Allowed

The Apsrtc., and Another v. S.Krishna Murthy and 5 Others

Telangana HC16 Mar 2023MACMA/3731/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana allowed an appeal filed by the APSRTC. Relying on the principle from Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Rajender Devi, the court held that the insurance company is solely liable to pay the death compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

Insurance Company directed to deposit entire compensation; Appellant to take steps to recover if any amount is deposited.

The Apsrtc., and Another Vs S.Krishna Murthy and 5… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²³⁰ ]

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH^{DAYOF MARCH} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT^{JUSTICE LALITHAKANNEGANTI}

¶6

M.A.C.M.A. NO: 3731 OF 2011

¶7

Appeal under Section 173 of^{M.V.Act, againstthe Orderand decree madein} MVOP No.826 0t 2007 dated^{1510412010 0n the file of the court of the chairman,} Motor Accidents claims^Tribunal -cum-^{XXllAdditionalchiefJudge-cum-Motor} Accidents Claims Tribunal,^{City Criminal Courts,Hyderabad.}

¶8

Between:

¶9

The APSRTC., Rep. by^{its Managing Director,MusheerabadCrossRoads,} Hyderabad

¶10

The APSRTC., Rep. by its^{Depot Manager' lbrahimpatnam Bus Depot, Ranga} Reddv District

¶11

...A''ELLANTS/ RES'oNDENTS^{1 & 2}

¶12

¶13

S.Krishna Murthy, S/o. S.lbrahim^Employee 2. S.Prabhakar, S/o. S.Krishna^{Murthy Employee}

¶14

S.Suiatha, D/o. S.Krishna^{Murthy Household}

¶15

S.Prisad Kumar, S/o. S.Krishna^{Murthy Student} All are Fyo. Chowdarpally Village^{Yacharam mandal, Ranga Reddy District} Present F/o. 16-5-843/4, Saidabad,^Hvderabad.)

¶16

.....ResPondents/ Petitioners

¶17

M.Bheem Reddy, S/o.^{M.Gangi Reddy C/o.Vishnu Vardhan Reddy Rl/o. 9-53} Sriram Nagar Colony Uppal,^Hyderabad

¶18

The New tidia nssuian'cb^{Conipany Ltd., Rep' By its Divisional Manager} MadanMohanBuildings,R.P.Road,Secunderabad ...RES,ONDENTS

¶19

For the Appellants : SRI THOOM^{SRINIVAS,Advocate}

¶20

For the Respondent : SRI^{KOTASUBBARAO, Advocate}

¶21

Forthe Respondent : SRI V.ATCHUTA^{RAM, Advocate}

¶22

The Court delivered the following^: JUDGMENT

¶23

¶24

¶25

THE HONOLI]I \RLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGI\hITI

¶26

M.A.C.M.A.No.37 31 of 2011

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

Th s app:al is preferred by the appellants-RTC ag lrieved by the award an,: d:c ee dated 15-04-2010 in O.P.No.B2{j of 2t))/ on the file of the )(Xll , rdCitional Chief Judge-cum-Motot Acc (l,,rnts claims Tribunal,^tlity )r minal Court, Hyderabad, where n the l ribunal has granted compe rsation of Rs.5,29,000/- with interest at €^c(, per annum for the de:ath l the deceased in the accident occurred ( n 18-03-2007 and held tltal f [() alone rs liable to pay compensat on to :lrr: cl:]imants.

¶29

Le;:rn,:l Standing Counsel for the appellants-RTO Mr Thoom Srinivas subrri s that as the bus which was invorved irr :he accident was hired by the RTC, lnsurance Company is lirble to pay compensation o the claimants. He submits that in the li! l-t 01 the law laid down by 1i 3^qpex Court in Uttar Pradesh Sfate Rc;r,:/ Transport Corporation t ;. Rajenderi Devi and othersl , whr:rein i r,as reld that though tl-r,: 'rr:l icle is hired with the APSRTC, as the ,r:rhicle being insured with tlr( insurance company, insurance company irlcne is liable to pay the conr re,lsation.

¶30

ln the lig ht of the said judgment of the Apex Court his Court is of the v r:w t ra: the lnsurance Company alone is I ;, ble to pay compensation to the claimants. ln view of the sarrer, lrrsurance Company shall deposit the entire amount and the appell:rnts-RTC shall

¶31

take steps to re :cver if any amount is deposited.

¶32

' 1:020)^{tv S rpr:rrr C rurrCases 1-r0}

¶33

¶34

LK, J
MA CMA.No.3731 of 20'11

¶35

4 Accordingly, the appeal^{is allowed.No order as to costs'} 5 Miscellaneous^{petitions,if any pending in this appeal shall stand}

closed.

