Partly allowed

B Sanjeeva Reddy v. Tsrtc

Telangana HC1 Aug 2023MACMA/985/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the claimant's appeal enhancing compensation from Rs. 12.65 lakhs to Rs. 16.58 lakhs by correcting monthly income assessment to Rs. 5,000 and disability to 50%. The State Transport Corporation's appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The appeal by TSRTC dismissed; the appeal by the claimant allowed with compensation enhanced to Rs. 16,58,434/- along with interest at 7.5% p.a.

B Sanjeeva Reddy Vs Tsrtc — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32s8 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY ,THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU

¶6

M.A.C.M.A. Nos: 985&1410 0F 2018

¶7

MACMA NOs: 985 of 201A

¶8

Appeal Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in O.P.No. 1 196 of 20'15 dated 27.12.2017 on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum- the Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶9

¶10

Betweeir:

¶11

B.SANJEEVA REDDY, S/o B.Venkat Reddy, Aged 24 yeas, Occ Driver, R/o. Utiapally Village, Peddavoora.Mandal, N5lgon-da District., Tbmporary Rt6 H.No. 16-1-363/2/ l, Saidabad, Hyderabad.

¶12

...APPELLANT/PETITION ER

¶13

AND

¶14

1 TSRTC, Represented by its lvlanaging Director, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, RTC X Roads, Hyderabad.

¶15

2 LSR.TC,^{Representedby ils Depot lvlanager, MusheerabadBusDepot,} Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

¶16

3 M,Venkat Reddy. S/o M.Raji Reddy, Aged Major, pA pally Village, Devarakonda Mandat, Natgbnda Distriit, Telahgina Stat5.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶18

Counsel for the Appellant in MACMA No. 985 of 2018 & For Respondent No. 1 in MACMA No. 14't0 of 2018

¶19

:SRI. JAGATHPAL REDDY KASI REDDY

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in MACMA No. 985 of 2018 &For appellants No. 1&2in MACMA No. 1410 of 201 8

: SRI THOOM SRINIVAS

i i

litI l I

M.AC.M.A NO:1 410 0F 2018

¶26

Appeal Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in M.V.O.P.No.^'1 196 of 2015 dated 2t .12.2O17on the file of the Court of the chairman Motor Accident claims Tribunal -cum- the chief Judge, city civil courts at Hyderabad.

¶27

Between:

¶28

Telangana state Road rransport corporation, reoresented bv its lriranaoino Director, Bus Bhavan, Mushedrabad, fitC X RoaOi, HyderabJ6.

¶29

Telangana State Road Transport Corporation,, represented by its Depot ryiel1g_el, _Musheerabad^{ey! p."qo!,} lt4ysheeraliad,'Hyderabad.'(O;n;;';i APSRTC Bus bearing No. Ap 1 1 Z 4S2t)

¶30

...APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS No. 1 & 2 in MVOp No. 1196/2015

¶31

AND

¶32

B.Sanjeeva Reddy, S/o. B. Venkat Reddy, aged- 24 years, Occ- Driver, R/o. U-tlapally Viltage_ ,Peddavoora Mandal, Nligo-naa Disirict, temporiry .udiO"nt of H. No. 16- 1-363 1211, Saidabad, Hyderalad.

¶33

...RESPONDENT/PETITIO NER

¶34

M. Venkat Reddy,, S/o. M. Raji Reddy, aged-Maior, pA pa v Vi aoe. uevaraKonda Mandal, Nalgonda District, Telangbna State. lbriveioi tne crime vehicle bearing No.Ap 11 Z 4921)

¶35

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT No.3 in MVOp No.^.r.t96 of 2O1s

¶36

. (Respondent No. 2 herein is not a necessary party in this appeal as no relief is claimed against him)

¶37

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶38

Petition under section 1sl cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased ro grant stay of execution of the judgment and decree of the Moior Accidents cllims Tribunal-cum{he court of the chief Judge,ccc,Hyderaba ddt.2r-12-201r made in MVOP.NO.1196 of 2015 pending disposal of the above MACMA /2018 and pass

¶39

Counsel for the Appellant in MACMA No. 985 of 2018 & For Respondent No. 1 in MACMA No. 1410 of 2018

