M.Narsing Rao 2 Ors vs The Ap State Road Transport ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1576 Tel

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

                     M.A.C.M.A.No.2048 of 2011
JUDGMENT:

This appeal is preferred by the claimants aggrieved by the

award and decree dated 15-09-2008 in O.P.No.1 of 2006 on the file of

the Special Judge for the Trial of Offences under SCs and STs (POA)

Act-cum-VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-Additional

Chairman-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XX Additional Chief

Judge at Secunderabad.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants-claimants

Mr. Vladimeer Khatoon and learned counsel for the respondent-RTC

Mr. Thoom Srinivas. Perused the record.

3. The brief facts are that on 15-11-2005 at about 19.30 hours,

while the deceased M.N.Rajesh was proceeding towards Risalabazar

from Thurkapally on Bajaj Pulsar bearing No.AP 10 RA-T/R 6502 as

rider and when he reached Air Force Station Sub Guard Room near

Sai Dhaba, the driver of RTC bus bearing No.AP 9Z 7479 driven it in a

rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed against the

motorcycle of the deceased, due to which the deceased sustained

grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately, he was shifted to

Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, where doctor declared that he died.

The claimants have filed OP., claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-

for the death of the deceased in the accident.

4. Respondent-RTC filed counter denying the rash and negligent

driving of the driver of RTC bus and the death of the deceased in the 2 LK, J MA CMA.No.2048 of 2011

accident, his age, avocation and earnings. He submits that the claim is

highly excessive and exorbitant.

5. The Tribunal on analyzing the oral and documentary evidence

though granted compensation of Rs.6,88,948/- it restricted to the claim

of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition

till the date of deposit.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants submits that the

Tribunal while applying the multiplier took the age of the mother of the

deceased instead of the age of the deceased and granted

compensation. He submits that the Honourable Apex Court in

Sarla Varma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another1 has

observed that the age of the deceased has to be taken into

consideration.

7. This Court is not able to entertain the appeal filed by the

claimants. Firstly on the ground that when the claimants have claimed

a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, the Tribunal though assessed compensation at

Rs.6,88,948/- granted the entire compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- as

such, the claimants cannot be termed as aggrieved parties. Secondly,

the ground with regard to taking the age of the mother of the deceased,

as on the date when the award was passed, as per the existing legal

position, the age of the mother was considered and there was no error

committed by the Tribunal. In Sarla Varma's case (cited supra), no

such law was laid down by the Apex Court and even if such law is laid

2009 (6) SCC 121 3 LK, J MA CMA.No.2048 of 2011

down by the apex Court, that was in the month of April, 2009, whereas

this appeal is filed in the month of March, 2009 and on that date, the

appellants-claimants cannot be termed as aggrieved parties. In that

view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to entertain the appeal.

8. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.

9. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this appeal shall stand

dismissed.

____________________________ SMT LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J 11th April, 2023.

sj