Partly allowed

Apsrtc, Rep.by Its Depot Manager, Gadwal and Another v. Smt. D.S. Rajeshwari

Telangana HC14 Mar 2023MACMA/3967/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and cross-objections. The court dismissed the appeal filed by the APSRTC and allowed the claimant's cross-objections, enhancing the compensation awarded for the death caused by a bus accident.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed. The cross-objections are allowed, enhancing the compensation to Rs. 8,98,400 with interest at 7.5% p.a.

Apsrtc, Rep.by Its Depot Manager, Gadwal and Another… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²³⁰ ]

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH^{DAY OF A/ARCH} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANT'

¶6

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 3967 OF 2009 AND

¶7

CROSS oBJECTIONS^(SR) No2a344 o720L4

¶8

Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and decree in M.V.O.P No.705 of 2007, Daled 07-09-2009 on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accid'ent Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Mahabunagar and Cross objections filed under Order XLI Rule 22(2) of C.P.C. MACMA NO: 3967 OF 2009

¶9

Between:

¶10

The APSRTC, Rep.by its Depot Manager, Custodian of Bus No. AP'lO Z 8686 Gadwal Depot, Mahabubnagar Dist. A.P.

¶11

The APSRTC, the Regional Manager, Mahabubnagar Region, Controlling Authority of Bus No. AP 10 Z 8686 New Bus Stand Complex, Mahabubnagar, Mahabubnagar Dist. A.P.

¶12

...APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS

¶13

AND

¶14

Smt. D.S. Rajeshwari, Wo Late D.S.Srinivasulu, Aged 33 years, Occ: House Wife Fi./o Nizalapur Village, Addakal Mandal, Presently R/o H.No. 8-5-151, Lakshminagar Colony, Mahabubnagar.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

CBOSI^OBJECTIONS ttSR)^No.24!t4e1 2914

¶17

Between:

¶18

Smt. D.S. Rajeshwari, W/o Late D.S.Srinivasulu, Aged 33 years, Occ: House Wife Fl/o Nizalapur Village, Addakal Mandal, Presently Rl/o H.No. 8--5-15'1, Lakshminagar Colony, Mahabubnagar.

¶19

...CROSS OBJECTOR/RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT

¶20

AND

¶21

1 The APSRTC, Rep.by its Depct lVlanager, Custodian of Bus No. Ap 10 Z 8686 Gadwal Depot, tt4ahabubnagar Dist. A.P.

¶22

2 The APSRTC, the Regional l,4anager, Mahabubnaqar Reqion, Controllino Aulhority of Bu:r No. AP 10 Z rt(i86 New Bus Stand Complex, IVlahabubnagarl Mahabubnagar Dist. A.P.

¶23

...RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS

¶24

Counsel for the Appellants : SRI THOOM SRINIVAS lN MACMA AND FOR RESPONDENTS IN CROSS OBJECTION

¶25

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI BAJRANG SINGH THAKUR lN MACMA AND FOR CROSS OBJECTOR IN CROSS OBJECTIONS.

¶26

The Court made the fr>llowing: JUDGMENT

¶27

HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶28

M.A.C.M.A.No. 3967 of 2OO9 AND CROSS OBJECTIONS ISRI No. 24344 of 2OL4

¶29

COMMON JUDGMENT:

¶30

Aggrieved by the Award dated 07 .O9.2009 in O.P.No. 705 of 2OOT on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Mahabubnagar, the Road Transport Corporation filed the Appeal and the claimants filed the crossobjections.

¶31

The claimant filed the Claim Petition seeking compensation of Rs.8,O0,0OOl- for the death of her husbancl Sri D.S. Srinivasulu. According to ihe claiman t, on 06.02.200T , at about 13.3O hours, in the limits of Munagala Village, while the deceased was proceeding on Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing No. AP 22L 3O2 I from Kotha Devarapalli Village towards Yerravalli, the driver of the APSRTC bus bearing No AP lO Z 8686 of Gadwal Depot gave side to the deceased and when the deceased was overtaking the bus, suddenly the driver of the bus turned the bus towards its right with high speed ald dashed tJle motor cycle of [he deceased. Due to which, the deceased fell down and the bus ran over him resulting his instantaneous death. At the time of the accident, the deceased was hale and healthy and was earning Rs-5O0/- per month as commission as LIC Agent and Rs.6,0OO/

¶32

pcr ]lronth 1on'ttl-ds^sal:ln' b'^{i orkit]g as Sales Dxccutive in K K'} Polr rrr, r I'r'ir;rlr' .ttntttu. llrd' Lr,rrl.

