Partly allowed

The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and Anot v. T. Muthyalu

Telangana HC3 Mar 2023MACMA/409/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the lower court's finding of contributory negligence due to non-wearing of helmet. It enhanced compensation to Rs. 12,14,138/- by adjusting monthly income, disability percentage, and heads of claim while dismissing the corporation's appeal. Disposition: One appeal allowed, other dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 12,14,138/- carrying interest at 7.5% p.a.; corporation's appeal dismissed; claimant's appeal allowed.

The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and… — Medical Negligence | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[3230 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY^{OF A/ARCH} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY THREE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT^{JUSTICELALITHA KANNEGANTI}

¶6

M.A.C.M.A. NOS: 409 OF 2010 AND²²⁹⁷ 0^{F 2011}

¶7

Appeals under Section 173 of^{Motor VehiclesAct againstthe Orderand} decree in OP No.2158 of 2006 dated^{1110712008on the file of the Court of the} Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims^Tribunal -cum-^{Chief Judge,CityCivil Court,} Hyderabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Represented by^its Managing Director, Mushirabad, Hyderabad.

¶10

The Andhra Pradesh state Road Transport Corporation, Represented by its Depot Manager Pargi Depot, Pargi, Ranga Reddy District.

¶11

...APPELLANTS/ RESPONDENTS IN MACMA NO.4O9/2010 AND RESPONDENTS IN MACMA NO.2297 OF 2011

¶12

AND

¶13

T. Muthyalu, S/o. Chandraiah Masonary Maistry Ft/o. H.No. 4-196, Ghatkesar Village, and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Presently R/o. H.No. 34-6481B,112, Nimboliadda, Hyderabad.

¶14

...RESPONDENT/ PETITIONER IN MACMA NO.4O9 OF 201O AND APPELLANT IN MACMA NO.2297 OF 2011

¶15

For the Appellants in MACMA No.409/2010 and Respondents in MACMA No.2297 oT2O11 : SRI THooM SRINIVAS, Sc FoR TbRTc

¶16

F9l lhe Respondent in MACMA No.409/2010 and Appertant in MACMA No.2297 ol 2O1'l: SRI P.RAMAKRTSHNA REDDY, Advocate

¶17

The Court delivered the following : JUDGMENT

¶18

THE HO I()URABLE SMT. JUSTICE LALTTHA X-C.N-YEGANTI

¶19

M . t.C.M.A.Nos.4O9 of 20L0 and 229? o I20tl

¶20

COMMON JU )(}MENT:

¶21

\gr;r'i v,:d bv tlte au,rrrcl c.latcd 1 I .07.:,O08 ;rr L).1).No 2 1.58 ol 2006 ltassccl Lrv thc Motor Aci.ident Clair s 'l-r lrLrn:1-c:um Chief Juclge, ['rtv r'ivrl CoLrrts, II-vcft'r-alrad, thr'^-orpo'it iorr hats ,l-rlecl MACMA lkr..lrJ ,rl 20 10 and the claimanl has t'iled 1,1i.(lN,lA N<t.2297 of201L.

¶22

2 Ilirvinq h:':rrd Mr. Thoom Srinivas, lcarnc'd :or.rn sel for thc corporation anrl lllr. P. Rarnakrisl-rrra Reddv, learncc :r:unscl hrr the claimant and 1;r' u;et.l the⁽ ntire miltcrial on rec:olcl

¶23

Lea rnci.L⁽ ollnsel [rrr thc corpor.ltion^{sl tl,rr I} i s^tha t^the accident has I'ra1: lrned clue to contri[rutory^{negliliencrl o'r tlrc patrt of} the claimanr: artci tlle court^{belo\L'rvithoutzrpprec iatirlgI he fact that} the claimant dit:l^{r or g'car the helmotat the time of at:citlc nt l-ras fixed} the liabiiity onh' ; .^{tO%, bur, it shoulcl have been flrerl a - 50%' He} submits thar^{thr: thoughlhe Doctor certificate reveal; thatthe} disability^{is at 5()'' , llut, thc cottrl belowhas taken ;1 t1 (i()?r rr'hicl't is} contrary to^{the cer illcateissuedb1' the Doctor' Its stettt::[that even} under the^{meclic.Lle):pensesr the amounts that wel'e grirr ted by the} court belotrr^{\,e t1]$ ithout atly btrsis'1t issubmittr:c|tt attlre} compensation^{thiltvr' s granteclby the court l:elow i:; exce;:'ive}