¶40

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in MACMA No. 985 of 2018 &For appellants No. 1&2in MACMA No. 141O ot 2018 The Court made the following:

¶41

:SRt. JAGATHpAL REDDY KASI REDDY

¶42

: SRI THOOM SRINIVAS

¶43

J i I ( I i I I I

¶44

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASTVA RAO NAIDU

¶45

M.A.C.M.A.NOS.985 AND 14tO OF 20r8

¶46

COMMON JUDGMENT :

¶47

Aggrieved by the Award dated 27.12.2017 passed in M.V.O.P.No. 1196 of 2015 by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short, 'the Tribunal'), both TSRTC shown as respondent in the petition, and the claimant are before this Court. The appeal of the TSRTC IS M.A.C.M.A.No. 1410 of 2018 while the appeal of the claimant is M.A.C.M.A.No.985 of 2018.

¶48

For the sake of convenience, the parties will be relerrecl as they are arraigned before the Tribunal

¶49

The claim petition was frled by the claimant before thc Tribunal seeking compensation o[ Rs.30,0O,OOO/- on account of the injuries sustained b,v him ir-r a rnotor vehicle accident that was occurrcd on 25.03.20l5

¶50

¶51

The case of the claimant is that on

¶52

25.03.2015 while he was proceeding on a motorcycle from Utlapally Village to Pulicherla, the driver of RTC bus bearing No.AP-1lZ-4927, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, in high speed and while overtaking another vehicle, dashed the bike of the claimant, as a result thereof, the claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Then, the claimant was immediately shifted to Sri Rama Orthopedic Hospital and Trauma Care Centre, Nalgonda, where first-aid was provided to him and thereafter, he was taken to Omini Hospital, Hyderabad, for bettcr treatment. On the basis of the said information, a case was registercd in Crime No.46 of 2O15 by Pedavoora Police, against the driver of the bus referred above. The claimant has claimed that he had been spent Rs. lO,OO,OOO/- tonards medical expenses and sought for grant ol an amount of Rs. 30,OO,O00/- towards compcnsation

¶53

I ? * ic Fi'

¶54

¶55

5 The claim petition is filed against the

¶56

Managing Director and Depot^{Managerol TSRTC and} driver of the offending bus.^{However, thedriver-} respondent No.3 remained ex^{parte. Conmon counter} has been hled by respondent^Nos. I^{and 2 with a plea} that the accident was occurred due^{to the over speedof} the claimant and that the accident^{was occurrednot in} the way which was portrayed by the^{petitioner in the} claim petition. Respondent Nos.1^ar-rd 2^{havc disputed} the occupation and income of the claimant^{:rnd prayed} for dismissa-l of the claim petition

¶57

6 The Tribunal has framed thc following issues for determination

¶58

Whether the pleaded accident hzrd^occurred resulting injuries sustained by the^petitioner, B.Sanjeeva Reddy, due^{to thc rash zrnd negligent} driving of RTC bus bearing^{No.AP-1lZ-4927 by its} driver ?

¶59

¶60

i i I i I i I I I I I t I 1 I t I I I

¶61

: I I ! i I : :

¶62

2l Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation ald, if so, at what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents ?

¶63

To what relief ?

¶64

In support of his contention, the claimant himself got examined as PW. 1 and marked Exs.A. 1 to A.19 and he further got cxamined PWs.2 to 5, who are the Medical Ofhccr, Physiotherapist, Bill in-charge in Omini Hospital and his co-employee. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 did not choose to adduce either oral or documentary evidencc. The Tribunal after considering the entire evidence on record came to the conclusion that the claimant was unable to prove his income but basing on the evidencc of PWs. 1 and 5 concluded that he can earn Rs.4,OOO/- per month and having considered 4Onh of thc same as future prospects and calculated the disability as 307o, and on the basis of the evidcnce of PWs.2 to 4, awarded an amount of Rs.3,62,88O/- as loss of income and having added

, !i

i I I

I I I i i

i I

)

other amounts/medical bills, awarded an amount of Rs.12,65,300/-.

