Allowed

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

Telangana HC15 Mar 2023MACMA/86/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC challenging an order directing SHRTC to deposit 100% of enhanced MT damages. Court allowed review, directing deposit of only 50% liability consistent with trial court's minority negligence finding.

What did the court decide?

Review petition allowed; Corporation directed to deposit 50% of the enhanced amount within 8 weeks with interest.

The a.P.S.R.T.C.,Rep.by M.D.,Musheerabad, Hyderabad… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²³⁰ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI

¶6

REVIEW l.A.No.2 OF 2023

¶7

¶8

M.A.C.M.A.NO: 86 OF 2010 AND CROSS-OBJECTION No. 32273OF 2011

¶9

Between:

¶10

'1 . The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, (Presently Telangana State Road Transport Corporation), Represented by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

¶11

The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation,, (Presently Telangana State Road Transport Corporation),Represented by its Depot Manager, Armoor Depot, bus bearing No. AP-102-7895

¶12

...Review Petitioners/Appellants

¶13

AND

¶14

Mohd. Nazeeruddin, S/o. Mohad Ahmadoddin, Age:27 years,^pcc: Electrician Ri/o. H.No. 19-14-21 , Ahmedpura Colony, Nizamabad.

¶15

Mohd. Nizamuddin @ Feroz, S/o. lmamuddin, Age: 37 years, Occ: Motor Mechanic (Winder) Rl/o. H.No. 9-14-23, Ahmedpura Colony, Nizamabad. (Amended as per order vide LA.No. 228l2OOg, dated 30.01.2009)

¶16

...Respondents/ Respondents

¶17

Rev.l.A.No.2 ot 2O23

¶18

Petition under Order 47, Rule 1 R/w. Section 114 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to review / modify the order dated 15.03.2023 passed in MACMA No. 86 of 2010 and X Objections No. 32273 of 2011.

¶19

M.A.C.M.A.No. 86 of 2010 & X-Obi. No. 32273 ot 2011

¶20

Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act and Memorandum of Cross Objections under Order XLI Rule 22 of C.P.C., against the order and decree in O.P.No. 887 of 2OO7 dated 12.11.2009 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - cum - District Judge, Nizamabad.

¶21

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon^perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Review l.A.No.2 and upon hearing the arguments of Sri^Thoom Srinivas, SC for APSRTC, Advocate for the Petitioners and Sri M. Goutham Reddy, Advocate for Respondents.

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

This application is filed by the Petitioners-appellants to review / modify the order dated 15.03.2023^passed in M.A.C.M.A.No.86 of 2010 and Cross-Objection No. 32273 ot 2011.

¶24

Heard Sri Thoom Srinivas, leamed Standing Counsel for APSRTC and Sri M. Goutham Reddy, leamed counsel forthe respondents.

¶25

The leamed Standing Counsel for APSRTC submitted that the trial court made an observation in its^judgment stating that the accident took^place due to the contributory negligence of the driver of the bus as well as the respondent No. 2 herein i.e., rider of Hero Honda CBZ Bike on which the 1't respondent was travelling as a pillion rider and apportioned the liability as 50:50.

¶26

He further submitted that the Corporation was liable to^pay only 50% of the enhanced amount. But, however, this Court directed the appellants herein to^pay the entire amount.

¶27

The learned counsel for the respondents also admitted that the trial court apportioned the liability and that the appeal filed by the lnsurance Company vide M.A.C.M.A.No. 92 ot 2O1O was dismissed by this Court and the appeal filed by the RTC vide M.A.C.M.A.No. 86 of 2010 was also dismissed.

¶28

Perused the rec,ord.

¶29

As the record would disclose that the trial court apportioned the liability between the RTC and the rider of Hero Honda CBZ motorcycle is dismissed and the appeal filed by the RTC is also dismissed, then the liability also has to be apportioned between both these^parties, but however, failed to apportion the liability and directed the Corporation to deposit the enhanced amount within a^period of 8 weeks.

¶30

As such, it is considered fit to allow the review application directing the Corporation to deposit only 50% of the enhanced amount within a period of B weeks as directed by this Court along with interest.

¶31

Accordingly, Review l.A.No. 2 of 2023 is allowed.

¶32

Sd/. MOHD. ISMAIL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPYII

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - cum - District Judge, N izamabad.

¶37

One CC to Sri Thoom Srinivas, SC for APSRTC, Advocate [OPUC]

¶38

One CC to Sri M. Goutham Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]

¶39

Two CD Copies

njb

; \ \

HIGH COURT

DATED:0110212024

ORDER

Rev. l.A.N o. 2 of 2023 ln

¶47

MACMA.No.86 of 2010 & X-Obi.No.32273 ot 2011

¶48

7 oR lHE S
((
oo
0 5 tlAB 2W4 zP

PATC HED

¶49

ALLOWING THE REV. I.A.

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Apsrtc, Madhira, and Another Vs Yarlagadda Chandramma and Another

Smt.Ancha Mrudula and 3 Ors. Vs the Ap State Road Transport Corporation and Anr.

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

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

The M.D., Apsrtc., Hyd., and Ano. Vs Madhavarao Patil, Nizamabad., and 4 Ano.