¶24

Lk^MAcMA-4orr;i;_oreli' 2

¶25

Learned^{counscl for the claimant submiLs that it' is the case} of the^{claimant thaL hc was working as a Mason and earning an} amount^{of Rs lo,000i-per month as on the date of accident' In} support^{of this, the claimanthas adduced the evidence and'got} marked^{Ex.A19 income certiflcate which is issuedby the Masons} Association,^{which showsthat the ciaimant was earningan amount} of Rs.1O,OOO/-^{pcr month' but the court below withoutconsidering} the same^{has considered the sameas Rs'4'000/-' He submits that} the court^{below has hxedcontributory negligence on the claimantat} 107o on^{the groundthat he was not wearinghelmetHowever' he} submits^{that it is nobody's casethat the claimantwas not wearing} helmet^{becauseinthat regard'nothing has been stated inthe} counter^{affidavit nor any questionwas put forth to the claimant at} the time^{of cross examinationHe subrnits that the court below} without^{any basis has arrived at conclusion that as the claimant was} not wearing^{helmet at the timeof accident' it amounts to contributory} negligence^{on the part of the claimant and fixedthe liabilifyat lOo/o} which^{is wrong'He furthersubmits that under the heads of} transport,^{extra nourishmentand pain and suffering'the amounts} that were^{granted were not reasonable'It is submittedthat because} of the^{injuries the claimant has sustained'he used to go around the} hospitals^{and constantiy puss oozed from the said wounds and thus'} he has^{suffereda lot}

¶26

LK, J Mrl'lI,A_ lO9_201O and 2297-2077

¶27

¶28

,5. Firsr coming to thc incontc of the clairnan L, e _-<:ording to him. he u,:r s u,ortrli rp as a Masol-l at the time of .cr:iclt:rr :,cl nas earning an amot_nt ol Rs. lO,OOO/- per monlh. He ha; atsc lrlercl a certificate issued bi. thc l\lasons Association shor.t ir.rg rlrat lrc irrls earning an amount of F s. 1O,O0O /- per month, but, Iro."r,er t_r.. rrobocly was examinei in : rPport of rhe samc. Hence, this cortr is inclrnecl to consider I he ir :r,me of the claimant as Rs.6,.50(r/- per rnonth.

¶29

V/itlL r 3pard to loss of future earning p.r\er on account of disability is ct; tt erned, the court below has gral[ei] :rn amount of Rs.2,88,000/ _ 'rl:ing into consideration the diszrbility r,l tLLe claimant @^60% anrl nlLr tr:lier as '10,. It is contention cf thr; lr:iu-ned c(]unsel for the corporerl on that when the disability certilicrrte s lo,.,s that the claimant h as sr Lff ered 5006 disability, the courl belo .r. ou gh1 ns1 16 have taken it i s .60%o. When there is a quiit: var.i,r I ion u,ith the certihcate and tl e evidence of the Doctor with regiard t,r ,he d.sab.l.ty, it is for the cc,u; t :o assess the disability. The t:larrrLz n _ is a mason and the Doctor,s evidence shows that the claimzLnt m,l1, nc,t be in a position to r:lo th 'rqork as a mason or as a labotLrer., ter r-r, the court belor.l, has come I r he conclusion that the claimat_rt l.r:rs ::uff,:red 6Ou% disability an d dr, re is absolutely no illegality in comirL.e 1,o the said conclusion. Sir.c( -his court has taken the mor,- thly inr:orrLe of the claimant at Rs.r5,, 0 )/-, as per his age i.e. 47 year s as (,r th,l date oi.

¶30

i^r':

¶31

¶32

MACMA-4O9-2O10^an 2297 ZOLL '..

¶33

accident, 257o future^{prospects rvould be Rs. 1,625/-} and^{the total} income comes to Rs.S, 1251 - per month and the appropnate multiplier would be '13'. Hencc, the^claimant is entitled Rs.7,60,500/- (Rs.8, 125X12X1 3X6o/¹⁰⁰⁾ for loss of ftrture income due to disability.

