Partly allowed

Kothuru Nadipi Gangaram and 2 Others v. Apsrtc., and Another

Telangana HC7 Aug 2023MACMA/964/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana allowed the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in part. It enhanced the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs. 40,000 to Rs. 47,000, increasing amounts for transport charges and extra nourishment, with interest at 7.5% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation from Rs. 40,000 to Rs. 47,000 with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition.

Kothuru Nadipi Gangaram and 2 Others Vs Apsrtc., and… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰⁴ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶6

MOiOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 964 OF 2011

¶7

Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act against the order and decree in O.P.No. 259 of 2003 dated 29.11.2010 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - cum - ll Additional District Judge^(FTC), Nizamabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Kothuru Nadipi Gangaram, S/o. Laxmaiah, Age: 32 years, Occ: Agriculture and Business in Paddy, maize and other food grains on commission basis Rt/o. Yellammagutta, Nizamabad District. (Died)

¶10

Kothuru Anjamma, Wo. Nadipi Gangaram, Age: 40 years, Occ: household

¶11

R/o. H.No. 3-99/2, l akloor Village and Mandal, Nizamabad District.

¶12

Kothuru Nitish, s/o. Late Nadipi Gangaram, Age:6 years, Minor rep., by his Mother i.e., Appellant No.2 herein both are R/o. H.No. 3-99/2, Makloor Village and Mandal, Nizamabad District.

¶13

..APPELLANTS

¶14

AND

¶15

1 APSRTC., Rep., by its lvlanaging Director, Ivlusheerabad, Hyderabad

¶16

2 The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep., by its Depot Manager Kamareddy Depot, Nizamabad District.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Counsel for Appellants : Sri LAKKADI DAYAKER REDDY

¶19

Counsel for the Respondents : Sri THOOM SRINIVAS, SC FOR TSRTC The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶20

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶21

M.A.C.M.A.NO.964 0F 201 1

¶22

JUDGMENT:

¶23

This M.A C.M.A is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellants/petitioners aggrieved by the order and clecree dated 29.11.2010,^passed in O.P.No.259 of 2003 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (ll Additional District Judge), (FTC), Nizamabad (for short, 'the Tribunal').

¶24

For convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

¶25

Brief facts of the case are that on 05.O6.2002, petitioner No.1 and other passengers were travelling in an APSRTC bus bearing No.AP- L|-Z-79O from Nizamabad to Boclhan. When the bus reached near Jankampet village shivar at^()5:30 a.m., another bus belonging to APSRTC bearing No.AP-ll Z-l16l was coming irr the opposite direction from []odhan to Nizamabad in rashly and negligentlr ancl at hrgh speed, dashed the bus bearing No.AP- l 1-Z-79O in the petit ioner No. 1 '\ras travelling, clue to which petitioner No.1 and other passenger of the said bus bearing No.AP I I -Z 79O sustained injuries. Immr:diately after the accicle nt, the petitioner No. 1

¶26

l RRN.J IVACN,{A.9GI 20I I

¶27

was taken to Thirumala Hospital. Khaleelwadi, Nizamabad. The appellants/petitioners filed the aforesaid O.P. against respondents claiming compensation of Rs.3,00 ,OOO / - for the injuries sustained by the petitioner No. 1.

¶28

. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

¶29

(i) Whether tLe accident has taken place due to rash and negligent diuing of R.T.C. Bus beaing No.AP-L1Z 1 1 61 bg its driuer?

¶30

(iil Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation. If so, to what omount and against tuhom?

¶31

(iii) To uhat relieJ?

¶32

Considering the claim, counter ancl the evidence, both oral and documentan,, brolrght oll record, the Tribunal allowed the O.P. in part eru arding compensation of Rs.40,0O0/- together s ith intcrest at 7 .5"1, p.er. from the date of the petition till its dcposit. Challcnging the quantum of compensation as meagre, thc petitioner has liled the present appeal.

¶33

Heard both sides ernd pcrused the mzrterial available on record.

¶34

¶35

RRN.J N|ACMA^q64 ]OI I

¶36

The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is:

¶37

"Whether the compensation autarded by^tLe

¶38

Tribunal is just and equitable"?

¶39

l,earned counsel for the petitioners submits that during the pendency of O.P., petitioner No. 1 died on 09.02.20O8 while undergoing treatment for the injuries sustained by the petitioner No. 1. Due to the death of Petitioner No. l, their legal heirs are brought on record. The legal heirs would get compensation only towards transport charges, medical expenses, extrd. nourishment etc. Based on the said issues, the Court below granted Rs.23,OOO/- for the medical expenses, Rs.5,OOO/- for extra nourishment, Rs.3,00O/ lor the transport charges and Rs.9,OOO/- for loss of earnings.

