Allowed

The a.P.S.R.T.C., Muhseerabad, Hyd.,. v. Smt. Kotra Paravathamma , Chittemma and 2 Others

Telangana HC22 Feb 2023MACMA/4287/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the motor accident miscellaneous appeal filed by the APSRTC against the MACT. The Court relied on a larger bench decision holding that the insurance company alone is liable to pay compensation when the vehicle is hired by the RTC and insured with an insurance company, setting aside the MACT award.

What did the court decide?

The MACMA was allowed; the award of the Tribunal dated 30.06.2010 in O.P. No. 1638 of 2008 was set aside; no order as to costs.

The a.P.S.R.T.C., Muhseerabad, Hyd.,. Vs Smt. Kotra… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA}

¶2

WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

rHE HoNouRABLE sMrlt3?TIJrororo KANNEGANTI

¶4

MOTOR ACCIDENT CML MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO:4287 OF 2012

¶5

Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.Y. Act aggrieved by the order and decree dated 30-06-2010, made in OP. No. 1638 of 2008 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum - XVII Additional Chief Judgecum- III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

¶6

Between:

¶7

The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Muhseerabad, Hyderabad, Rep- by its M.D., Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad 20

¶8

...APPELLANT/TESPONDENT NO.3

¶9

AND

¶10

SMT. KOTRA PARAVATHAMMA @ CHITTEMMA, W/o. Allaji Occ: labour R/ o- Channaram Village Now R/o. at'11-34M4 Mallepally Nampally, Hyderabad

¶11

.... RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶12

Mr.N.Dattatreya,S/ o. Viswanatham H.No. 19-122 Opp: Ravendra Talkies Main Road, Nagar Kurnool, Mahabubnagar District

¶13

M/s. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,, Rep. by its Manager, Motor Third Party Claims Cell, 2nd Floor, Madanmohan Builitings Rp R"oad., Secunderabd 03

¶14

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT NO.1 & 2

¶15

I.A. NO: 3 OF 2012(MA CI,{AN4P. NO:3707 OF 2012)

¶16

Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petirion, the High Court may be pleased to stay the execution of the decree and all further proceedings passed in Op 1,638/ 2008 dated 30-6-2010 on the file of MACT cum XVII Addirionat Chief ludge Cum III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-MACT at Hyderabad.

¶17

I.A. NO:4 OF 2012(MACMAMP. NO:8220 OF 20121

¶18

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

¶19

I I l I I

¶20

vacate the interim order grante d in MACMA.MP.No. 3707 oI 2072 in MACMA(SR).N o. 963t of 201 2 orcler clt. 02 / 07 / 2012

¶21

Counsel for the Appellant(s): SRl. C SUNILKUMAR REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC)

¶22

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI. KOTA SUBBA RAO

¶23

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI. M LAXMAN RAO

¶24

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶25

HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITIIA KANNEGANTI

¶26

M.A.C.M.A.No.4287 of 2012

¶27

JUDGMENT:

¶28

This appeal is preferred by the APSRTC, aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XVll Addt. Chief Judge-cum-Ill Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in O.P.No. 1638 Of 2008 on 30.06 2010 wherein the sole liability is fixed on the APSRTC though the subject vehicle was insured with the insurance company.

¶29

¶30

Mr. Thoom Srinivas, learned Counsel appearing for the APSRTC submits that tl-e Tribunal on the ground that though the bus was insured by the insurance company, the same was hired by the APSRTC, held that the APRTC is alone liable to pay the compensation.

¶31

¶32

Mr Kota Subba Rao , learned Standing Counsel appearing for I the respondent-Insurance Company submits that as the vehicle is hired by tlee APSRTC, APSRTC alone is liable to pay the compensation. He submits that there is no illegality with the said order.

¶33

When the subject vehicle is hired by the APSRTC and insured with the insurance company, who is liable to pay the compensation is

¶34

., ., S=* '. :.'.7

¶35

¶36

no more res integra. The larger bench of the Honorable apex court in

¶37

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation as. Ranienderi Deut and

¶38

otherst has held that the insuralce company alone is liable^{to pay} the compensation.

¶39

In view of^t-he same, the appeal of the^{APSRTC deserves to be} allowed.