¶34

Then, coming to the contributory negligence, it is^nobody's case that the claimant was not^{wearing helmet atthe time of} accident. Even though it is not the^{case ofthe respondent} corporation, but, somehow,^{the court below has observedthe samein} the order and hxed the^{contributorynegligence atlOo/o on the} claimant. As rightly pointcd out by^{the learned counselfor the} claimant, at best, it could bc traflic^{violation and itcannot be a} ground to say that because the claimant did^{not wear helmet, thereis} contributory negligence on^{the part of the claimant.The said finding} of the court below is contrary to^{the facts and law. Hence,it is held} that there is no contributory^{negligence on the part of the claimant.}

¶35

Admittedly, the claimant lost his^{earningsfor a periodof nine} months due to treatment and^{furtherrecovery becauseof the injuries} sustained by him. Hence, under^{the head of loss of earnings,the} claimant is entitled Rs.58,5O0/-^{(Rs.6,500X9).}

¶36

LK, J MA(:t\lA_.1O9_2O1O and 2297 20LL

¶37

I ll I

¶38

(). Tlr.: ourt belorr, has granted :1n anloltr-t ol F s.2,3,S,35O/ lolr'a;-ds rn:ri cirl expenses and Rs.3l,7il8/. t,r$,rr is rlarnirges Lo rnotorcvr'li ilr';ir-rg on the evidcncc availablc orr r.cr,.o:rl :rnrl hcrt.c, tl-ris corrrt is nol ir;.l.nr,d Lo interfcre with the samc.

¶39

r0 Iirrrtllr [his cour-t is inclined to grilrrl ,rn amor-rnt of Rs.2O.0(l()/- )r extra nourishment, Rs.30,OOO / lirr pain and sullering. lts,.,l^j.100/- for attendant chzrrEles, tas. l0,tr{,()/ - for loss of amt'nities, I?s l{),00O/- for transport and Rs. 10.(tr r117- lor lcgal cxpenses

¶40

1I ln thc i51ht of thc above discussion, tht: r:ltrin: Lnt is entitlcd [or I ]rc ftrllorvlll compensirtion undr:r diffe rcnt h,'arls

¶41

	Head Com	pensationa.warded
(1)	Lr,.ssrl-'arningscluetodisability	Rs.',,(rO.!O{)
(2)	Mt'diciilet{penses	Rs.:1,38,3 S⁾
(3)	Lossofnr:ornefor9months	Rs.5,8,:i()(l
(4)	ParntLr-r,s,uffering	Rs.3O,O(.rC
(s)	ilxtran<ut-ishment	Rs.2O,00O
(6)	Atl,rnclzr]tcharges	Rs.4 t,O0O
(7)	[,ossolr,rsnities	Rs.1t),OO()
(8)	Transpxr:rt:harges	Rs.IO,000
(e)	I)ar:'rag,r' omotorc-ycle	Rs.3I ,78ti

¶42

¶43

:::ji,a.is}:

¶44

MACMA 409 2010 an 2297 2011 r

¶45

(IO) Legal cxpcnscs

¶46

Total compensation awarded

¶47

Rs. l O,OOO

¶48

Rs.12,14,138/-

¶49

In the result, the Motor Accident Miscellancous Appeal of the corporation is dismissed. However, the Motor Accident Miscellancous Appeal of the claimant is allowed by enhancrng the compensation amount awarded by the court below from Rs.5,68,OO0/- to Rs. 12,14,138/ - as hereunder:

¶50

(a) The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5o/o p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶51

(b) The claimant shall pay thc court fee on the enhanced. amount of compensation.

¶52

(c) The respondent/corporation shall deposit the amount within a period of (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of judgment. On such deposit, claimant is permitted to

¶53

withdraw entire amount without furnishing the security.

¶54

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed

¶55

¶56

//TRUE COPY//

¶57

Sd/.P.PADMANABHA^REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR @

¶58

SECTION OFFICER

¶59

¶60

1 . The Motor Accidents^{Claims Tribunal} -cum-^{ChiefJudge,City Civil Court'} Hvderabad.

¶61

Ohe CC to Sri Thoom Srinivas,^Advocate IOPUC]

¶62

One CC to Sri P.Ramakrishna^{Reddy,Advocate} [OPUC]

¶63

Two CD Copies

j t

I I

HIGH COURT

DATED:03/03/2023

COMMON JUDGMEI T

. a:lt
," .' ". \l E STAr\c
^:,
t
) tl
ti
) 1$ [u$ 2$8
\ lt, t ,'
'. /rr -,'_ - ' :'
':. - '' :..2
-'-:----.:-r'

¶72

MACMA.Nos.409 of i 0 lQ and 2297 ot 2011

¶73

ALLOWING MACMA IIC.22S7 OF 2011 AND DISMISSING TH : MACMA NO.4O9 OF 201O WITHOUT CCIS TS. @?'8

ffi,

[³²³⁰ ]

IN THE HIGH^{COURTFORTHE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶78

FRIDAY, THE THIRD^{DAY OF MARCH} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY THREE}

