The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : - The Court made the following: JUDGMENT IN THL HI(;H COUIII' FOII ]'HI- STA'I'E OII TEI-ANGANA AT HYDERABAD HON'BI,E SI(t JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO MACMA NO.4O OF 2022 DATE:72.12.2025 IJetrveen: Manclla Dcr'.rmma (rl I.arnri [)er';rnrma rv/o. \4.Krishr-r.rial-r l\ntl The llegiorral Manager, lSR t C (prc-r,kruslv AI) St.rtc. Roari Ir.rnsport (-or'poratiorr I td.,), rep.trv its Relgiona[ \lanagt,r.rntl arrotht,r. Ap pcllan t/ claiman t Iics 1-ro n6{sn 1s/ respondents IUDCMENT Ihis r\ppcal is rlirrrtctl algair-rst tht' orclcr and dccrce dated

25.09.2020 in \{ \/ () I) \o.127 ot 20 lE, passer-l bv the Judge, Famil,,, Court-curn-VIII Atltiitional District Judge lVlahabtrbnarlar (lor slrort,'tht, Irilrunal'), rvhcrein the claim of tl-rc appellant IS .rlloncrl-it'r-p.rrL, aw;rrclit.rg compensation of 2 scR,l MACMA No 40 of 2022 < 1,56,304/ - with interest at 9o/o per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization w,ith proportionate costs.

2. T he brief iactual matrix of the present appeal is that on

13.02.2018 at 12.30 p.m., the appellant/claim petitioner was a pillion rider of I Icro I londa Bike bearing registration No.TS-06- EK-8391, dri",cn hv her son, her relatives were traveling on another bike, who r^.i ere proceeding from their village b Kollapur, and when the_v all reache'd Mylaram rivulct on pWD Road, and their companion Lrikcr stopped the bike to rc.lieve himself, while the petitioner was going in front of the bike crossing the rivulet and bridge, the tlriver of RTC Bus bearing rcgistration No.Ap_29_ 2-2169 car-rre from Kollap-ru1 in rash and ncgligent manner with high speed and dashed the petitioner's bike, due to which, the claim petitioner ancl hcr son sustained grievous injuries. lmmediatelr,, thr.r' n,elc rushed to thc GovernmenI llospital, Wanaparthy, and shifted to Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad on the same day for better treahnent; that petitioner later aclmitted at 3 5CR,J MACMA No 40 ol2A22 NI\,lS Hospital, Il.,,clcrabacl on 20.02.2018 for further treatment antl rlischarller'l aftr,r Len clavs, that her right h.t nr-1 n,as opc.rated and steel rods rvere inserted

2.7. The Police, Kodair Police Station, registered a case in Crime No. l6 o[ 2018 trnder Scction 337 oi IPC against the tlrivur of crime vehicle and laicl a charge-sheet unck'r Section 338 of IpC before the cornpetent Court

2.2. lt is ftrrthel contcntletl tlrat appgll,1l1t rlas agccl 50 years, hale and healthy prior to tlre date ol acciclc,nt ancl was earning { 300/- per dai,by cloing agricultural labour, that due to the said accict,nt, sltc rr as u..rblt' tlr t1. rr,ork a.rl .tls. sufferccl pain and suffering besides being pu1 to merrtal agon_r. and lost the source of lncome

3. Ihc I ribur-ral, .rr tlut' r'lt(lrir\, .1.(] (), r:.nsiclcring the oral and documentarv evidence prlacecl by thc injured claimant, has categorically helci that thc acciclent occurrcd due to rash and negligcnt ciri'irrg oI t]rt, t.ri,rc 'clricle (rnLl .l\\ ardcLl compensation 4 5CR,J MACMA No 40 of 2U) of < 1,56,304/-, bv fastening the liabilitv on the respondents i.e., the owner of the crime vehicle and the R-tC driver of the crime vehicle jointly and scverallv.

4. Aggrievecl hv the same, thc appellant/claim petitioncr filed the present Appeal for enhancement of the compensation for grant of .just ancl fair comperlsation.

5. Learned counse I for arppcllant contcnded that the Tribunal ought to have granted j ust compensation as claimed by the claimant, and ought to havc arvarded interest @ 12% to 15%o per annum. He furthcr subrnittcd that the 'l'ribunal erred in awarding vcry meager compensation tou,ards grievous injurie s received by thc claimant, pain and suffering, transport and medical cxpcnses .rncl Irnall1,, praye d lor enhancement of compensation.

6. Pcr cotrtra, learned counscl for the respondent No.1/TGRTC submitted that on due. corrsic{eration of the evidencc and material placed orr record, the Tribunal had rightly awarded the 5 SCR,I MACMANa 40al2022 comPerlsrrtion and thcrc,iore, an,-l thc appoll;irrt/clairnant has not ma({(' out anv gr()unLls kr interfere with the rn,ell consiclerecl aw.rrd passeci by the l ribunal and prayecl to dismiss the appeal.

