The High Court · 2025

Petfrion under Section 151 CPC praying that in th<: ,:ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim.stay orders passed by this Court in lA No. 3 ot 2021 in MACMA No. 30/2021 dated 19.01.2021 and permit to withdraw thr: 6sr..,,ed amount lying in MVOP No. 1398 of 2017 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Cumthe Court of the Chief Judge City Civil Court at Hyderabad. Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. THOCM SRINIVAS (SC i.OR TSRTC} Counsel for the Respondents: AJAY KUMAR MAOISET-ft, The Court made the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRT'MALA DEVI EADA M.A.C.M.A.NO.30 0F 2021 JUDGME IYT: This appeal is firled by TSRTC, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated |2.O2.2O2O in M.V.O.p.No.1398 ot 2OlZ passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-The Court of Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for shorr "the Tribunal").

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before thc Tribunal.

3. The case of the petitioners bcfore the Tribunal was that on 13.08.20f 6 at about 2:3O p.m., n,hile the deceased was going as a pillion rider on TVS-XL bearing No.Ap_23A_2978 driven by one Ravi Kumar and when the said motor trike reached near Rangadampally Chowrastha, one TS RTC bus bcaring No.Ap-292_2351 which was proceeding toards Mancherial, being driven by its driver in a rash a.nd negiigent ma!:rner at a high speed, came i., ti. *.o.rg side and hit the TVS-XL, duc to which the deceased fell down, sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. The claimants sought a compensation of Rs. iO,OO,0O0/ -.

4. The respondent Nos. I and, 2 filed counter denying the a.verments of the petition rvith regard to the occurrence of the a.ccident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further ./ 7 MACMA No.30-2021 contended that the driver of the bike was not holdinl; 'uali<I driving license at the timc of accident and thus, their corp lration is not iiable to pay any compensation and they are not er-r -ir-led to claim any compensation. The respr;nclent No.3 is the driver of RTC bus q'ho also hled 5. counter denying the occurrence of the accident He ccntended that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence cl'the rider of the motor bike and that he was not at all negligent'

6. Bascd on the above rival contentions, thc 'lribr:nai framed the following issues:- L Wrcth.er the pteaded accid'ent had occttred 'esulting irt death of the dbceased E' Yellauva, due to ro.sh a'Lct negligent dnuing of RTC bus beaing registration No AP-'97--23'i1 bA is diuer? Whether the petitioners are entitled to anlJ cottlPertsotto-n -lf so. at uhai quantum and what is lhe lirrl iI:tA Qi the respoadents? To uiLat relief ?

3. To provt: their case, the petitioners got examirrcd PWs I and 2 7 . and got marked Exs.Al to A5. On behalf of the respondernts' RW1 was examined and no documents were marked' S.Bascdontheevidenceonrecord,theTribuntLlhasgranteda compensation of Rs.9,5O,O0O/-' Aggrieved by the strid award' the prcsent appeal is preferred by the TSRTC' 3 ETD,J MACMA No.30 2021

9. Heard the submissions of Sri R Anurag, learned counsel for the TSRTC and Sri M. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No. l.

10. Learned counsel for the appelrant has submitted that there were three people going on the motor bike and thus the said overload on the motor bike contributed to the accident. He further argued that the deceased is 40 year old and thus 25% addition towards future prospects has to be considered, but the tribunal has taken it as 40yo. He further argued that the tribunal has awarded interest @ 9%o per annum and has prayed to reduce the same to 7.5olo.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that this Court cannot reduce the rate of interest once granted by the Tribunal. He further argued that as per the guidelines of the Apex Court in Nqtional Insurq.nce Comlrang Limited. Vs. pranag Sethi & Othersr, up to 40 years 4O%o addition has to be made to future prospects and above 40 years it will be 25%o. In the present case, the deceased is aged 4O years so, the tribunal has rightry taken the addition of 4o(,/o. Therefore, he prayed to uphold the decision of the Tribunal. I ArR 2017 SCC 5.157 I, tTD,] [,1ACMA No.30-2021 4 Based on the above rival submission' this Court frames the t2. following points ior consideration:- the TvS Xl' molar the accideftt?