¶79

PRESENT

¶80

THE HONOURABLE SMT^{JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI}

¶81

M.A.C.M.A. NOS: 409^{OF201OAND2297 0F 2011}

¶82

Between:

¶83

'1 . The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Represented^{by its} Managing Director,^{Mushiratrird,HLderabad-} ^

¶84

Z. ifie A"nOEra^{pradesh state Road Transport Corporation, Representedby its} Deoot Manaoer Paroi Depot, Parqi,^{Ranga Reddy District.} ..Inppelierurs/ RESPoNDENTQ^{lN MAcMA No.409/2010 AND} RESPONDENTS IN MACMA^{NO.2297 OF 2011}

¶85

AND

¶86

T. Muthyalu, S/o. Chandraiah^{Masonary.MaptryFy9.H.No.4-196,Ghatke.sar} vifiige,'anO Naandal, Ranga^{Reddy Disirict' Presently Fl/o. H.No. 3-4-64818,112'} Nimboliadda, Hyderabad.

¶87

...RESPONDENT/^{PETITIONERIN MACMANO.4O9OF 201O} AND APPELLANT IN MACMA^{NO.2297 OF 2011}

¶88

Appeals under Section^{173 of Motor VehiclesAct againstthe Orderand} decree in oP No.2158 0f 2006^{daled 11107120080n the file of the court of the} chairman, Motor Accidents^{claims Tribunal} -cum-^{chiefJudge, city civil court,} Hyderabad.

¶89

ORDER: This appeal coming^{on for hearingand upon perusing the grounds of} appeal, the Judgment and decree^{of the Lowercourtand the material papers in the} case and upon hearing the arguments^{of Sri Thoom Srinivas, SC for TSRTCin} MACMA No.409 of^2O1O and Respondents^{in tvtACMA No-2297of 201 1 for the} Appellants and of Sri P.Ramakrishna^{Reddy'Advocatefor the Respondentin} MACMA No.409/2O'10 and Appellant^{in MACMA No.2297of 2011 .}

¶90

This Court doth Order and decree as^follows:

¶91

That the MACMA No.409 of 2010^{filedby the Corporation be and herebyis} dismissed and MACMA No.2297^{of 2011 filedby the claimantsis allowedby} enhancing the compensation^{amount awardedby the Tribunalfrom} Rs.5,68,0001 to Rs.12,1 4,1 381.

¶92

t^{3230 l}

¶93

)-. -. t nat the ,_,rh,,n, ,. ,,;::i::,::

¶94

. ;;:TJ':::;" ; carr), in,eresf d, 7 :i.t n' *"" o"u "o^P i' 'ron' the :/are or

¶95

. ;J:;:::""'ll"n 'n"^{courr ree} , 'n"^enhar')" amount o,

¶96

, fl*:lT;I;:":,J.:ri-l1i*-.u,n'n

¶97

^^{1,,on,,,iljJl:"1 .,";"',",#',#:J;:f#:.htu'i,h,, a pcri66o1} o rhat there be ;"::"::,rs ""'l'u^

¶98

""'l'u^ atnaunt withou)t ro cosrs in rhis appear

¶99

sd/-P

¶100

¶101

1 2 #rfr{f;H Y,i[",: :::,,",,. ;.',;:: j:$ffij; ;f 'rincipat Chi^.

¶102

Kj I

¶103

'rincipat Chi^. .." .r trjge,

drt,

rds of ; in the ,RTC iN I for the ,6ndentⁱⁿ

¶108

and hereby^is s is allowed^bY Tribunal^from

, ,

HIGH COURT

DATED:03/03/2023

COMMON^DECREE

MACMA.Nos.409^{oi 2010 and 2297 of 2011}

¶115

ALLOWING^{MACM \ \0.2297 0F 20'.11} aNo disrvrrssrNc^{' HE MAGMANo.4os oF 20lo wlrHourct)s-s'} @0T"8 fr6

The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and Anot v. T. Muthyalu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and Anot v. T. Muthyalu

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

Kurma Saya Gonda, Tadkole [v], Nizamabad Dist., and 5 Otrs. Vs Sri Shanker, and Anr.

G.Sowndarya Vs v.Venkateshwar Rao

Smt. a. Paravathi Vs M/S Ravi Cranes, and Another

T. Muthyalu, Hyderabad Vs the Apsrtc, Rep by Its MD and Anr, Hyderabad

Muthyam Pravitha Vs M/s. Ennar Gas Service

Muthyam Laxmi Vs Muthyam Pravitha