Andhra Pradesh State Road ... vs Bera Sambaiah And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 527 Tel

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 527 Tel
Judgement Date : 10 February, 2022

Telangana High Court

Andhra Pradesh State Road ... vs Bera Sambaiah And Another on 10 February, 2022

Bench: G Sri Devi

                THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

                     M.A.C.M.A. No.1806 of 2009

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is preferred by the appellant-R.T.C., questioning

the award and decree, dated 05.12.2008 passed in

M.V.O.P.No.1594 of 2006 on the file of the Chairman, Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge,

Warangal (for short, the Tribunal).

For the sake of convenience, the parties have been referred

to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the

death of the deceased Bera Shravan Kumar, who died in a motor

vehicle accident. It is stated that on 28.08.2006 the deceased,

along with his friend, Yesireddy Ramakrishna, were proceeding to

Machapur Village on Motor Cycle bearing No.AP 36 TR D 2680 and

when they crossed Dharmaram bus stand on main road, one RTC

Bus bearing No.AP 10 Z 9731 belonging to Godavarikhani depot,

proceeding towards Warangal, driven by its driver in a rash and

negligent manner with high speed, came in wrong side and dashed

the motor cycle, as a result of which, the deceased and his friend

fell down and the deceased died on the spot. The claimants, who

are the parents of the deceased, filed aforesaid O.P. against the

respondent being the owner of the said bus.

GSD, J Macma_1806_2009

Before the Tribunal, the respondent-Corporation filed

counter denying the manner in which the accident took place and

also denied the age and avocation of the deceased. It is

specifically pleaded that the accident occurred due to rash and

negligent driving of the deceased and that there was no negligence

on the part of the driver of the RTC bus. It is also stated in the

Counter that the compensation claimed is excessive, arbitrary and

out of all proportions.

Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are

framed before the Tribunal:-

1) Whether the accident that took place due to rash and negligent driving of APSRTC Bus bearing registration No.AP 10 Z 9731 ?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, what amount and from whom?

3) To what relief?

During trial, on behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were

examined and Exs.A1 to A10 were marked. On behalf of the

respondent-Corporation, the driver of the bus was examined as

R.W.1 and no documents were marked.

After considering the oral and documentary evidence on

record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident

occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of the RTC

bus and awarded total compensation of Rs.6,96,000/- with interest

GSD, J Macma_1806_2009

@ 7.5% per annum. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant-

Corporation filed the present appeal.

Heard both sides and perused the record.

A perusal of the order reveals that the Tribunal passed a well

reasoned order by taking into consideration all the aspects. The

Tribunal has framed the Issue No.1 as to whether the accident had

occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC

bus bearing No.AP 10 Z 9731, to which the Tribunal has

categorically observed that the accident has occurred due to the

rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus and has

answered in favour of the claimants and against the respondents.

With regard to Issue No.2 as to whether the claimants are entitled

for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom, in the

light of the decided case laws of the Apex Court, under the heads

of conventional charges and future prospects etc., the claimants

are entitled for more compensation. Further, since the deceased

was a bachelor, the Tribunal ought to have considered the age of

the deceased while determining the multiplier in view of the

decision of the Apex Court in Munna Lal Jain v. Vipin Kumar

Sharma and others1, but the Tribunal had applied the multiplier

considering the age of the mother of the deceased and if the

proper multiplier is applied, the claimants would also get more

compensation. Since this is an appeal filed by the Insurance

Companies and in the absence of no cross appeal or cross-

2015 (6) SCC 347,

GSD, J Macma_1806_2009

objections filed by the claimants, this Court is not inclined to go

into the other issues and this Court finds that the compensation

awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. Therefore, I see

no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal and the

appeal is liable to be dismissed.