Telangana High Court
CMA/578/2001 of The A.P.S.R.T.C., Vs Mutti Reddy Sunitha on 29 December 2011
SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.578 of 2001 JUDGMENT: Mutti Reddy Ramchandra Reddy, husband of respondent No.1 and son of respondent Nos.2 and 3, was employed as a driver to work on a private jeep bearing No. AP 36 T 6555. On 11.05.1998, he was proceeding in the jeep from Ellandu to
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT:
Mutti Reddy Ramchandra Reddy, husband of respondentNo.1 and son of respondent Nos.2 and 3, was employed as adriver to work on a private jeep bearing No. AP 36 T 6555. On11.05.1998, he was proceeding in the jeep from Ellandu toMahabubabad Village. On the way at Lachigudem Village, R.T.C.bus bearing No.AP 10 Z 2605, is said to have dashed against thejeep, resulting in death of Ramchandra Reddy. Crime No.69 of1998 was registered against the driver of the bus i.e. respondentNo.4 herein under Sections 304-A and 337 I.P.C. Respondent No.1filed M.V.O.P.No.446 of 1998 before the Chairman, Motor AccidentClaims Tribunal (III Additional District Judge) Warangal (for short‘the Tribunal’) claiming a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- as compensation. It was pleaded that the deceased was being paid a salary ofRs.2,000/- per month and that he was aged 28 years at the time ofaccident. The O.P. was opposed by the appellant. It was pleadedthat the accident occurred on account of rashness on the part ofthe deceased himself.
Through order, dated 30.10.2000, the Tribunal awarded asum of Rs.3,45,600/- as compensation. Interest at 12% perannum was awarded. The same is challenged in this appeal.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learnedcounsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
On behalf of respondent No.1, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examinedand Exs.A1 to A5 were filed. Taking into account the fact that thecrime was registered against respondent No.4 alone, the Tribunalheld that the accident occurred on account of his negligence.
Therefore, the plea of the appellant that the accident occurred onaccount of rashness on the part of the deceased himself, cannotbe accepted.
P.W.1 specifically pleaded that her husband was being paida sum of Rs.2,000/- as salary. The Tribunal has taken intoaccount the salary payable under the Minimum Wages Act for adriver and arrived at the correct facts and figures. This Court isnot inclined to interfere with the quantum of compensation. TheTribunal awarded interest at 12% per annum. By any standard,that rate of interest is on higher side. In matters arising under theMotor Vehicles Act, the interest payable is generally 7%.
Hence, the appeal is partly allowed upholding the orderunder appeal in all other respects, but reducing the interest to 7%. There shall be no order as to costs.
_____________________
L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J
Dt:29.12.2011.
kdl