1. whether there wasbno r::#\x tr!r,,:f#r3"rl1l"', ""lfiiliJ'i 2- Whether Lle cofipensation granted bg tfle Tribunal Is fusr ond reasonablc? rMlzther Lhe order .rnd Decree passed bg th'e TribLtt)dl need ong itterkrence? :)-

4. 1'o ttlnl rclieP ra) Point No.1:- a) Thc contcntion of the appellalt's counsel is thitt the accidcnt occurrcd due to the negligence of the rider of the f"/S XL molor bike bcaring No AP-23A-2978' In support of their c('rtention' they got examined RW'l before the Tribunal' He is the dr vcr of the RTC Bus, he deposcd in his chief examinadon that the rider ot thc TVS and ncgligcnt was coming $'ith two other pillion riders in a rasl and that the manner, u'ithout wearing helmet and hit his bus' accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the rider of the motor bikc. In his cross examination' it is elicited ttrat he has not given any complaint to the police alleging that the chtrrgc sheet filed against him is false and that the rider cf the rnotor bike is at b) A perusal of the charge sheet filed under E>r"{2 reveals that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligc nt driving of the Ln tr rash and RTC Bus drivt:r, which came at a high sPeect 5 ETD,] MACMA No.3O 2021 negligent manner and dashed against the motor bike on which the deceased was proceeding as a pillion rider, as a result of which he fell down on the road and died on the spot and the charge sheet is filed against the RTC driver. Thus, there is no evidence on record to show that there was any contributory negligence on part of the rider of the motor bike Therefore, it is held that there was no contributory negligence on part of the rider of the motor bike. Though it is a.lleged that there were three persons going on the motor bike, nowhere it is elicited that the said triple riding contributed to the accident. Therefore, it is held that there was no contributory negligence on part of the rider of the motor bike. Point No. I is answered accordingly.

74. Point No.22- a) PWl is the husband of the deceased, has asserted that his wife used to go for coolie work and used to earn an amount of Rs. 10,oo0/- per month. No proof of can be expected in this regard. b) ln Ramachandrappa Vs. fuIanager, Rogal Sund..rann Alliance Insurance Conqranu Limited2, the Apex Court has held that in the absence of any proof of income with regard to a labourer, Rs.4,50o/- per month can be safely taken as the income. (20 t l) t2 scc 236 I { 6 MA(.MA Nc.30,2021 ln the present case, the deceased is a daily wage labour.er. N. proof can be exPected in this regard' c) The deceased is aged '40' years as per the l)ost Mortem Examination Report irled under Ex.A4. Thus, conside.i'g the facts ald circumstances o[ the case and evidence on recorrl' it is opined thattheincomeasassessedbytheTribunali.e.,R;.5,0o0/-per month apPeal5 16 be justi[rcd' 'rL^ 'r.il-rr rn:l has also considered the other guidelines laid r, down by the Apex Court io National Insuran:'ce Compang Limited Vs. Pranag Sethl & Otler# ' by adding futrtre prospects deduction of 17 3ra since the of 4 0,,/o, and a Iso has has also aPPlii:d the right claimants arc th rco ln princiPles laid mulriptier of '15' lr has considered all the other down by the Apex Court and has awarded the Thercfore, it is hetd that the compensatlon awarded by the 'I'ribunal is just and reasonable' i.e., Rs.9,50,OO0/ comPensation ' given a number, Point No.2 is answered accordingly' ArR 2017 scc 5157 t 7 ETD,J MACMA No.30 2021

15. Point No.3:- a) In view of the findings arrived at point No. 1 and 2 , there is no need to interfere with the Order and Decree of the Tribunal and the same is upheld witJ regard to quantum of compensation. b) The Tribunal has awarded 9yo interest on the compensation which is disputed by learned counsel for the appellants. He prayed to reduce the same. c) ln Jq.d.qv Saroja Bai Versus Ghule Naga Rao and Anothef ; a Coordinate Bench of this High Court has granted interest @ 7.5% per annum on the enhanced amount o[ compensation. d) In Bd.nd.auath Mangla and. Another Versus Bornda vath Sr^rresh and Otherss and Nqtional Instrance Compang Limited Versas. M. Venkatesutorulu and Other*; also intere st @ T.5o/o per annum was granted on the enhanced amount of compensation. e) It United. Insurance Corrytang Linited Versus. Bollam Lingaiah7; when the Tribunal has granted rate of interest @ 97o per annum, the High Court has modihed the rate of interest to 7.5o/o per annum from the date of petition till realization. { 2022 SCC Ontine TS 606 5 202i scc Ontine TS I095 6 :0li SCC online TS i t70 ' 102.1 SCC Online TS 915 Er D,J \4/\CMA No.30,2021 8 A Division Bench of this High Court in National Insutance 0 Comgtang Linited versus Jagodlsh Prqiapathis; has granted 7.5 o/o per annum on the compensation from the date oi petition till realization Therefore, in the light of the above cited decisions' this Court g) has been consistently granting interest @ 7 'l>o/o on the coi-rpensation that is awarded in such cases' Hence' itr the present case, tl-re ratc of interest is reduced from 97o per an 1)1-rm to that of 7 .Sok per annum. Point No-3 is answered accordingly'