¶71

Learned counsel for the claimant has contended that the Tribunal had committed a wrong in calculating his monthly income as Rs.4,000/- in spite of his evidence that he was working as Driver in VRL Tours and Travels and earning a sum of Rs. 1O,00O/per month, apart from Rs.2,0OO/- per day as batta and he has also claimed that the Tribunal could have considered his income as Rs.10,OO0/- and failed to consider his claim about Rs.7,OO,O00/- towards medical expenses. Thereby, sought for enhancement of the compensation amount

¶72

Learned Standing counsel appearing for TSRTC has contended that the hndings of the Tribunal by which it ',r,as hclcl that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of the bus is incorrcct. Thc claimant did not add the owner

¶73

¶74

and insurer of the motorcycle on which he was riding as party to the claim petition. The Tribunal could have appreciated their claim about the negligence on' the part of the claimant, who drove the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed. They have also claimed that that the Tribunal committed an error in considering the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.4,000/- instead of notional income of the claimant as Rs.3,00O/- per month. While placing reliance on the Judgment rn National Insltro,nce Compang Limted

¶75

a Pranag Sethil, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have claimed that the Tribunal committed an error in considering Lhe disability of the claimant as 307o. Thc Tribunal could not have considered the disability on the basis of the certificate issued by PWs.2 arld 3 There u,as no authorization in favour of PW.4 to show that he was working as Bill in-charge, therefore, his cvidcnce could not have been believed for granting

¶76

I ( l(l l7) l6 S( (t 680

: I

!, iI I

! l : l j ,l

;

i il

Rs.6,49,434/-.as medical^{expenses.RespondentNos. 1}

¶85

and 2 have also claimed that^{the Tribunal committed} error in awarding Rs.54,OO0/-^{towards physiotherapy} charges, Rs. 1 ,OO,OO0/ - towards^{marriageprospects} and Rs.24,000/- towards loss of^{earnings and thercby,} sought for reduction^of compensation.

¶86

Heard learned counsel for^{the claimant as} well as learned standing counsel for^{TSRTC and} perused the entire material placed before this Court

¶87

i l. Now the points that would emerge^for

¶88

determination are:

¶89

t) Whether the claimant is able to show^{that he} suflered 1O0% disability, thereby,^{he is entitled} lor more compensation ?

¶90

1. Whcther the claimant is able to^{establish that} thc Tribunal committed an error^{in calculating} tlrc income of the deceased as^Rs.4,OOO l-^per rnontl-r, it so, whether the claimant is entitled lor cnhancement of the compensation^?

¶91

¶92

1. Whether the compensation payable by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 about the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus arrd about his contributory negligence, if so, it can be accepted in spite of their lailure to adduce either oral or documentary evidence ?

¶93

1. Whether respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are able to show that the claimant did not sufler^'any disability, if so, the impugncd Award can be set aside as prayed by respondent Nos. I and 2 ?

¶94

To what relief ?

¶95

As already discussed supra, though respondent Nos.1 and 2, who have claimed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the claimant, they did not adduce any oral or documentar5r evidence, even they did not choose to examine the driver, who drove the offending vehicle at the time of accident.

¶96

As could be seen from thc record, it unfolds that nothing elicited in the cross-examination of PW. 1

¶97

¶98

to trelieve that he contributed^{his negligencefor the} occurrence of the accident.^{Even though respondent} Nos. 1 and 2 contended that the^{Tribunal committed an} error in accepting the contents of^{the charge sheet,} they did not file any proof about^thealleged contributory negligence. The Tribunal^having appreciated the ora-l evidence of^{PW. 1 and in view of} the documents marked as^{Exs.A.1 to A.4, has rightly} concluded that the accident^{occurred dtle to the rash} and negligent driving of the bus driver^{and the claimof} respondent Nos. 1 and 2 about the^contributory negligence on the part of the claimant^{is cannot be} sustained.