7. I{eartl I\'1r. K.\/cnkatcslt Gu[rt.i, lc,irrnocl courrscl for thc appellant-claimant ancl Mr. Marrecsh Rt:clclu, learnecl counsel replt,senting Mr. R.Anurag, learne,d Stanr{irrg Courrsel for rcsl-ro116lpp1 No.1- ICR I-C .rn11 Pc.rusecl thc rlrak'rial on rccorrl

8. I'he onll, poinI arist s ior consicleration bel-orr. this Court is that, n,hether the Tribunal has grantcd just arrcl fair compensatiorr to tht'claimalrt lor tlrr. injurics srrstairrccl br lrt,r

9. As is eviclenl from the recorcl, vicle F.x. A6-discharge summarv oI Yashorla hospital, Ex. A7-rl ischar.ge summarl, 6f NIMS Ilospital, Ilytlerarbad, Iix.r\10- X-rav frln'rs of Yashoda I lospit;rl, ancl Ex.A11 - X-ray films oi NIMS hospital, Hyc.lerabad, the a ppellan t/ claima rrt sustainecl tn,o fracture injuries kr both boncs o[ tl-re rig,ht hand .rn11 onc. simplc ir-rjr-r r.r, and for tl-re said 6 SCR't MaCMA No.4A of 2022 injuries, the Tribunal has awarded comprensation of < 40,000/-, at the rate of f 20,000/- ior each l.racture ancl { 10,(XX)/- lbr clar..icle bone fracture. As per the evidence of P.W.2-P.Raja Kumar, Deputy Registrar, the claimant w,as adrnitted in NIMS Flospital on

76.02.2078 and dischargecl orr 22.02.2018. On a perusal of the record, it is evident that the irrjureci claimant received treatment under the 'Aarogyasri' schcrne at NIN4S Hospital, and the said fact was not disputed b1' the injurcd clairnant. Considcring tl-re fact that the injured clairnant has taken treatment in Yashoda hospital, for which he nright l-r.rve spcnt somc expenditure, to which thc Iribunal awarclcrl cln cmlourlt oi < 76,304/ - ton,ards medical bills, { 10,000/- towards transport charges, { 20,0001 for pain and suffering

10. On a perusal o[ the impugnct-l order, having regarc-l to the evidence adduced and the material placcd on record, and also considering the fact that thc, injurcd clainrant reccived treatment at NIMS Hospital undcr the 'r\arogl asri' scheme, this Court finds 7 5CR,l MACM^ No /r0 ol 2A22 lhat thc crrTr()Lllrts .L\\'.trlierl by tltc-l rrhunal uncltr tlifierent hcads are just anrl rcasonable. Therefore, the appcllant/ inj ured claimant failed to ooint out any illegality and irregularity in the award passt:d [l' -he. Tribunal warranting interference b1, this Coun. 'l'l'rr-is, tl-ris Court rs not inclined to rntcrlere u,ith thc award passcd by the Tribunal and the appeal, being tlevoicl of merits, is liable to bt: dismissed. I l. Ar:cr.rrdingll , th( Appeal [:ri]s and is accordingly dismissed There shall bc no order as to costs.

12. Pcnding misccllaneous appltcations if anv shall stand t: l<tsc cl SD/- A,H.S.GOWRI SHANKAR REGISTRAR AS ]STANT / //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER ) To, 1 The Judqe, Family Court-cum-Vlll Addl District J u-d^ge at'tvlahabubnagar , ci;'."ctY; sni xlvtr'rxn#sH GuPrAAdvocate [oPUCl 6 SliE EE i" s'ni n nNUdXG ist roR rsRrc) Advo'cate IoPUCI 4. Two CD CoPies GE/PSL &- HIGH COURT DATED:'1211212025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.40 of 2022 o .t 5l A r't ? 5 'tll ?tzB t, +.d .\'llv f r) ( DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS -l<s 1f z/ze N THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD [ 3485 ] FRIDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEIMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO MOTOR ACC IDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEO US APPEA L NO: 40 OF 2022 Between: Mandla Devamma @ Laxmi Devamma, Wo lvlandla Krishnaiah' Age 52years Occ F;T;;; E.pi;v"",ilo u.rlop.- 7-37. Ivladhavaraopally village' Pangal S9n!at' wanapartnv'oidtrict, presenttv residins at Yenusonda '"'"n".'$ilEort}l$Y,T,;"#1", AND

1. The Regional lrlanager, TSRTC (Previously.A P State Road Transport ' Coipoia"tion t-to , refireienled by'its regionil mana-ger' Regioral otfice lvtatiaouonagar. (bui bearing No- AP129-Z-2169 of Kollapur Depot' 2 G.Chinna SwamY, S/o G.Savaraiah No- AP 29-2-2169, KollaPur DePot. , Age. 45years, Occ. Driver of Bus Bearing ...RESPONDENTS/ResPondents Appeal filed under Section 173 of M V Act' aggrieved by the order and decree dated 25tOgt2O2O passed in M V O P No 127 of 2018 on the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-Vlll Addl District Judge at lvlahabubnagar' This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the.iudgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the argument of trilr' Venkatesh Gupta' Advocate for the Appellant and Mr. Maneesh Reddy, counsel reprinting Mr' R Anurag' Advocate appeared for Respondent No.1 and none appeared for Respondent No 2 This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident civil lr4iscellaneous Appeal be and is hereby dismissed.

2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal SD/- A.H.S.GOWRI SHANKAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR llrue Copyll To (with record, if a ny). '1 . The Judge, Family Court cum-Vlll Addl 2. Two CD Copies BJLB/PSL S ION OFFICER District Judge at Mahabubnagar HIGH COURT DAIED:1211212025 DECREE MACMA.No.4O ot 2022 DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS (i't_t"-'' elzf z c