¶40

9- Learned counsel for the petitioner further srrbmits that the Tribunal has awarded very meagre amount to$'ards transport charges and extra nourishment. Accordingl_r,, considering the statements made by the learned r:ounsel for the petitioner, the compensation under extra nolrrishment is enhanced from Rs.S,OOO/- to Rs.10,000/- and zr.lso transport charges from Rs.3,OOO/- to Rs.5,OOO/-, remairrrrrrl amounts

¶41

4 RRN.J MACMA 964 2OI I

¶42

¶43

were rightly considered and needs no interference i.e., Rs.23,000/- + Rs.9,000/- + Rs. 10,000/- + Rs.5.00O/-..

¶44

In the result, the MACMA is allowed in part by' enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.a0,00O/- to Rs.47,OOO/- (Rupees Forty Seven Thousand only) with interest at 7 .SYo per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The respondents are directed to deposit the compensation u,ith costs and interest after giving due credit to the amount alread_v deposited, if any, within two (O2) months from rcceipt of a copy ol this judgment. The petitioners are permitted to '"r'ithdraw their respective share of the amount as directed to be apportioned by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶45

Miscellaneous petitions, if an-r', per-rding shall stand

¶46

closed.

¶47

Sd/. A-V.S.PRASAD ASSISTANT hEGISTRAR i/TRUE COPY// secrro[orrtcen

¶48

To,

¶49

.1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal _ CUm _ ll Additional District Judge (FTC), Nizamabad.^{(with records)}

¶50

One CC to Sri. LAKKADI^{DAYAKER REDDY, Advocate [OPUC]}

¶51

One CC to Sri. THOOM^{SRINIVAS, SC FOR RTC, Advocate [OPUC]}

¶52

Two CD Copies

KP,I{JBg\rr

HIGH COURT

DATED:0710812023

JUDGMEN'I'+ DECREE

MACMA.No.964 of 2011

grATE Or
'<<br>*/
( 1\t\ bC'i
? tt$
o $
o i
i r_) t' pi

¶59

PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS

¶60

G
r'<br>Ao'

¶61

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶62

MONDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶63

PRESENT

¶64

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶65

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 964 OF 2011

¶66

Between:

¶67

Kothuru Nadipi Gangaram, S/o. Laxmaiah, Age: 32 years, Occ: Agriculture and Business in Paddy, maize and other food grains on commission basis R/o. Yellammagutta, Nizamabad District. (Died)

¶68

Kothuru Anjamma, Wo. Nadipi Gangaram, Age: 40 years, Occ: household Rl/o. H.No. 3-99/2, Makloor Village and Mandal, Nizamabad District.

¶69

Kothuru Nitish, s/o. Late Nadipi Gangaram, Age: 6 years, Minor rep., by his Mother i.e., Appellant No.2 herein both are Rl/o. H.No. 3-99/2, Makloor Village and Mandal, Nizamabad District.

¶70

...APPELLANTS

¶71

AND

¶72

1- APSRTC., Rep., by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad

¶73

The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep,, by its Depot Manager Kamareddy Depot, Nizamabad District.

¶74

...RE S PON DE NTS

¶75

¶76

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 MVOP and upon hearing the arguments of Sri LAKKADI DAYAKER REDDY, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri THOOM SRINIVAS, SC FOR TSRTC, Advocate for the Respondents.

¶77

This Court doth Order and decree as follows:-

¶78

/ 1,llii

¶79

That the MACMA be and hereby is allowed in^part by enhancing the compensation awarded by the tribunal from Rs.40,0001 to^Rs. 47,0001^with interest of 7.5%^per annum from the date of^petition till the date of realization.

¶80

That the respondents are directed to deposit the compensation with costs and interest after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within two(2) months from receipt of a copy of this Judgment

¶81

That the^petitioners are permilted to withdraw their respective share of the amount as d irected to be apportioned by the tribunal

¶82

Thal save as aforesaid, the decree of the Lower Court shall stands confirmed in all other respects; and

¶83

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

¶84

//TRUE COPY//

¶85

Sd/. A.V.S.PRASAO ASSTSTANT REGTSTRAR sEcnd} oFFrcER

¶86

To,

¶87

The Chairman, Ir,lotor Accident Claims Tribunal - cum - ll Additional District Judge (FTC), Nizamabad.

¶88

Two CD Copies

KP,NJL]

,p.+r-

r I l I

l ,1

HIGH COURT

DATED:0710812023

DECREE

MACMA.No.964 of 2011

PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS

¶98

D'.t* ,t..xV

Kothuru Nadipi Gangaram and 2 Others v. Apsrtc., and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kothuru Nadipi Gangaram and 2 Others v. Apsrtc., 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

Parmila Tully and 3 Others Vs T.Bhavani , Bharani and Another

Nukala Saidi Reddy and 3 Others Vs Santosh and 3 Others

S.Bhasker Vs The Superintending Engineer

J. Sharin Kumar Vs Mr. Randhir Singh and Another

Nayadu Venkateswarlu [Died] and 4 Ors. Vs Nakka Rambabu and 2 Ors.

S. Sharada and 2 Others Vs Ch. Papaiah and Another