¶99

The claimant himself got examined^{as PW. 1,} apart from his oral evidence,^{producedhis clriving} license and other record to^{prove his emplo,yment' in} addition to that, he got examined^{his colleague bclore} the Tribunal as PW.S and the^{evidenceof thesctrvo} witnesses categorically shou's that^{the claimant r'r'as}

¶100

t()

¶101

working as Driver^{inTours and Travels Company'} Respondent^{Nos. 1 and 2 could not placeany mat€rial} to show that^{the claimant was not a driver and he has} no qualification^{to drive any vehicle' Ex'A'18 is the} Driving license,^{which is not disputed by respondent} Nos.l and 2.^{Since the accidcnt occurred in the year} 2015, the contention^{o[ the claimant that he was} earning a sum^{o[ Rs.10,OOO/-, apart from, batta can} be considered^{even if half o[ the amount is considered'} the same comes^{to Rs.5,0OO/-' RespondentNos'1'and} 2 cannot claim^{that the driver can be secured with} monthly^{wagesof Rs.3,OOO/-,more particularly' in the} year 2015.

¶102

According^{to the cvidence of PW'2, who was} working as Civil^{SurgconspecializedinOrtho'} Government^{Hospital, Nerlgonda and who is also a} member of the^{Medical Board, crystal clear that he} examined the claimant^{ancl that there is a disability to} an extent of 3ooh and to^{thtrt cffect Ex'A'19 disability}

¶103

¶104

certificate issued by the^{MedicalBoard. The evidence} placed before fhe Tribunal transpires that^{the claimant} was suffering frorn post-traumatic^{sequel right ankle} with restricted movements at^{ankle. PW.2 certilied that} due to the above said disability^{though it is assessed} as 30o/o, it was categorically^{certified that the claimant} cannot perform his avocation^{as he was attending prior} to the accident. Therelorc,^{the claimant cannot work as} driver subsequent to the^{above referred accident.}

¶105

It may be truc that the^{claimant can do} other type of labour works^{but subject to his above} referred disability. Therefore, the^{Tribunalcould have} considered the said disability^{as 5O7o whileca,lculating} the calculation apart from^{theamount awarded} towards loss of income.^{Thc Tribunalhas granted} amounts under ioss of amenities,^{loss of earning, and} extra nourishment

¶106

¶107

In view of the above referred accident, without his fault, the claimant suffered severe injuries, which results him deprivation of attending his employment, it will definitely have impact on his future prospects. The claimant got examined Billing in-charge as PW.4 through whom he obtained the bills under which he paid money to the hospitals has been proved. PW.3-Physiotherapist has been examined before the Tribuna-l. The Tribunal has rightly considered those amounts. Respondent Nos.l and 2 are not able to cstablish that the Tribunal committed an error in aq,arding the compensation based on his income being a driver, the claimant can definitely earn, atleast, a sum Rs.5,O0O/- per month and he is entifled to 4}P/o ol the future prospects.

¶108

In view of the above discussion, the income of the claimant is taken as Rs.5,O00/- per month. The age of the deceased is about 23 years on the date o[ accidcnt, the appropriate multiplier would be^,18,and

¶109

¶110

if 4O"h future prospects are^{added, the monthly total} earning capacity of the^{deceasedwould come to} Rs.7,O00/-^{(5,OOO +} 2,00O)^{and the annual income ol} the claimant would come^{to Rs.84,OOO/-(7} 'OOO^{x l2l'} As this Court considered the^{disability of the deceased} as 5oul,, the claimant is^{entitled to Rs.7,56'OO0/-} (84,OOO x 18 x 50/100) for loss of^{income due to} disabitity. The compensation^{granted by the Tribunal} under diflcrent heads^viz., a^{sum of Rs.7,03,434/-} towards rnedical expenses,^{Rs.25,OO0/-towardspain} and suffe rancc, Rs.25,000/- towards^{loss of amenities,} Rs.25,000/ - towards transportation^andextra- nourishmcnt, Rs.1,00,000/- towards^{loss of marriage} prospccts ancl Rs.24,OO0/- towards^{loss of earnings} holcls gooci^.

