Dismissed

The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation v. Pulimamidi Govardhana Reddy

Telangana HC22 Nov 2023MACMA/81/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award, the High Court rejected the appellant Transport Corporation's contentions regarding income assessment, disability quantum, and interest rates, upholding the Tribunal's decision.

What did the court decide?

Award of Rs.12,30,400/- along with interest is affirmed and Bank is directed to deposit the amount.

The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation Vs… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[3383 ]

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE^{TWENTY SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{LAXMI NARAYANAALISHETTY}

¶6

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MIS^{CELLANEOUSAPPEALNO:8 1oF 2021}

¶7

Appeal filed under section^{',l73of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988ag-ainstthe order} and deirbe in M.V.O.P.No.^{1323 of 2017 dated.28t0212020on the file of the Court} of the Motor Accident claims^{Tribunal-cum- the courtof the chief Judge, city civil} Court Hyderabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

'1 . The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Rep by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, RTC^{X Roads, Hyderabad}

¶10

The Depot Manager,^{Teiangana State Road TransportCorporation,/} Hyderabad - 2 Depot, Dilsukhnagar,^Hyderabad

¶11

...AppellanUResPondent

¶12

AND

¶13

Pulimamidi Govardhana^{Reddy,S/o P.Malla Reddy, Aged 62 years, Occ} Private Employee, Working^{with lnduru lnstltute of Science andTechnology,} R/o. Flat tt6.ZOS, S.R.^{Apartments, Ravindra Nagar Colony, Street No 8,} Habsiguda, Hyderabad.

¶14

Kanchivenkatesh, s/o. Hanumaiah,^{Aged 58} r"rr.'^{;::"J;;l:l["Jt:::t}

¶15

nlo. ft.Uo t 1-21-443, NTR Nagar, LB Nagar, Hyderabad - 500074

¶16

...ResPondenUResPondent^No'1

¶17

IA NO: 3 OF 2021

¶18

Petition under section^{151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstatd in} t|e affidavit filed in^{support of the petition, the High courtmay be pleasedIo grant} stay of execution^{of the Judgrnentand Decreeof the Court of the MotorAccident} Claims Tribunalcum- Court^{of the Chief Judge,City CivilCourt,Hyderabad,dt.} 28n2t2020, made^{in MVOP.No.1323 of 2017.}

¶19

Counsel for the Appellants:^{SRl. THOOMSR{NIVAS (SC FOR TSRTC)} Counsel for the ResPondents: - - -

¶20

The Court delivered the following:^JUDGMENT

¶21

¶22

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

¶23

M.A.C.M.A.NO.81 0F 2021

¶24

JUDGMEITT

¶25

Heard learned standing counsel Sri Thoom Srinivas for the appellants No. I &2/T.S.R.T.C.

¶26

The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/ corporation challenging the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-the Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short,^,MACT,) in M.V.O.p.No.t323 of 2OI7, d,ated 28.O2.2O2O and thereby praying to set-aside the award against t].e Corporation.

¶27

3 The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is as under.

¶28

On 26.11.2016, about 7.15 a.m., while ttre claimant i.e., respondent No.1 herein was proceeding from Hyderabad towards Bhongir along with his brother as pillion rider on Royal Enfield Bullet motorcycle bearing registration No.TS_OS_EE_ 4150 and when they reached near Dolphin Hotel Chowrastha, Bhongir town, TSRTC Bus bearing registration No.Ap-292_3463 came in rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed

¶29

¶30

LNA,I t ACMANo.Sl ol m21

¶31

¶32

ttre said motor cycle.^{Due to saidaccident, the respondent No'l} fell down and received^{sustained grievous injuries and he was} shifted to Area Hospital,^{Bhongirand thereafter, he was shifted} to Apollo Hospital,^{Secunderabad for better treatrnentandhe} spent huge arnount^{for surgeriesfor the grievousinjuries} sustained by him.^{The concemed} Police registered^acase against the driver^{of the offending vehicle and filed charge sheet'}

¶33

The claimant, i.e.,^{respondent No.l herein has frledclaim} petition against owner of^{the vehicle/corporationanddriver} under section¹⁶⁶ of^{MotorVehicles Act before the MACT,} claiming compensation^{of Rs.25,0O,OO0/-along witJl interest'}

¶34

The respondent^{No. 1 was aged about 62 years as on the} date of accident,^{hale and healthy and working in Indur} Institute of Science^{and Technolog and was getting an income} of Rs.50,OO0/- Per^month.

¶35

who is the driver^{of the} 7. The resPondent^{No.2 herein,} offerrding vehicle,^{remainedex-parte.}

¶36

LNA,I MACMA No_81 ol 2021

¶37

¶38

The appellants herein filed counter denying all the allegations in the claim petition including the manner of accident, age, avocation, injuries and disability sustained by the appellant and expenditure incurred towards treatment ard also contended that compensation claimed by the claimalt is highly excessive, speculative, un-im^ginary, unreasonable and disproportionate and finally prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

¶39

On the basis of the above pleadings, the MACT framed the following issues:

¶40

i) Whether the pleaded accident had occurred resulting in injuries to the petitioner, p.Goverdhan Reddy, due to rash and negligent driving of TSRTC bus bearing registrarion No.AP-292-3463, by its driver?

