Dismissed

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, (Nekrtc) v. Kodali Rani , Leela Rani

Telangana HC13 Oct 2023MACMA/3324/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment rejects the appeal filed by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The High Court held that the Tribunal's assessment of contributory negligence and income was supported by evidence and not subject to interference where the opposite party failed to prove any error.

What the court decided

AI extract

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, (Nekrtc)… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

Ii I

¶2

i ;

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

-^{FRIDAY, THE} THIRTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE_

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANAALISHETTY

¶9

MOTOR ACCIDENT CI L MISCELLANEOU s APPEAL NO:33211 oF 2018

¶10

Appeal Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicres Act against the order and Decree passed in M.V.o.p.No. 1462 ot 2012 on ttre iire or the court of the Motor Accidents claims Tribunar-cum-The- court of tne cniet .lroge, citv cirir c"LrG, Hyderabad dt.1 2-04-20 1 B.

¶11

Between:

¶12

Kamataka State Road Transport Corporation, (NEKRTC), Rep. by its Managing Director, Gulbarga, Xirnataia Staterv'lr!^!!L'

¶13

2- Kamataka State Road Transport Corporation, (NEKRTC), Rep. by its Depot Manager, Bidar Depot, Bioar,'xarnita[i Star;:''^--''' "

¶14

...Appellants/Respondents

¶15

AND

¶16

Kodali Rani @ Leela Rani, Wo. Late Kodali Saibabu, aged 43 years, Occ House wife

¶17

Kodali Bhargavi, D/o.Late Kodali Saibabu, age 17 years, Occ Student.

¶18

Kodali Pranavi, D/o.Late Kodali Saibabu, age 1O years,

¶19

K.S.R.Anjaneyulu, S/o.Lokanadha Rao, age 66 years. Occ Household,

¶20

9^athyavathi, Wo.KSR fujaneyulu, age 62 years, Occ House wife. (Respondents 2 and 3 being niinois, "n-epldv tr,lir"mttnir. ano naturat

¶21

guardian, Kodali Rani @ Leila Ranij

¶22

All are residents of flat No.OO4, Express Towers, Lakadikapoot, Hyderabad.

¶23

...Respondents/petitioners

¶24

IA NO: 1 OF 18

¶25

Petition unde.section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstarrces stated in the affidavit filed in support of the peiition, it ; iifi -Cor.t ,"y-0" f6;i; condone the detay of 129 days in filing the MACMA ilainst lvt.v.b.e.i".i46, ;; 2012 on the court of the Moior Accid6nt craims Tribular -cum{he cor.t oilt. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad dated: tZ_Oq_ZiJfi.

¶26

lA NO: 2 OF 2018

¶27

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant Stay of all further proceedings including Execution in M.V.O.P.No.1462 ot 2012 on the Court of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -Cum-the Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad dt^'12-04-2018.

¶28

Counsel for the Appellants: SRl. E VENKATA REDDY

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.{ to 5: SRI C VIKRAM CHANDRA

¶30

The Court made the following JUDGMENT:

¶31

THE TIOIT'BLE^{SRI JUSTICE P. SAMKOSHY} AND THE HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANAALISHETTY} M.A.C.M.A.^{No.3324of 2O18}

¶32

JUDGMENT:^{(per Hon'ble Si JttsticeP.sAtfi KoSHY)}

¶33

Heard Sri E. Venkata^{Reddy, learned counselfor the} appel'lant and Sri^{Vikram Chandra, learned counselfor the} respondents. Perused^{the entire record.}

¶34

The instant appeal has^{been filed by the appellant -} Corporation under^{Section 173 of the MotorVehicles Act' 1988} (hereinafter referred to as^{'the ActJ assailing the judgment and} decree dated l2.O4.2OIa^{passedin M.V'O'P'No '1462 of 2Ol2on} the file of the learned^{Motor Accident ClaimsTribunal- cum - the} CourtoftheChiefJudge,CityCivilCourts,Hyderabad(hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal').

¶35

With the consent of^{parties,the matter rvas taken up for} hearing.