¶111

ln the light of the above^{discussion,the} claimant is cntitled for the^{followingcompensation} under dilfercrrt hcads:

¶112

¶113

st. No.	Heads	Compensatiouawarded
ol	Loss ofincomedueto disability	RS 7,56,00000
02	MedicalExpenses	Rs.7,03,434-OO
o3	Pain andsufferance	Rs.25,00O-OO
o4	Lossofamenities	Rs.25,0OO-O0
o5	TransportationandExtra- nourishment	Rs.25,0OO-OO
o6	MarriageProspects	Rs.I,OO,00O-OO
o7	Lossofearnings	Rs.24.00O-OO
To	talCompensation Awarded	Rs.16,58,434-OO

¶114

1S 20. In the result, the Appeal of the TSRTC dismissed and the Appeal of the claimant is allou,ed by enhancing the compensation amount a\-arded by the Tribunal from Rs. 12,65,300/- to Rs.16,58.,4341AS hereunder:

¶115

(a) The enhanced amount shall carry intere st at

¶116

7.5o/o p.a. from the date of petition till the date ol realization.

¶117

¶118

(b) The insurance company shall deposit the balance amount, after deducting the amount il any paid by them, within a period of eight⁽⁸⁾ weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount without furnishing the securit5r.

¶119

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall

¶120

stand closed

¶121

Sd/. K. AM ASSISTANT RE //TRUE COPY// sEcTtoN o ICER

¶122

To,

¶123

The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum- the Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (With records) 2. One CC to SRl. THOOM SRINIVAS (SC FOR TSRTCXOPUCI 3. One CC to SRl. JAGATHPAL REDDY KASI REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 4- Two CD Copies

¶124

¶125

HIGH COURT DATED:01/08/2023

COMM6N JUDGMENT

i MAGMA.No.985 & 1410 of 2018 t

¶131

E STAr€-
(
o 2 o [Et ?tJ23 a
* ,:-/
oE l fl,l

¶132

j
rl
&
F'
t
tI:I
t,-
I

¶133

DISMISSING THE MACMA no. 1410 of 2018

¶134

And

¶135

ALLOWING THE MACMA No. 958 of 2018

¶136

¶137

THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶138

TUESDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW THREE

¶139

PRESENT

¶140

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU

¶141

M.AC. M.A. Nos: 985 & 1410 0F 2018

¶142

MACMA NO: 985 of 20'18

¶143

Between:

¶144

p, S.qnieeva .Reddy, _S/o B.Venkat Reddy, Aged 24 yea$, Occ Driver, Rl/o..Utiapally_Village, Peddavoora Mandal, Nalgonda District., Temporary RUo H.No. 16-1-363/2/ I, Saidabad, Hyderabad.

¶145

...APPELLANT/PETITIONER

¶146

AND

¶147

TSRTC, Represenled by its Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, RTC X Roads, Hyderabad.

¶148

2 LSR.TC,^{Represented by its DepotManager, MusheerabadBus Depot,} Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

¶149

,l M,Venkat Reddy, S/d M.Raji Reddy, Aged Major, pA paily Viilage, Devarakonda Mandal, Nalgonda Distriat, Telaigana Stat6.

¶150

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶151

Appeal Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in O.P.No. 1196 of 2o'ls,dated 27.12-2017 on the fite of the Courl of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum- the Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶152

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 SRl. JAGATHPAL REDDY KAS| REDDY, Counsel for the Appellant in MACMA No. 985 of 2018 & For Respondent No. 1 in tvlACMA No. 1410 of 2018 Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in IV1ACMA No. 985 of 2018 & For appellants No. 1 & 2 in MACMA No. 14.10 of 2018.

¶153

--_^L-

¶154

M.AC.M .A. NO:14100F 2018

¶155

Between:

¶156

Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, represented bv its Manaoino Director, Bus Bhavan, Mushedrabad, drc i Ci,rJI, H-yoiii"'oi'i.'*

¶157

T.elangana, Manag_el, Musheerabad State Road Byp Transport Corporation, represented tiepot, t,t's -aO--Uy-oeirGal'tO'*nJi"Jibv its Deoot APSRTC Bus bearing No. Ap 11 Z 4b271

¶158

¶159

*B^{i ...APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS No.1 & 2 in MVOp} No. 1i96/2015

¶160

AND Il[i

¶161

l. B_.Sanjeeva Reddy, S/o. B Venkat fgddy, aged_ 24 yearc, Occ- Driver, R/o. Utlapatty Vittage,^peddavoora Mandat, Niigo"nda ois(ri"t, ibrp6r"rVii'diirlii of H. No. 16- 1-363 t211, Saidabad, HvOera"Ga.^-'- l, ...RESpoNDENT/pETIIoNER t.