¶41

ii) Whether ttre petitioner is entitled to any compensation, if so, at what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents?

¶42

iii) To what relieP

¶43

In order to substantiate the case, claimant examined himself as PWI anci Ex.Al and, A2 were marked on his behalf. On behalf of the insurance company, neither examined any

¶44

witness nor marked any document.

¶45

¶46

LNA,! MACMANo-67o1m27

¶47

¶48

1 I . The MACT after considering the evidence placed on record, came to conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the TSRTC bus bearing registration No.AP292-3463 and awarded compensation of Rs.12,3O,4OO/- along with interest @ 9%o per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are liable to^pay the said compensation with costs.

¶49

During the course of hearing of appeal, learned counsel^for appellant submitted that the MACT committed error in^takingthe monthly income of the claimant as Rs.6,O0O/- in the absence^of any cogent evidence. The MACT also erred in taking^{10% disability} for assessing the loss of earning in the absence of any^{evidence. He} further submitted that MACT erroneously^granted 97o^{interest per} €rnnum, rvhich is more thal the^prevailing rate of interest.^{He also} submitted that that MACT committed irregularity^{while granting} 4O%o towards future prospects as claimalt^failed to^{prove his} avocation and income and finally,^prayed to^{allow the appealby} setting the impugrred award.

¶50

LNA,J t aACMA No.81ol2021

¶51

¶52

Consideration:

¶53

The main contention raised by the learned counsel for appellant is that the MACT grossly erred in taking the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.6,OOO/-. perusal of impugned order, the MACT had held that though the claimant contended that as on the date of accident, he was working in Induru Institute of Science and Technolory alrd was earning Rs.5O,00O/_ per month, no evidence was pioduced to that effect. In the absence of any proof in respect of the qualifrcation, occupation and income of the petitioner, the MACT had taken the notiona.l income of the claimalt as Rs.6,0OO/- per month, which is just and proper.

¶54

14- Insofar as the awarding of disability of the claimant, the Doctor, who was examined as p.w.3, deposed hat claimant was admitted in their hospital on 26.11.2OL6 with fracture of femur lower 1/3rd, fracture tibia left, fracture frbula left and compartment syndrome ald said injuries are grievou s in nature and surgery was conducted under general anesthesia and Ex.A3_wound ceftificate and Ex.A4-discharge summery were issued by their hospitaJ. p.W.3 also stated that claimant is suffering from 45%o permanent and partial disability and tl.e disability certificate i.e., Ex.A9 issued by

¶55

¶56

LNA) MACMA^{No.alol N21}

¶57

¶58

theMedicalBoardiscorrect.TheMACT,basingontheevidenceof P.W.3 and^{on due considerationof the fact that disabilityis to a} particular limb,^{had assessedthe disabilityas 107o in respect of} whole bodY.

¶59

Furthermore,^{the MACT has observedthat in view of removal} of implant^{and also injuriessustainedby him in the accident' the} claimant^{cannot live like a normalpersonand the claimanta-[so} been on regular^{medication' Therefore'in considered opinion of} this Court,^{the Tribunalhas justifred in awarding10% disabili$to} the claimant.^{No groundis made out by the appellant warranting} this Court to^{interfere with the said findingof the MACT'}

¶60

With^{regard to the arvardingof interest' the MACT had} awarded^{9o/o per annum from the date of the petiti'on till the date of} rea-lization.^{Taking into consideration, tl.e facts and circumstances} of tlre case,^{this Court do not frnd any reasonto interferewiththe} interest awarded^{bY the Tribunal'}

¶61

Conclusion:

¶62

17 . In the^{light of factualmatrix of the case' inconsidered} opinion of^{this Court, there is no irregularityin the awardpassed}

¶63

LNAJ MACMA No.81ol2021

I I I I t ii

I / \ I

by the MACT and further, the appellant-insurance company failed to make out any ground warranting this Court to interfere with the award passed by the MACT. Therefore, the appea.l fails and is accordingly dismissed, alfirming the award passed by the MACT. The appellant-insurarce company is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, duly adjusting the amount, if any, already deposited. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶69

Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.

¶70

SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR.

//TRUE COPY//

To,

SECTION OFFICER

l The Motor Accident craims Tribunar-cum- the court of the chief Judge, city Civil Court Hyderabad. 2. One CC to SRt THOOM SR|N|VAS (SC FOR TSRTC), tOpUCl 3. Two CD Copies

ADK

,(G

I I

HIGH COURT

DATED:2211112023

JUDGMENT

-fHE sTA r4r
e
(((
o 1 I rilAB 2021
a2
!
t *lt
ItA-a H gO

¶83

MACMA.No.81 of 2021

¶84

DISMISSING THE MACMA WTHOUT COSTS

¶85

$0^

The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation v. Pulimamidi Govardhana Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation v. Pulimamidi Govardhana Reddy

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

Md. Shafiuddin, Vs The State of Telangana

Ahmed Moinuddin Vs Prl.Secretary ( Stamps and Regi) and 2 Others

Abdul Saleem, S/o Abdul Razack, Vs The State of Telangana rep.by its Principal Secretary

P Mallaiah Vs The State of Telangana

P Rajeshwar Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Gandham E Jayakar Vs The State of Telangana