Partly allowed

The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. T. Thikkaiah

Telangana HC7 Aug 2023MACMA/2868/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal in part against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal order, affirming liability but reducing the compensation amount. The court rejected the contributory negligence defense due to lack of evidence but reduced transport expenses unsupported by evidence and adjusted interest rates.

What did the court decide?

The compensation amount was reduced from Rs. 10,62,320/- to Rs. 9,60,000/-; transport expenses of Rs. 1,05,000/- were disallowed; interest reduced to 7.5%.

The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32s8 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU

¶6

M.A.C.M.A. NO: 2868 OF 2019

¶7

Appeal filed under Section 173 of li,4otor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in lv1.V.O.P.No.257 ot 2013 dated 14-02-2018 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, lvlotor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Xll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, rep. by its Regional [\4anager, GH Region, Personal Department, JBS Picket, Secunderabad (presently at Pandit Nehru Bus station, Vijayawada, Krishna District)

¶10

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT

¶11

AND

¶12

T. Thikkaiah,, S/o. Chinna Venkanna, aged about 50 years, Mason, Agriculture and Cattle business, (Died per LRs)

¶13

T. Krishna Veni,, Wo. Thikkaiah, aged about 50 years, House wife

¶14

Venkata Lakshmi,, D/o. Thikkaiah, aged about 35 years, House wife

¶15

Sunkulamma,, D/o. Thikkaiah, aged about 33 years, House wife

¶16

T. Lakshmanna,, S/o. Thikkaiah, aged about 31 years, Un-employee

¶17

Chittamma,, D/o. Thikkaiah, aged about 29 years, House wife

¶18

Suiatha,, D/o.Thikkaiah, aged about 27 yea$, House wife

¶19

Mangamma,, D/o. Thikkaiah, aged about 25 years, House wife

¶20

Suvarna,, D/o. Thikkaiah, aged about 22 yearc, Household

¶21

Rajeshwari,, D/o. Thikkaiah, aged about 1 I years, Household (All are residents of H.No.3-16/7, Bowenpally Secunderabad)

¶22

...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS

¶23

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI KALLAKURI SRINIVASARAO

¶24

Counsel forthe Respondents: Ms. VLADIMEER KHATOON

¶25

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶26

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU

¶27

M.A.C.M.A.NO.2868 of 2019

¶28

JUDGMENT:

¶29

This 14otor Accident Civil lvliscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant, who is respondent in M.V.O.P.No.257 of 2013 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum XII Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, herein after will be referred as^'Tribunal' for convenience, questioning the order in the above said petition dated 14-02-2018 by which the Tribunal awarded a sum oF Rs.lO,62,32O/- as compensation in favour of the respondents/claimants for the injuries caused to the first respondent in a road trafFic accident.

¶30

As could be seen from the order, one T.Thikkaiah - the 1't respondent/1st petitioner, who is no more now, has filed O.P.No.257 of 2013 against the present appellant under Section 166 of M.V. Act, 19BB and Rule 475l1B of Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 r/w Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 claiming an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries caused to him in a road accident. According to his petition, on 19-72-2012, at about 6.30 p.m., when he was proceeding towards

¶31

¶32

55RN.l MACMA No.2 868 of 20r9

¶33

Karivemula village and when he reached the Forest Nursery, the driver of RTC Bus bearing No.Ap 212 0126 drove the bus in high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed him, thereby he fell down and bus ran over his right leg. The first petitioner has claimed that he received grievous injuries and since the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of RTC Bus, he sought for compensation from the present appellant.

¶34

The appellant appeared before the Tribunal, filed the counter denying the material allegations ancl contended that there might have been contributory negligence on the part of the injured/first petitioner, thereby, sought for dismissal of the petition. The Tribunal has framed the following issues:

¶35

1 Whether the pleaded accident occurred resulting in injunes to the petitioner vrz., I-.Thikkaiah, due to rash and negltgent driving of APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 272 0t26?

¶36

2 Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation, if so, what amount and against whom?

¶37

3 To what relief?

¶38

During the course of time. since the first petitioner who filed the above said petition died, his legal representatives i.e., respondent Nos.2 to 10 were brought on record as respondent Nos.2 to 10. They have filed petition to amend the compensation amount from Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.10,00,000/- on the ground that

¶39

¶40

SSRN,J MACMA No.2868 of 2019

¶41

1't respondent/cla ima nt died due to the injuries caused in the accident. During the inquiry, the first daughter of the injured has been examined as PW.1 and two more witnesses were examined on behalf of respondents. They have marked Exs.A1 to A9. The appellant did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence.