¶162

MlVenkat !eddy,, S/o. M. Raji Reddy, aged_Maior, pA paflv Viilaoe. ?_.efqraTgrya,Mandat,.Natgonda_Disrricr, Tetangana Stare. lbriveiof tne cnme vehtcte bearing No.Ap 11 Z 49211

¶163

| ...nespoNDENT/RESpoNDENT No. 3 in MVop No. 1196 of 2015

¶164

¶165

(Respondent No. 2 herein is not a necessary party in this appeal as no relief is claimEd against him) t.t

¶166

Appea U nder Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree

¶167

rn M P No. 1 1 96 of 20 15 dated 27 .12.2o17on the file of the Court of the C ha rm.oanII Motor Acci en d t Claims Tribunat -cum- the Chief Judge, City Civil Courts

¶168

a H yd

¶169

¶170

,| 8 3F.

¶171

-. --ietil!o_!^{underSection 151 cpc prayingthat in the circumstances} stated in the affid^avit filed in support of the petition, t'ne High court may be preased ro grant sta.y offexecution of the judgment and decree" ot ine- vtoto,. Accidents craims r flounatrum-the court of the Chief Judge,CCC, Hyderabad,dt.2l -12_2011made in MVOP.NO.1 196 of 2015 pending disposat of the above MACMA /2018.

¶172

¶173

ORDER:.;This .appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower court and the matJriar pjpers in the case andupon hearing the arguments of SRt. JAGATHPAL REDDY XeCf neOfiY, 9gu.l1q I9r^{the Appeltant in MACMA No. 985 of 2018& For Respondent} No. 1 in MACMA No. 1410 ot 2o1B counser for rhe Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in MACMA No. 985 of 2018 & For appeltants No. 1 & 2 in MACMA No. 1410 of 2O1B

l
I

*+
th,
1,"

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows

¶179

i--.

¶180

1 IIg lqq,gal filed by the TSRTC be and hereby is dismissed and the appeat Irred by the daimanr be and hereby is alowed by enhancing the compehsation amount awarded by the tribunal from Rs. 12,65,300/_to Rs;16,5g,4i4^;

¶181

^ 2. lhat the enhanced amount shall carry interest at l.S % p.a. from the daie of petition till the date of realization;

¶182

That the lnsurance company shall deposit the balance amount, after deducting. the amount if any poaid by the, within a period of eignt (0A) weeks

¶183

.^{from the date of receipt of i copy of ifrisJudgment'}

¶184

That on such deposit, claimant be and hereb'y is permitted to withdraw the entrre amount without furnishing the security;

¶185

That there be no order as to costs in this appeal

¶186

//TRUE COPY//

¶187

Sd/- K. AM]WA'I

¶188

ASStsrANr REG|STTAR

To,

SECTION OFFICER

The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum- the Court of the 2.^c hief Uudge, City Civil Courr, Hyderabad (With records) CD Copies

i.. I

HIGH COURT DATED:01/08/2023

¶197

COMMON DECREE

¶198

MACMA.No.985 & 1410 of 2018

¶199

DISMISSING THE MACMA no. 1410 of 2018

¶200

And

¶201

ALLOWING THE MACMA No. 958 of 2018

¶202

D))

B Sanjeeva Reddy v. Tsrtc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B Sanjeeva Reddy v. Tsrtc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Alwanpally Ashanna, Mahabubnagar Dist Vs Kheda Narsimha Chary, Mahabubnagar Dist and Ten Others

B Janaki Devi Vs B Surya Prakash Rao

M Gopala Krishna Vs Smt.P Padma Kumari and 3 Others

B Sailoo, R.R.Dist and 2 Others Vs P Aruna, R.R.Dist

Telangana State Road Transport Corporation and Another Vs B.Sanjeeva Reddy and Another

Guvva Ramaswamy Vs Boini Sudhakar