16. PO INT NO.4: Inthercsult,M.A'C.M.AliledbytheTSR.].()againstthe Order and Decrce dated' 12'02'2020 in M'V'O'P'N.>' 1398 of 20 17 passed by thc Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cu:n-The Court of -Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad is partly allowed' by reducing the rate of interest from 97o Lo 7 '5o/o per zLrrnum from the date of claim petition till realization' However' the interest for the period of detay, if any, is forfcitcd' The appellant/Tf-\RTc is directed to deposit thr: compensation amount with accrued Lr: terest within a period of two months from the date of receipt ol a copy of this judgment after deducting the amount if any alreadl' deposited' On ( L * 20la scc onlinc IS 1050 9 ETD,J MACMA No-30 2021 such deposit, the respondents are entitled to withdraw the said €unount without furnishing any security, as per their respective shares as allotted by the Tribunal. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed. Sd/- M. OSMAN ALI BAIG AS ISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER

1. The Chairman, MACT-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Court' Hyderabad 2. One CC to SRl. THOOM SRINIVAS Advocate IOPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. AJAY KUMAR MADISETTY Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies I To, GR HIGH COURT DATED:04/0712025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.3O ot 2O21 ,t) //'.t )- li;i il,.;\i, PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS @ Fr .ltr5i \\ 2 r N$\ 2ffi I I ) . ,/' k - "'\i'.=i::'::, :!ii , 1, *../ .-,;lli: r"' !;. r? IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEV] EADA MOTOR ACCIDEN T CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 30 OF 202'l Between:

1. The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Rep., by its Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, RTC X Roads, Hyderabad-

2. The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Rep., by its Depot Manager, Mancherail Depot, Adilabad District. ...APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS AND 1 . E. Yellaiah, S/o. Yellaiah, Aged 33 years, Occ. Cooli, Rl/o. H. No. 5-78, Dubbak Mandalam, Thimmapur, Medak District. Presently Ri./o. H. No. 10- 325/9, Malkalgiri, Hyderabad. 2 E. Kanaka Raju, S/o. E. Yellaiah, Aged 9 years, Occ. Student, Fl/o 78, Dubbak lr/landalam, Thimmapur, Medak District. Presently R/o 325/9, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad. H. No.5- H. No. 10- 3 E. Raviteja, S/o. E. Yellaiah, Aged 7 years, Occ. Student, Rl/o. H. No.5-78, Dubbak Mandalam, Thimmapur, Medak District. Presently Rl/o. H. No. 10- 325/9, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad. (Respondents No. 2 and 3 herein being minors represented by their father and natural guardian i.e. Respondent No.'t ) 4 Nisar Ahmed Fakruddin, Aged. 50 years, Occ. Driver of TSRTC bearing registration No. AP 29 22351, Fl/o. H. No. 12-4, lslampura, Bellampally Road, Mancherail, Adilabad- 5042908. ...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Judgment and Decree in MVOP. No. 1398 of 2017 dated 1210212020 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-the Court of the Chief .Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. The appeal coming on hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Court below and the material papers in the MVOP and upon hearing the arguments of Sri THOOM SRINI\/AS, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri M AJAY KUMAR MADISETTY, Advoc,rte for the Respondent Nos. 1 TO 3. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: petition till realization.

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal br: and hereby is parfl;y allowed filed by the TSRTC against the order ahd decree dated 12.O2.2b20 ia MVOP 1398 ot 2017 passed by Motor Accident Claims l-r,bunal-Cum-the Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. 2. That the rate of interest reducing from 9% lo T.S% p.a from the date of claim 3. That, however, the interest for the period of delay, if any, is forfeited. 4. That the appellanUTSRTC is be and her6by diie,cted to deposit the compensation amount within a period of two montlrs frorn the aate oi'receipi of _ a.copy of this judgment after deducting the amount if any already depositedT 5. That on such deposit the respondents are entifled to wiihclraw the s'aio amount without furnishing any security as per their respective shares as allotted by the Tribunal. 6. That save as aforementioned, the decree of the Tribunal shall stands confirmed 7. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. in all other respects; and Sd/..M. OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, GR 1 . The Chairman, MACT-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Court,Hyderabad 2. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:04/0712025 DECREE MACMA.N o.30 of 2021 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS ( 2 10 l',t