

SD/. T. VIJAY KUMAR ASSISTANT RE ISTRAR

¶83

//TRUE COPY//

¶84

SECTION FFICER

¶85

To, 1. The Chairman Motor Accident Claim Tribunal-cum-ll Additional District Judge, R.R.Dist at L.B. Nagar.

¶86

One CC to The Regional Manager, APSRTC, lmblibun Bus Station, Gowliguda, Hyderabad.

¶87

Two CD Cooies#/.\

HIGH COURT

DATED:09/1'l12023

DECREE

MACMA.No.1974 ot 2OOa

¶92

DISMISSING MACMA WTHOUT COSTS

¶93

Smt. M. Ramulamma and Another v. the Regional Manager, Apsrtc, Hyd

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. M. Ramulamma and Another v. the Regional Manager, Apsrtc, Hyd

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

Mekala Venkatamma and 3 Ors. Vs P.Srinivasulu and Anr.

M/s. Sha Engineering Works (S.C.No.S7007000) Vs Southern Power Distribution Company of Tg Ltd.

B. Ankamma Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Bacharapu Mallaiah and Anr. Vs K. Suguna Ratnakumari and Anr.

Vuke Chandar Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Krishna Committee Sand and Morram Vs State of Telangana.