¶33

'lltc Corporatiorl fllcd thc counter-a fhdarvit denying the avcrmenls irt^{the Petition It is stated that the compensation} claimed b), the^{c:laimllntLlll(l( 1- r'ariousheadsis excessive and} exorbitant.

¶34

Tltc claimirnt irr support^{ofher cascexamined} P.Ws.1 to 3 trnd^{got markecl []xs A1 to AIOOn behalf of the RTC'} no oral or docurrLcntary^{r-videtlcc n'as adduced'}

¶35

Ort a czrrel'ul itrtztlvsis^{of the evidence bcfore it'the} Tribunal helcl tlr:rt^{the crirnc vchicle was driven in a rash and} negligent mann('r, as^{aresrtL'-. the accident occurredand the} deceased diecl rr^{the saicl acci<1l:tlt.As regaldsthe income of the} deceased, thr:^{Tribun:rl ollservcclthat the material placed on record} does not sho\4' that^{thc clittnlant was earning Rs'6,0OO/-per} monlh, but hou'ever,^{taking into consideration the evidence of} P.Ws. 1 to 3, it^{v'as helcl thar Lhc deceasedwas hale and healthy} and he could tave^{earnecl Rs.4,O0O/- per month and thus} awarded Rs.5.32^{OOO/-,rscol n.l)salion'}

¶36

L<::rrncd Standins Counsel^{for the RTC subtnits that} the Court bclou, ought to lrrvc considered that^{therc was triple} ridir-rg and contr ibutory r-regl nce. Though thc t{TC bus was moving slou'Ir,, stil[, it u-rrs hc]ti lrat there is negligenr:e on the part

¶37

of the driver ol the bus. Further, the Tribunal ought to havt_considered that the deccased was only an LIC Agent and without any evidence, thc Tribunal held that the deceased was working in K.K. Polymers and taken Rs.4,O00/- per month as his income.

¶38

Learned counsel for the claimant submits that the claimant hled the cross objections seeking enhancement of the compensation. It is stated that when there is evidence to show that the deceased u,as earning Rs.6,50O/- per month, the Tribunal granted only Rs.4,OOO/- as income and failed to grant future prospects. Under the heads of consortium, transport, medical and funeral expenses, the amount granted by the Tribunal was not appropriate.

¶39

The evidence on record establishes that the accident had happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. With regard to the contributory negligence, the burden lies on the RTC to prove the same. In this case, the RTC failed to discharge their burden. Hence, the finding of the Tribunal with regard to the rash and negligent driving of the RTC bus by its driver and fastening the liability on the RTC cannot be found fault with. The claimant by examining p.W.3 could not prove the income of the deceased as Rs.6,50O/-, hence, the Tribunal had taken Rs.4,OOO/- as the monthly income. This Court is therefore, inclined to consider the income as Rs.4,5OO/- in view of the

¶40

-1

¶41

judgrncr-rt o[ tl't. Hotr'lr1c r\1lt:' Court^{inRamachandrclppdo'} Manager, Rogctl^{Sundaro m Alliq'ncer, u'hercin it s'as l'reld thlr't} u,ithout anv cvirlt:ncr:,^{the itli,r lrc of daily l:rbottrer canbe taken as} Rs.4,SOO/- pcr nonth-^{If th,' srrmcis takenas Rs 4'500/-' at the} age of 35 yea,rs, thc ful .i]⁽ prospects^{rvould bC 4Oo/o r't,''} Thr: incomc ol-^{thc deceascdwould be Rs 6,3O0/-lf} Rs.1,8OO/one-thirdisrlccuctcd,itu'orlL'lcometoRs'a,2OOl-''lhcr-rlossof dependency^{rs Fs.4,200/-x llx 16M= Rs'8,06'40O/'}

¶42

Tl-re claimzrnt^{js t ntitled to the compensationunder}

¶43

the following^he;rds:

¶44

Head

¶45

ComPensation^awarded

¶46

( 1) Loss of depcndcnt:1'

¶47

(2) l,oss of corLsortium

(3) Funeral exPenses

(a) Legal expe rses

Total

Rs.8,06,a0O/^- Rs.44,000/ Rs.33,OOO/^- Rs. 1O,0O0/^-

¶52

Rs'8,93,4OO1-

¶53

lrr the rt'sult,^{rh' Appeal of the RTC is dismissed'} The Cross-ob. ections^{arc allowed enhancingthe compensation} from Rs.5,32,i)OO/^{- to Rs.8.9ll,4OO/-:}

¶54

(a) The :nhanc('cl^{trnlr)r lnt shallcarry interest at 7 '5o/o p'a'} from thr' date^{of pt:titirrrr till the date of realization'}

¶55

(b) Thc claimant shrrl1^{pav thc court fee on the enhanced} compen sat ion.

