SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Online)(ALL) 12536

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation – Appellant
Versus
Y. Gangadhara Kumar – Respondent
MACMA 2802 2019



IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

MONDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

M.A.C. M.A. NO:2802 oF 2019

Appear fired under section 173 0f the Motor Vehicres Act against the

Judgment and Decree dated 110612014 in MVop. No. 275 of 2012 on

the of the Motor Accident craims tribunar - cum - the court of the

Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad.

Between:

1. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its

Managing Director, Musheerabad, RTC Cross Roads, Hyderabad.

2. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its

Depot Manager, Miryalaguda Bus Depot, Nalgonda District.

...APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS

AND

Y. Gangadhara Kumar, S/o. y. RamchandarRao, Aged about 30 years.,

Occ. Fruit Business, No. 4lC,2nd Floor,Vengal Rao Nagar, Hyderabad

... R ES PON DE NT/PETITION E R

Counsel for the Appellants :SRI.N.VASUDEVA REDDY

Counset for the Respondent: ARVIND KUMAR KATA

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

t_

r-I

2.

For the sake ol corIvt,nience, the partics have been

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI

M.A.C.M.A .No.28o2 of 2Ol9

JUDGMENT

This altpeal is p:-r,ler-rccl by Telanganzr State Road

Transport Cor-poratit.rn (prt.r,iously Andl-rra pradesh Slate Road

Transport Co'poratior.r), <lrrcsr ioning the award and decree,

dated 17.06.2014 passecl in \l.V.O. p. N<.t.275 <.fi 2OI2 on the file

of the Chairntan, Motor Ar.r.itlent Claims Tribr-rnal-cum_The

Court of the Cl ief Judge, Cit\ Crvil Court, Hyderabacl (for short,

"the Tribunal").

referred to as ar-ayed bcfore llrr, l.ribunal

3.

Brief facts of the case arc rhat the claimant filed zr petition

under Section 166 ol the Motor Vehicles A<:t claiming

compensation of Rs. 10,00,0Or rr for the injuries sustzrined by

him in a road accident that oct:rrrred on 12.07.2Ol l [t is stated

that on the fatefi- I day, rvhrlc the' claimant, along with his wife

and driver, was proceeding in ir \'laruthi Car bearing No. AP 7S

18OO from Eluru towarcls Hyrlc'rnbad, at about 15:'15 hours,

when he reached rear the or-ltsklr'ts of Choutuppal village near

SRINI Compan'/, cne RTC bus tr:rrring No. AP 282 5tt89 <:ame

.,1

2

\

MGP, J

Macrra 2802 201 9

from opposite direction in a rash and negligcnt manner at high

speed and dashed the claimant's car. As a result, the claimant

sustained btecding fracturc injuries. Immediately, he was

admrtted as inpatient in Kamineni Hospital' According to the

claimant, he was hale and healthy and earning Rs.20,000/- per

month on Fruit Business and contributing the entire income for

the welfare of the family. Due to the accident, he suffered

permanent disability and lost his livelihood and source of

income. Therefore, he laid the claim against the respondents,

seeking compensation of Rs. 10,00,OO0/- under various heads.

4.

Before the Tribunal, the RTC contested the claim by filing

counter inter alia contending that the claim made by the

claimant is excessive and disputing the manner of the accident,

age and avocation.

5.

Considering the claim and the counter filed by the RTC

and on evaluation of the evidence, both oral and documentary,

the learned Tribunal has allowed the O.P. and awarded

compensat.ion of Rs.7,5O,0O0/- with interest at7.SVo per annum

to be payaPle by the respondents. Challenging the same, the

present appeal has been filed by the RTC.

6.

I{eard both sidcs:rnd I)er-Llscd the record

\4CP. J

Macrnrr 2 802 20 I 9

7.

'l'he main contcntion ol' tlrc learncd Standing Counsel for

the RTC is that thore is contril)lltolv negligence on thL- pnrt ol

the injured, who contributed Lo tt.re said accident. Hou.cver, thc

Tribunal has not considcrc(l the same and therefore,

contributory negligence ought lo lrave been fixed on thc injured

while awarding compensation. 'l'he learned counsel also

contended that the qlrantum ,rl compensation claimed is

excessive, bzrseless and prayed 1o allour the appeal bJ, reclucing

the quantum of corrLpcnsation re;rsonirbly.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top