[257s I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2608 OF 2006 Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in O.P.No.1 69 of 2005 dated 10-08-2006 on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- V Addl. District Judge (FTC) Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. Between: ''1. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep by its Managing Director The Managing Director, RTC Cross Roads, Mushirabad, Hyderabad. 2. Depot Manager, APSRTC, Nagarkurnool Bus Depot, Mahabubnagar District. ...APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS AND 1. Smt. C.Padma, Wo. late Parameshwar, aged about 22 years, Occ: Hosuewife. 2. Kum. C.Lahari, D/o. late Parameshwar, aged about one Year, Occ: Nil. [Being Minor, rep by her mother Rl hereinl (Qoth are Rl/o. H.No.3-38, Nallavelly Village, Yacharam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District) 3. Smt. C.Sarojamma, Wo.'Late Jagaiah (late), aged about 50 years, Occ: Nil, Ri/o. Manthati village, Nagarkurnool Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellants: SRI V.T.M.PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: SRI POTTIGARI SRIOHAR REDDY The Court made the following: JUDGMENT HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI M.A.C.M.A.No. 26O8 of 20O6 JUD G MENT: Tl'ris is ern Apltczri preferrecl b), the RTC aggrieved by the Arr,ard daterd l O.Og 2O0(r u,hr:reby the lc:arncd MoLor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum-V Adcliti,rntrl Disrrict Juclge (t-TC), Reddy District ar L.B.Nagar iracl allowed partly O.p.No. 2005 and grantccl Rs.9,04,5007 ii,rr the death of deceased. tal, Hyderabad for treatmen t, the deceased Ranga 169 of 2. The clai:nants are u,ifc and minor daughter. ol the deceased. They filed the abovc O.p. seeking compensation of Rs. 12,00,0O0/-. The case of r he claimants is that the deceased was an L.l.C. Agent-c Lrm_1,p1i;119 medical pr.rgtitioner. On 16.70.2004, at about 3.OO p.m., u.hile the deceased was going on his bike bearing No. Ap 22 f 3Z S along ivith his friend Balaswamy to his native placr. Nallavelly Village, near the bus stand at Nagarkurnool, th,. B11, brrs bearing Regrstration No. Ap lO Z 451a came from the bus depot in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the vehicle ol the deceased, as a result, the deceased and his friend fell dorvn and sustained gricvous injuries. Immediately, the de< eased u,as shifted to Government Hospital, Nagarkurnool and from thcre to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad, yashoda Super Speciality better treatment. Wlri.le undergoing succumbed to the injuries on 07 .11.2O()4 a\ Hospi il , I I i t_. ". ri(1 ) 3. The respondent Corporation Illed the counter afhdavit denying the averments in the Claim Petition. It is stated tlLat the RTC bus was proceeding from Nagarkurnool depot to bus station, on the way, the driver observed that another bus was coming towards bus stopped the bus and stand, on seeing the said bus, the driver the other bus to go into the bus scooterist, who was going towards allowed stand. In the meanlime, one Achampet side came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the front side portion of the stationed bus without following traffic rules. As a result, the scooterist fell down on the road and received injuries. Il is stated that there w'as no rashness or negligence on the part of the bus driver and the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence of the deceased. It is stated that as it is contributory negligence, the Corporation is not liable to pay the compensation and the compensation clairrred is excessive. 4. The claimants, in support of their case, examined P.Ws. 1 to 3 and got marked Exs.Al to Ai5- On behalf of the Corporation, R.W. I was examined and no documents were marked. Ex.Xl certihcate issued by LIC showing the particulars of commission was marked. 5. Heard Sri Thoom Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel for the RTC and Sri Pottigari Sreedhar Reddy, learned counsel for the claimants. / 6. I he Triburta, havrrtg considered rhc cvidence of R.W. I :rnd the r vider-rce ol' P.\\'s. L to 3 itad come to t}-re conclusion that the driver of the t>us drovt' it in a rasl't and negligcr-rr manner and also constdered Exs.Al irnd A2 ie. FIIi and the charge sheet zrnd held Lhat trecause ol the rash and negligcnt driving of the driver of the br,ts, thc acciclent occurred As far as irreomc is concerned, though it n'as clilimed that the deceased was earning Rs.1O,0OO/- in respect of which his pan card was also filed, the Tribunal had raken Rs.6,OO0/ - as income Lrarned Standing Counsel for the RTC submits that the Tribunal ought not to have hxed the income as Rs.6,t)00/- The Hon'ble Apex Court in Rarnachandrappd u. Mandger, Rogal Sundolam Alliancel ' without 6h61g bl:ing anl evidence, had taken the income as Rs.4,500/-. In this case, the evidence shows that the deceased was a private mcdical practitioner and LIC agen[, the Tribunal taking into consicleration thc salary of the deceased as Rs 6,00O/- is not excessive. Hence, this Court is not inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the RTC' The multiplier applied by the Triltunal is appropriate multiplier and granting the amount of Rs 9,()4,500/ for the death of LIC agent -cum- a medical practitronr:r cannot be considered as excessive. Hence, the Appeal of the RTC lails and the same is liable to be dismissed. rlzotr;r:scczto + 7 8 The Appeal of the RTC is accordingly, dismissed. Pending miscellaneous pe tit.ions, if any, shall stand r) No costs. closed SDL K.KAIAH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /I //TRUE COPY// AD SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- V Addl. District Judge (FTC), Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. 2. One CC to SRI V.T.M.PRASAD, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI POTTIGARI SRIDHAR REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies PSK ( HIGH COURT DATED:0610312023 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.2608 of 2006 DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS. F TE C f () u- 1 1:, r\ri\ :t ,'! .s s ."j / o f.ii'/ at/' \ :]L %