Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
A.HARI HARANADHA SARMA
A.P. S. R. T. C, Rep. by its Chairman/Managing Director, Musheerabad Hyderabad Now at Vijayawada – Appellant
Versus
Ekkudu Venkata Kanaka Satyanarana, s/o Rama Murthy – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of parties and claims (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. detailed account of the claimant's case (Para 4) |
| 3. defendant denies liability and argues contributory negligence (Para 5) |
| 4. court emphasizes need for appropriate issues based on context (Para 8) |
| 5. arguments on compensation and negligence (Para 9 , 10) |
| 6. court finds no contributory negligence from claimant (Para 20 , 21) |
| 7. guidance on compensation quantification principles (Para 22 , 30) |
| 8. court concludes on reasonable compensation award (Para 31 , 32) |
| 9. final decision on the appeal (Para 33) |
JUDGMENT :
A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J.
I. Introduction:-
1.[i] One E.Venkata Kanaka Satyanarayana [herein after referred as ‘the claimant’] filed a petition under Section 166 of MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 [for short M.v. Act], before the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge, Eluru [for short “MACT], claiming compensation of Rs. 11,60,000/- for the injuries suffered by him in a Motor Vehicle Accident that occurred on 15.11.2008, contending that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 1213 [for short the ‘offending vehicle], Lear
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