¶40

Accordingl5' the M.A.C.M.A. is^{allowedand the award of the} Tribunal dated 30.06.2010 in^{O.P.No.1638of 2OO8is set aside. No} order as to costs.

¶41

Miscellaneous applications, pending^{if any, shallstand}

¶42

closed.

¶43

sd/- MoHD. SANAULLAH ANSART ASSISTANT REGIS?RAR //TRUECoPY// r. SECTION OFFICER

¶44

To,

¶45

1 The Chairm:rn, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XVII Additional Chief fudge-curn-lll^{AdditionalMetropolitanSessions} Judge, Hyderabad. (with records, if any)

¶46

One CC to Sri. C Sunilkumar Retltly(SC FOR AfSRTC) Advocate [OPUC]

¶47

One CC to SRI. Kota Subba Rao Aclvocate [OPUC]

¶48

One CC to Sri. M I-axman Ilao Atlvocate [OPUC]

¶49

Two CD Copies

¶50

One spare copy

CHG

HIGH COURT

DATED:2U02J2023

IUDGMENT

MACMA.No.4287 of 2012

¶60

r rri S fAf e'
ooJ 1T JUL TM
t
t cO
ots r.,rr cs

¶61

ALLOWING THE MACMA

¶62

¶63

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶64

WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶65

PRESENT

¶66

THE HONOURABLE SMT IUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶67

MOTORACCIDENTC ML MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO:4287 OF²⁰¹²

¶68

Between:

¶69

The Andhra Pradesh State Road Traruport Corporatiory Muhseerabad, Hyderabad, Rep. by its M.D., Bus Bhavary Musheerabad, Hyderabad 20

¶70

...APPELLANTITESPONDENT NO.3

¶71

AND

¶72

Smt. Kotra Paravathamma @ Chittemma, W/o. Allaji Occ: Labour R/o. Charrnaram Village Now R/ o. at 77-34444 Mallepally Nampally, Hyderabad

¶73

..... RESPONDENT/PETITTONER

¶74

2 Mr.N.Dattatreya, S/o. Viswanatham H.No. 19-122 Opp: Ravendra Talkies Main Road. Nagar Kurnool, Mahabubnagar District

¶75

3 M/s. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,, Rep. by its Manager, Motor Thrid Party Claims Cell, 2nd Floor, Madanmohan Buildings RP Road., Secunderabd 03

¶76

...RESPONDENTSAESPONDENT NO.1 & 2

¶77

Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V. Act aggrieved by the order and decree dated 30-06-2010, made in OP. No. 1638 of 2008 on the file of the Chairmary Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

¶78

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 (SC for APSRTC) for the Appellants and Sri Kota Subba Rao, for the respondent No.3 and Sri M. Laxma Rao, for the Respondent No.1.

¶79

This Court doth Order arnd Decree as follows

¶80

That the MACMA be and hercbr.is allowed, and the award of the Tribunal dated 30.06.2010 in O.P.No. 1638 of 2008 is set aside; and

¶81

That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal.

¶82

Sd/- MOHD. SANAULLAH ANSARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

/[RUE^coPY/l

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims^{Tribunal-cum-XVll AdditionalChief} |udge-cumJ^{tI AdditionalMetropolitanSessionsJudge, Hyderabad.}

¶88

Two CD Copies

¶89

One spare copy

\ ,t

HIGH COURT

DATED:2U042023

DECREE

MACMA.No.4287 of 2012

¶96

ALLOWING THE MACMA

¶97

1q
ca

The a.P.S.R.T.C., Muhseerabad, Hyd.,. v. Smt. Kotra Paravathamma , Chittemma and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The a.P.S.R.T.C., Muhseerabad, Hyd.,. v. Smt. Kotra Paravathamma , Chittemma and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The New India Assurance Company Limited, Secunderabad. Vs N. Raghavan Nair and 5 Others

Smt. Chelli Adamma, Vs Sri Y.nageswara Rao

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Secbad Vs Sri Ramu Pasumarthy , Rama Murthy P and 6 Others

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Lingala Yellamma and 2 Others

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt.Puligialla Sakkubai and 3 Ors.

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Smt. B.Ramanamma