The Telangana High Court Monday dismissed an appeal filed by the State Road Transport Corporation (TGSRTC) and upheld the compensation of over Rs 45 lakh awarded to the family of a deceased accident victim.
Rejecting the corporation’s arguments, the bench led by Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya condemned the prolonged legal battle that deprived the grieving family of the amount for 11 years.
The case stems from a 2014 motor vehicle accident that led to the death of secondary grade teacher Manthena Narsaiah. The teacher was travelling on his bike when the bus approached from the wrong side and stopped, hitting him. Following this, his family approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) at Nizamabad in 2015. In December 2016, the tribunal awarded them a compensation of Rs 45,20,600 with 7.5 per cent interest.
Dissatisfied with the ruling, the TGSRTC filed an appeal in 2017, challenging the verdict on two grounds: the identity of the deceased was not conclusively established, and the deceased himself was “contributorily negligent”.
The high court reviewed the evidence presented, including the deceased’s death certificate, salary certificate, and the independent testimony of an eyewitness. The court found that the documents clearly established the identity of the deceased and his family members. It also noted that the issue of identity was not even raised by the TGSRTC before the tribunal.
On the second and more contentious issue of “contributory negligence”, the court highlighted inconsistencies in the bus driver’s testimony, particularly the admission that the bus was stopped on the wrong side of the road at a location with no designated halt. The judgment pointed to the investigation reports which concluded that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver.
The court also expressed its profound dismay at the length of the proceedings. “This is a case of death, the family members of the deceased approached the Tribunal in 2015… 10 years have passed from the time of filing of the (original petition) by the claimants.”
Story continues below this ad
It further remarked, “This court does not find any grounds to continue that deprivation particularly where the impugned order is correct in both, facts and law.” It then dismissed the appeal.
Stay updated with the latest – Click here to follow us on Instagram
© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd