HONBLE SRI JUSTICE GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD
M.A.C.M.A.Nos.189 OF 2006 and batch
Naseemunnisa Begum and others. Appellants
Puligadda Narasimha and others. . Respondents
Counsel for the appellants : Smt. S. Vani
Counsel for the respondents: Sri C. Sunil Kumar Reddy
SC for APSRTC
? Cases referred
HONBLE SRI JUSTICE GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD
M.A.C.M.A. Nos.189 and 2667 of 2006
COMMON JUDGMENT :
Aggrieved by the order and decree dated 11.07.2005 in
O.P.No.2398 of 2002 passed by the II Additional Chief Judge,
City Civil Court, Hyderabad, granting compensation of
Rs.5,56,000/-, as against the claim of Rs.11,00,000/-, with
interest @ 9% per annum for the death of the deceased Mirza
Yousuf Baig in a motor accident that occurred on 12.01.2002
with APSRTC Bus bearing No.AAZ 4659, while the petitioners
in the aforesaid O.P. filed MACMA.No.189 of 2006 seeking
enhancement of compensation, respondent Nos.2 and 3 A.P.
State Road Transport Corporation (for brevity the
Corporation) in the O.P. filed MACMA.No.2667 of 2006
seeking to set aside the impugned order dated 11.07.2005 as
the compensation amount granted by the Tribunal is highly
excessive and exorbitant.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as
they were arrayed in O.P.No.2398 of 2002 before the Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are
widow, son and father of the deceased Mirza Yousuf Baig.
They filed the aforesaid O.P.No.2398 of 2002 claiming
compensation of Rs.11,00,000/- stating that on 12.01.2002
while the deceased Mirza Yousuf Baig was standing in
Sanathnagar Bus Stand and waiting for bus, suddenly APSRTC
Bus bearing No.AAZ 4659 coming from SBH, proceeding
towards Sanathnagar Bus Stand, came in high speed and in a
rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased and others. As
a result, the deceased sustained multiple injuries and died on
4. Respondent No.1, who is the driver of the offending Bus
set exparte and respondent Nos.2 and 3 Corporation filed
counter denying its liability. The Tribunal, on consideration of
the evidence and material available on record, granted
compensation of Rs.5,56,000/- as against the claim of
Rs.11,00,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of
the petition till the date of deposit of the amount in the Court
and apportioned the same among the petitioners. Challenging
the same, while the petitioners filed appeal seeking
enhancement of compensation, the respondents Corporation
filed appeal contending that the quantum of compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is highly excessive and exorbitant.
5. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the
appellants in both the appeals and perused the order under
challenge and also the evidence on record.
6. The only point that arises for consideration in these
appeals is, whether the quantum of compensation awarded by
the Tribunal is highly excessive.
7. There is no dispute with regard to the facts of the case.
The only dispute is with regard to the quantum of
compensation. While the petitioners sought for enhancement of
compensation, the respondents Corporation contends that
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is highly excessive
and exorbitant. On consideration of the order passed by the
Tribunal, it does not appear that the compensation awarded by
the Tribunal is highly excessive or exorbitant, except the rate of
interest granted @ 9% per annum.
8. Therefore, without going into the merits of the matter,
since the rate of interest appears to be on higher side, following
the decision of the Apex Court in DHARAMPAL AND OTHERS
Vs. U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION , this
Court feels it appropriate to award interest @ 7.5% per annum
from the date of petition till the date of deposit of the amount.
9. In the result, while confirming the amount of
compensation granted by the Tribunal at Rs.5,56,000/-, the
appeal filed by the petitioners is dismissed and the appeal filed
by the respondents Corporation is partly allowed by reducing
the rate of interest from 9% to 7.5% per annum from the date
of petition till the date of deposit of the compensation amount.
In all other aspects, the order passed by the Tribunal shall
remain unaltered. No order as to costs.
10. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in
these appeals shall stand closed.
GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD, J