¶42

The Tribunal having appreciated the contentions of both parties and evidence both oral and documentary, came to the conclusion that the respondents were able to prove their claim and awarded a sum of Rs.70,62,320/- against the claim of Rs.10,00,000/- ordering apportionment of the amount among all the legal representatives of the deceased/cla im a nt.

¶43

The appellant has filed the present appeal on the ground that the Tribunal committed an error by granting excess and exorbitant compensation but failed to see that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. According to the appellant, it was alleged that when the above said bus was proceeding from Kurnool to pathikonda and when the bus crossed Kappratala stage and when it reached Karivemula Nursery, the driver of the bus found a lorry coming in the opposite direction, therefore, he took the bus towards left side of the road, and the two persons who were carrying bunch of straw loaded on their

¶44

¶45

55RN,l MAaNTA No ),tara df 7Ol9

¶46

head were proceeding on the road, but they were not visible due to darkness and load on their head. However, he has applied break, the bus got slow down in the process, the bus hit one of the persons causing him injuries. He was admitted in the hospital and later died i.e after a gap of I^1/z years oF the accident but the Tribunal failed to see that there was no negligence on the^part of the driver and failed to notice that there is contributory negligence on the^part of the injured.

¶47

The appellant further contended that the Tribunal committed an error in assessing the notional income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/-^per month since there^{was no evidencein} support of the said income. The age of the deceased^was incorrectly calculated and the Tribunal was wrong in awarding^a sum oF Rs.5,80,800/- towards loss of dependency, and^the appellant disputed the other heads of^{compensation awardedby} the Tribuna l.

¶48

B. Heard both parties.

¶49

Now the points arose for consideration are:

¶50

1 Whether the death of first petitioner which^occurred about more than 1^{th years} after the accident^wasdue to the above referred accident?

¶51

¶52

SSRN,] MACMA.No 2868 0f 2019

¶53

2 Wheather the appellant herein is liable to pay compensation for the death of deceased though the death was much later to the alleged accident?

¶54

.) Whether the Tribunal was wrong in awarding compensation under other heads and granting more than Rs.10,00,000/- against the claim of Rs.5,00,000/_ filed by the respondents?

¶55

As per the material placed before this Court, it is quite clear that initially the petition was filed for compensation on account of the injuries caused to the first respondent/petitioner/claimant. Subsequenuy, since the claimant died about I^1/z years after the accident, there was amendment and the legal representatives/dependents of the deceased were brought on record. Accordrng to the oral and documentary evidence placed before the Tribunal, it shows a part from the oral evidence of PW's.1, 2 and 3, the respondents have filed Medical Bills showing expenses of Rs.1,05,80g/-, discharge summary, advance receipts, transportation bills and death certiFicate.

¶56

Before dealing with the quantum oF compensation and right of the respondent to receive compensation for the death of the first respondent/cla ima nt, it is just and necessary to verify whether really there was contributory negligence by the injured and if so, whether the compensation can be reduced as sought by

¶57

¶58

5Sn^r! l MACMA No 1868 of l019

¶59

the present appellant. As per the impugned judgment, the Court below in Para No.2 of the order extracted the contents of counter filed by the present appellant and found that except the sentence that the accident occurred due to the contributory negligence, no other details were mentioned. However, while filing the present appeal, the appellant has claimed that at the time of accident, the driver of the bus having noticed an opposite vehicle said to have taken his bus towards the extreme left side and he could not notice the first respondent/claimant and another person, who were going on the left side of the road by carrying bunch of straw on their heads. When once the appellant took a stand that there was contributory negligence by the injured, the appropriate person to depose about the said contributory negligence is the driver, who caused the accident. The appellant did not try to examine the driver as a witness before the Court.

¶60

As per the oral evidence and documents filed by the respondent, it is quite clear that based on the complaint lodged with the police, they conducted investigation and filed charge sheet against the driver. Therefore, except the oral contention in the counter, there is no other supporting evidence to believe the alleged contributory negligence. The appellant herein could not

¶61

5SRN,J MACMA No 2868 ol 2019

¶62

elicit anything From the witnesses to show there was some contributory negligence by the injured. The appellant is not able to establish the above stated circumstances and there is nothing on record to believe that there was an opposite vehicle, the driver of RTC Bus took his bus to extreme left but could not notice the 1't respondent and another etc., The Tribunal while disbelieving the contention ot the appellant discussed the evidence of pW.2 and came to a right conclusion about the rash and negligent driving and did not accept the concept of contributory negligence taken by the appellant.