¶36

The claim petition^{was frled by the claimantsunderSection} 166 of the Act seeking^{compensation of anamount of} Rs.75,O0,0O0/-^{for the death of person by nameK' Sai Babu in a} road accident. Vide^{impugnedorder dated l2'O4'2018' the} Tribunal has Awarded^{compensation of anamountof} Rs.81,28,OOO/- to the^{claimantswith interest@\7 '1okper annum} from the date of application till^{the date o[ realization'}

¶37

¶38

PSK,J & LNAJ MACMA.No.ll24 of2018

¶39

I I x Iii L1

¶40

The appellant - Corporation has substantially challenged the Award passed by the Tribunal mainly on two grounds. Firstly, that there was an element of contributory negligence which has been accepted by the Tribunal, but the percentage of contributory negligence fixed upon the deceased is on the lower side. The second ground of challenge is the income assessed by the Tribunal in relying only upon the Income Tax Return of one year, rather, the Tribunal ought to had considered three years previous returns while determining income of the deceased. As regards the first objection of thcre being lower percentage of contributory negligence attributable upon the deceased, if we look into the findings of the Tribunal in paragraph No.7, it clearly reflects that the Tribunal has upon duc perusal of the evidence found that therc u,as contradicton- statcment made by the driver of the offending vehiclc belonging to tl're appellant - Corporation in as much as how the accident did occur. The charge sheet that was frled on the basis of the FIR also ref]ccts lhat the accident had occurred when the dcceased was trying to take 'U' turn was hit by the bus of the appellant - Corporation, which was being driven rashly and negligently bv its driver. Just contrarJr to this, the driver of the oflending bus, u,hen he was examined before the Court below dcnied the statcmcnt that the deceased when trying to take 'U' turn, thc ar:cidcnt had occurred. Later, his stand was that the

¶41

¶42

¶43

PSK,J & LNAJ MACMA.No.l324 of20lE

¶44

¶45

I I

¶46

deceased was hit by the divider of the road and crossed over to the other side of. the road hitting the said bus. Apart from the aforesaid averments of the driver of the said offending vehicle, there does not seem to be any other evidence available on record to substantiate the contention of there being sheer negligence of carelessness on the part of the deceased in addition to the finding that has been given by the Tribunal. For the said reason, we are not satisfied with the contention raised by ttre appellant in this regard.

¶47

As regards the assessment of income is concerned, undoubtedly, ttre Tribunal while determining the income has taken into consideration the Income Tax Return of the deceased filed in the previous Assessment Year i.e., 20lO-11. If the Tribunal has relied upon the said document, it was the burden now which falls upon the appellant - Corporation to show that the said assessment made by the Tribunal to be on ttre higher side and that the income of the deceased in fact was much lower than what has been assessed by the Tribunal. The Corporation also has not been able to produce any documentary proof to show that there was considerable low income of the deceased in the past and that the return submitted by the deceased in the previous year was inflated income or anything as such. In the absence of any proof in this regard, it is difhcult to sustain the said contention.

¶48

¶49

PSKJ & LNAJ MACMA.No 1324 of20rt

¶50

i I I

¶51

I i

¶52

The appeal thus fails and is accordingly rejected The Corporation is expected to honour the Award dated 12.04.201g passed by the Tribunal at the earliest, preferably, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of a copy of the receipt of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶53

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶54

¶55

Sd/. MOHD. SANAULLAH ANSARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Go

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

'1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-The- Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad^(WITH RECORDS)

¶60

2 One CC to SRl. E VENKATA REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 3 One CC to SRl. C VIKRAM CHANDRA, Advocate [OUTI 4 Two CD Copies

RVR

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1311012023

JUDGMENT

MACMA.No.3324 of 2018

¶69

S{ATE
{
a-,
E TJLI o
NI<br>tt '
oo
i
5t
t DE sPPl

¶70

REJECTING THE MACMA

¶71

WITHOUT COSTS

¶72

l<br>

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, (Nekrtc) v. Kodali Rani , Leela Rani

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, (Nekrtc) v. Kodali Rani , Leela Rani

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Tbpr Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Commercial Tax Officer and 3 Others

M/S.Tbpr Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Commercial Tax Officer

M/S.Tbpr Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Commercial Tax Officer and 3 others

Abdul Aziz Qureshi Hyderabad Vs Assessment Unit Income Tax Department

The Managing Director Vs Mr. Purimigalla Veeranagaiah

Gvk Transportation Private Limited Vs Union of India