¶56

'^{(:ot t) r: st c :tr.}

¶57

¶58

(c) The Insurance company shall deposit the amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of thc judgment. On such deposit, claimant is entitled to lvithdrarv the entire amount without furnishing the security.

¶59

9 Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand

¶60

closed

¶61

sD/-MOHD.SANAULLAH ANSARI ASSISTANT REGISTBAR //TRUE coPY// F/

¶62

SECTION OFfICER

¶63

To,

¶64

1 . The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District^Judge, Mahabuna gar. CtrttE R.aD.d.^)

¶65

One CC to sRl THOOM SRlNlvAS, Advocate TOPUCI

¶66

One CC to SRI BAJRANG SINGH THAKUR Advocate [OPUC]

¶67

Two CD Copies.

BSK

HIGH COURT

DATED:141A312023

ORDER

1 rrE Sr 4r€
(
+
J r$(
oo , 1 JUL il}A o>z
.t-
t t
,)p S-PAlc u€o
<br>

¶74

MACMA NO: 3967 OF²⁰⁰⁹ AND

¶75

CROSS OBJECTIONS^{(SR) No.24344of 2014}

¶76

DISMISSING THE MACMA^AND ALLOWING THE CROSS^OBJECTIONS WITHOUT COSTS

Aro a7

[³²³⁰ ]

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

¶82

TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶83

PRESENT

¶84

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶85

MOToR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 3967 OF 2009 AND CROSSOBJE CTIONS {SR) No.24344 of 2014

¶86

MACMA NO: 3967 OF 2009

¶87

Between:

¶88

'I . The APSRTC, Rep.by its Depot Manager, Custodian of Bus No. AP 10 Z 8686 Gadwal Depot, Mahabubnagar Dist. A.P.

¶89

The APSRTC, the Regional Manager, Mahabubnagar Region, Conkolling Authority of Bus No. AP 10 Z 8686 New Bus Stand Complex, Mahabubnagar, Mahabubnagar Dist. A.P.

¶90

...APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS

¶91

ANO

¶92

Smt. D.S. Ra.jeshwari, Wo Late D.S.Srinivasulu, Aged 33 years, Occ: House Wife Rl/o Nizalapur Village, Addakal Mandal, Presently Ri/o H.No. B--5-151 , Lakshminqgar Colony, Mahabubnagar.

¶93

...RESPONDENTS

¶94

c RosS OBJ ECTIONS^(SR) No.24344 of 2014

¶95

Between:

¶96

Smt. D.S. Rajeshwari, W/o Late D.S.Srinivasulu, Aged 33 years, Occ: House Wife Fi/o Nizalapur Village, Addakal Mandal, Presently R/o H.No. B--5-151, Lakshminagar Colony, Mahabubnagar.

¶97

AND

¶98

...cRoss oBJECToR/RESPONDENT/CLA|MANT

¶99

The APSRTC, Rep.by its Depot Manager, Custodian of Bus No. AP 10 Z 8686 Gadwal Depot, Mahabubnagar Dist. A.P.

¶100

The APSRTC, the Regional Manager, Mahabubnagar Region, Controlling Authority of Bus No. AP 10 Z 8686 New Bus Stand Complex, Mahabubnagai, Mahabubnagar Dist. A.P.

¶101

...RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS

¶102

¶103

I i I

¶104

ORDER : This Appeal cominct on'or hearing and^{uponperusingthe grounds of} appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and^{the material papers in the} case and upon hear ng thc argun',:n's of Sri^{Thoom Srinivas, Advocate for the} Appellants in ti/ACl/L\ and for the Respondents^{in Cross Objections and Of Sri} Bajrang Singh Thakur,^{Advocate f,r. the Respondentin IV1ACMAand for Cross} Objector in Cross Objt:ctions.

¶105

This Court while clisnrissihg^{the IVACIVAand allowing the Cross Objections doth} Judgment and Decree as^follows:

¶106

MAC MA No.39a7 of 2009:^{That this Court doth Judgment and.Decreethat} this MACMA is^,lismissed

¶107

CROSS O^{BJEC:TIONS(SR)No.24344 of 2O14:}

¶108