¶63

Therefore, the next contention is with regard to quantum of the compensation. As per the amended peiltion i.e., after the wife and children of the first respondent were brought on record, they have amended the claim and enhanced the compensation from Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.10,00,000/-. Admittedly, the death of deceased was more than 1 7z year after the accident but the evidence placed it before the Court shows that in view of the injuries caused in the above referred accident, the first respondent was hospitalized and subsequently, died for the said inju ries only.

¶64

s5llr,r i MACMA No 1868 of 20lrl

¶65

¶66

The Tribunal having considered the^age of^the deceased being 55, calculated^{his income as Rs.6,000/-per} month. According to the^{evidence of PW.1 and as per the inquest} etc., the 1't respondent^i.e., deceased^{was an agriculturist, he was} hale and healthy and attending^{the agricultural works, thereby, the} Tribunal rightly assessed^{the income as Rs.6,000/- per month.The} appropriate multiplier^{was applied.Sincethe dependentsare only} three, the Tribunal^{deductedL/3'd of the Income towards the} personal expenses. Therefore, there^{is no irregularity in awarding} is sum of Rs.5,80,800/-^{as loss of dependency However, the} Tribunal^granted a sum of^{Rs.1,05,710l-as transport expenditure} based on the bills^{marked as Ex.A7. Now a days, it is veryeasy} for any^person to^{create such bllls and the Tribunalought not to} have accepted the^{claim without any supporting evidence'} Admittedly, the respondents^{did not examine the personto whom} the respondents said^{to havepaid such a hugeamount of more} than Rs.1,00,000/-^{towards the transport expenses The} remaining amount of^{Rs.40,000/- as loss of consortium to wife and} Rs.2,00,000/- Gl 25,000/-^{each to each daughter being 18 number} and Rs.15,000/-^{each under the head of loss of estate and funeral} expenses or according^{to the settled prlncipleof law and as per the}

¶67

¶68

SSRN,] MACMA.No 2868 of 2019

¶69

judgments in 'Sarala Verma and Nationat Insurance Company t-td., and'Pranay Sethi and Others' case. The Tribunal awarded interest @ 9^o/o which shall be reduced from 9o/o to 7.5Vo in view of the judgment in 'Pranay Sethi'. There is no serious dispute about the death of the first respondent/cra imant due to the injuries caused to him in the above referred accident. Therefore, the respondents are entitled to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal except the amount of Rs.1,05,000/- which is shown as transport expenses. To that extent, the appeal filed by the appellant can be allowed.

¶70

In the result, the appeal is allowr:d in part by reducing the compensation amount from Rs.10,62,320/_ to 9,60,000/_ with costs and interest @ 7.So/o. In view of the reduction of compensation, an amount of Rs.50,000/_ shall be reduced from the compensation oi" second respondent wife and Rs.25,000/_ each from the compensation of respondent Nos.9 and 10.

¶71

Consequently, Miscellaneous applications if any, are closed. No costs

¶72

Ass'srXKyRI&!s+[X1*L //TRUE COPY// (-\4/ sEcTloN oFF|CER

¶73

To,

¶74

l The Motor Accidents crajms Tribunar-cum-XIr Additionar chief Judge, city Civil Court at Secunderabad.

¶75

One CC to Sri Kaltakuri Srinivasa Rao, Advocate [OpUC] 3. One CC to Ms. Vtadimeer Khatoon, nOro"ri"iddUbl 4. Two CD Copies TYH/ptp .\i^

HIGH COURT

DATED:0710812023

JUDGMENT+DECREE

MACMA.No.2868 of 2019

¶80

-:<br>E $ll\ t..
iI
\ o
l:
sal
co 3 1 JAll 2[2{ C:
{
-- .
.' .-;

¶81

APPEAL IS ALLOWED IN PART. WITHOUT COSTS.