Sd/-G.SIREESHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII qD

¶41

SECTION OFFICER

¶42

The XXll Additional chief.Judge, before Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, ^^{Hyderabad -cum- City criminilbouiiltfi;rffi:} ?. 9n"^{CC to Sri Thoom Srinivas,} nAvocate iOpU6i-' 3. one cc to SriKota suhb; R;, n ir.iJjL,iop"u?f

¶43

Two CD Copies

i
q

/t I

HIGH COURT

DATED:16/03/2023

JUDGMENT

.'<br>'n
\i
:i
I E i\\ ?IJII

¶51

MACMA.No.3731 r>f 2011

¶52

ALLOWING THE IVII CMA WITHOUT COSTS.
ie9
Gl.t
rD
qfe\aa

¶53

[³²³⁰¹

¶54

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶55

THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶56

PRESENT

¶57

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶58

M.A.C.M.A. NO: 3731 OF 2011

¶59

Between:

¶60

The APSRTC., Rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad Cross Roads, Hyderabad

¶61

The APSRTC., Rep. by its Depot Manager, lbrahimpatnam Bus Depot, Ranga Reddv District

¶62

...A''ELLANTS/ RE='.NDENTS 1 & 2

¶63

¶64

'l . S.Krishna Murthy, S/o. S.lbrahim Employee

¶65

S.Prabhakar, S/o. S.Krishna Murthy Employee

¶66

S.Sujatha, D/o. S.Krishna Murthy Household

¶67

S.Prasad Kumar, S/o. S.Krishna Murthy Student

¶68

All are Rl/o. Chowdarpally Village Yacharam mandal, Ranga Reddy Diskict Present R/o 16-5-843/4' saidabad' *'."'uouo:1...*espondents/ petitioners

¶69

M.Bheem Reddy, S/o. M.Gangi Reddy C/o. Vishnu Vardhan Reddy R/o. 9-53 Sriram Nagar Colony Uppal, Hyderabad

¶70

The New lndia Assurance Company Ltd., Rep. By its Divisional Manager MadanMohanBuildings,R.P.Road,Secunderabad

¶71

...RES'.NDENTS

¶72

Appeal under Section 173 of M.V.Act, against the Judgment and decree dated 1510412010 made in MVOP No.B26 of 2007on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -+um- XXll Additional Chief Judge-cum- Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, City Criminal Courts, Hyderabad.

¶73

ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon^perusing the^grounds of appeal, the Judgment and decree of the Lower Court and the material^papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Thoom Srinivas, Advocate for the Appellants and for the Respondent No.6 Sri Kota Subba Rao, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5 appeared either in^person or by Advocate of Sri V.Atchuta Ram.

¶74

While allowing the lr1,,CMA this Court doth Judgment and decr(,o as lollows

¶75

That this Cour . i; of the view that the lnsurance Comp:r'y alone rs liable to pay comllensa ion to the claimants.

¶76

fhat in vrr:w o1 tl'e same, lnsurance Company shall depos t th: entire amount and the a rp,l l; n1 RTC shall take steps if to recover any ir r.ount is deposited.

¶77

That therer sra I Le no order as to costs in this MAC)tvlA.

¶78

ScTIG.SIREESHA

¶79

ASSIS;^'ANT REGISTRAR

¶80

//TRUE COPYII (,-l))

¶81

: EC'rlON OFFICER

¶82

¶83

The XXll r\d,l t :ral Chief Judge, before Motor Accrdents Olairns Tribunal, Hyderabad -<;r m.City Criminal Courts, Hyderabad.

¶84

Two CD tiof ,i: ;

HIGH COURT

DATED:16/03/2023

DECREE

MACMA.No.3731^,:f 2011

¶93

ALLOWING THE NI,q :N,IA WITHOUT COSTS.

¶94

qu \a3

The Apsrtc., and Another v. S.Krishna Murthy and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Apsrtc., and Another v. S.Krishna Murthy and 5 Others

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

The a.P.S.R.T.C.,Rep.by M.D.,Musheerabad, Hyderabad and Anothr Vs Mohd. Nazeeruddin, Nizamabad and Another

The Managing Director, Apsrtc and Anothers Vs K.Jagan Mohan Reddy, and 2 Others

Apsrtc, Rep.by Md, Picket, Secunderabad. and Another Vs M.Veena and 5 Others

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, Chennai. Vs Bandi Ramachandram , Ramachandru and 4 Others

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, Nizamabad Vs Gurudu Gangubai and 4 Others

The Managing Director, Hyd. Vs Thaneeru Kondaiah, R.R.Dist.