¶82

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶83

MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE

¶84

PRESENT

¶85

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO^NAIDU

¶86

i.i

¶87

M.A.C.M.A. NO: 2868 0F 2019

i''l'

, -!,

Between:

t,l

.)l ; :. Th€; Andhra Pradesh State Road^{Transpo(Corporation,rep. by its} Regional {it , Manager, GH Region, Personal Department, JBS Picket, Secunderabad (presently l; ,at Pandit Nehru Bus station, Vijayawada, Krishna District)

¶94

.f, iI t

¶95

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT

¶96

AND

¶97

T. Thikkaiah,, S/o. Chinna Venkanna,^{aged about 50 years, Mason,} Agriculture and Cattle business,^{(Died per LRs)}

¶98

T. Krishna Veni,, W/o. Thikkaiah,^{agedabout 50 years, House wife} 3. Venkata Lakshmi,, D/o. Thikkaiah,^{aged about 35 years, House wife} 4. Sunkulamma,, Dio.^{Thikkaiah, agedabout 33 years, Housewife}

¶99

T. Lakshmanna,, S/o. Thikkaiah,^{agedabout 31 years, Un-employee} 6. Chittamma,, D/o. Thikkaiah,^{agedabout 29 years, House wife} 7. Sujatha,, D/o.Thikkaiah,^{aged about27 years, House wife} 8. Mangamma,, D/o.^{Thikkaiah, aged about 25 years, House wife} 9. Suvarna,, D/o. Thikkaiah,^{agedabout 22 years, Household} 10.Rajeshwari,, D/o. Thikkaiah,^aged about^{19 years, Household} ,^{(All are residentsof H.No.3-16/7, BowenpallySecunderabad)}

¶100

...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS

¶101

lrt,i

¶102

.1 ir

¶103

i, i Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order anddecree in M.V.O.P.No.257 of 2013^{daled14-02-2018on the file of the Court of} the Chairman, Motor Accidents^{Claims Tribunal-cum-Xll Additional ChiefJudge'} City Civil Court at Secunderabad.

¶104

ORDER: This appeal coming^{on for hearing and upon perusingthe grounds of} appeal, the Judgment and^{Decree of the Lower Court and the material paper in the} caie anA upon hearing the arguments^{of Sri Kallakuri SrinivasaRao,Advocate for} the Appellant and of^{Ms. Vladimeer Khatoon, Advocatefor Respondents.}

¶105

This Court doth Order and^{Decree as follows}

¶106

That the Motor Accident Civil^{MiscellaneousAppeal be and hereby is allowed} . in part by reducing the compensation^{amountfrom Rs.1 0,62,6201-lo}

¶107

¶108

i I 1. ! i,:b* Rs.9,60,0001 with costs and interest @ 7.5o/" in view of the reduction of :i. compensation an amount of Rs.50,000! shall be reduced from the ..^.i , , , i ,^{f !iii compensation of Second respondent wife and Rs.25,0001 each from the compensation of respondent Nos.9 and 1o;and rr,i t .iF I .-, '.9 -i '.1 H iJ*² That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. _,- i.il, ! F$t l i;i I.1 t;,1 i

¶109

SD/-MOHD.ISMAIL

¶110

//TRUE COPY//

¶111

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR V

¶112

SECTION OFFICER

¶113

To,

¶114

The Motor Accidents Glaims Tribunal-cum-Xll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad.

¶115

Two CD Copies

¶116

ttl<-

¶117

:. T ltiti: ,'tl i 1..r,a 1i.l: 'ir ti,.! -!. .r :i . !. .-1t' '',.:} tltr i, .',.'rl st$. i t:

¶118

'i .i .,',.' "a: : !'ij, : ,r}:.; 1.ff, .llll ,!'^q: 11l i -#:]' ::" 1. ..1 .:r,ti .;j,t

I I I I I I

r! HIGH COURT

DATED:0710812023

, il,. 1! t. :1;. ; i^!^,i 'f s ti* t" i.'- i t ;l D i,fri .I ,tI_ll , ii .-;j^l! *lq :. ; t ,r, i 5: it ,ll f :. :+^): .lt.⁴ ...,.: ,i'i i:t I :,: l' ',1!: I.l DECREE

¶124

i ') i I I I

¶125

MACMA.No.2868 of 2019

¶126

t.! i, : ;, l: 'itAI 1 .i. .. ?, '.it^.t ti r- r, t r I ,{s+ -i" l; alrt;* i; 3^':. rr{i.{ &ri, ri t i:^tJ, t,i. TAPPEAI. IS ALLOWED IN PART. WITHOUT COSTS.

¶127

I i I t..I t j\d l t ir. t:Iti . :i.. i.

The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. T. Thikkaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. T. Thikkaiah

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

P. Satyanarayana, Vs P.Nagamani and 6 Others

Shameem Begum Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation ( Presently Telangana State Road Transport CorP

The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Vs Shammem Begum

Anwari Begum (Died), Vs Asia Khatoon

N Suresh Vs Akshay Sanjay Sapkal

M/s. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs P.Bichupalli