The High Court · 2025

Judgment

This appeal is hled by TSRTC, aggrieved br Lhe Order and Decree dated 04.l2.2ol9 in M.V.O.P.No.28 of 2017 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims 1'ribunai-cum-O ty Civil Court, Secunderabad (for short "the Tribunal").

For convenience and clarity, the parties herejl are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal-

3. The case of the petitioners before Lhe Tribur r[ was that on

05.O1.2017 at about 6:20 hours, while the decca::d was driving the auto from Mahindra Hi1ls towards Tukara rr Gate in a passenger auto bearing No.AP-13 X-9924 and ort reaching near Re.truka Ycllamma Ternpie Kaman, one RTC bus bt: ring No.AP-29- Z 3445 driven by its driver in a rash and neglige I t manner at a high speed, dashed the said auto cn account of whir h the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot.

4. The Respondent No. 1 died during the pe 'rdency of the proceedings and thus the case against him was abz -cd.

5. The respondent No.2 filed courtter denying 11 e averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, \ 2 ETD,] MACMA No.78 2021 avocation and income of the deceased. It is further contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself and thus their corporation is not liable to pay any compensation.

6. Based on the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for trial 0 ii) iii) Whether deceosed-D. Sree Ra.m, died due to the accident occurred with rash and negligent dnuing of the diuer of RTC bus beaing No.AP-29 Z-3445? Whether the petitioners are entitled for anA compensation? If so, at what qLLantum and what is the liability of the respondents? To tuhqt relieP 7 . To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PWs 1 and 2 and got marked Exs.Al to A6. On behalf of the respondents no oral evidence was adduced.

8. . Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 16, 10,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred by TSRTC g. Heard the submissions ol Sri R. Anurag, learned Standing Counsel for TSRTC and Sri Vladimeer Khatoon, learned counsel for the respondents.

10. Learned counsel for appellant has contended that the tribunai has grarrted excess compensation, though no proof of trrcom' is frled by the petitioners, the tribunal has assessed the 3 ETD,J MACMA No.78 2021 income of the deceased to be Rs. 10,0OO/- per morl h which is very high. He lurther argued that the tribunal oulJ Lt not to have awarded future prospects and compensation to, ,ards love and affection in this case and he therefore, prayerl to reduce the compensation. He further contended that the peti, rners have also not filed any proof of age. He further argued tJt rt the accident occurred due to the contributory negligence of th : deceased and that there is no negligence on part of the bus drive- 1 l. Learned counsel for the respondents on the rther hand has argued that the tribunal has passed a well justific-: order and that the deceased was earning Rs.2O,00O/- per month, I ut the tribunal has assessed the earnings to be Rs.i0,O00/- per r .onth, which is infact very low. She further argued that the loss oI ,onsortium has to.be awarded to all the claimants, but the tribun rl has au.arded only to tu'o of the claimants. She therefore, prayer -o enhance the compensation as per the guidelines laid dorv r Insurance Compang Limited Vs. prdnay Sethi , by National 't Othersl and Magma General Insurance Compang Limited t,. Chuhnt Ram and othersz. She further cont<: Nanu Ram @ Lded that the accident occurred only due to the rash and neglig: rce of the RTC driver and that the RTC cannot take the plea r f contributory ArR 2017 SCC 5157 '1:ota,; ts scc t:o 4 ETD,J MACMA No.78 2021 negligence at the appellate stage without any pleadings in their favour.

12. Based on thc above rival contentions, this Cour[ frames the following points for determination: 1 2 3 Whether there u)as ang contibutory negliqence on part of the deceased.-D. Sree Ram in the occurrence of accident? Wrctler the compensation granted bg the Tribunat is just and reasonable? Wrcther the order and decree of the Tibunal need ang tnterference?

4. To uhat re,lieP

13. POINT NO. I: a) PW2 is examined as an eye witness in this case. It is the case of the petitioners that the deceased while driving the auto bearing No.AP-13-X-9924 h.as met with an accident as the RTC bus bearing No.np-Zg-Z-5445 has hit against his auto and as a result of the accident, the deceased died. To prove their case, PW2 is examined. b) The name of PW2/N. i'larsaiah S/o Late Pochaiah, does not hgure in the charge sheet as an eye witness. Thus the contention of the appellant's counsel is that PW2 is not an eye witness to the accident. However, a perusal of the evidence of PW2 discloses that on 05.O1.2017 at about 6:20 hours he has seen the accident suffered by the deceased at T\rkaram Gate Kamaan, the auto of the decedsed was hit by the RTC bus bearing No. AP-29-Z-3445. In his ! 5 ETD,I MACMA Nc.78 2021 cross examination he admitted that his name is n rt mentioned in the charge sheet as eye witness, but he stated t rat police have recorded his statement about the accident. Ie denied the suggestion that hc is a relative of the deceascd or I stock witness. Thus, the evidencc of PW2 stood unshakcn dr ring the cross examinalion. c) A peruszrl of the FIR under Ex.Al and Char 3e Sheet under Ex.A2 shorvs that the accused is the driver of RTC rus bearing No. AP 29-Z-3445 ancl the contents reveal that, whr : the deccased r,r.as going to Tukaram Gate from Mahindra Hill; by driving thc arrto bearing No. AP- l3-X-9924, one RTC bus bearL. gNo. AP-29-Z- 3445 being drivcn by its driver in a rash and ne ;ligent manner coming lrom Shenoy Nursing Home to AddaguttiL side at a high specd dashecl thc auto as a result, the deceased ft. down and the Ielt front tyre of t.he bus ran over the head of the rl,r eased, causing blceding injurics and that the deceased died on the pot. d) A perusal of the PME report also reveals t: I fact that the deceased died due to multiple injuries and the injL ries menrjoned in the PME report further reveal that there is a cnr h injury of the head, apart from other injuries. Thus, the recitals rf charge sheet dis{ose that the accident occurred due to raslr and negligent \ driving of the driver of the RTC bus. There is no r:r.: lence adduced 6 ETD,J MACMA No.78 2021 by the RTC to dispute the same and thus, it is held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the RTC bus driver and that there was no contributory negligence on part of the deceased. Point No. 1 is answered accordingly.

14. Point No.2:- a) PWI asserted that the deceased used to eke out his livelihood as an auto driver, and the record reveals Lhat he was driving the auto bearing No. AP- 13-X-9924 at the time of the accident. The PME report reveals the age of the deceased as'42' years. He was running a family of 3 members i.e., his wife and two children, apart from maintaining himself. Thus, based on the evidence on record, it is opined that the income as assessed by the tribunal i.e., Rs.1O,O00/- per month appears to be justihed. b) As per the dicta laid down in National Insurance Compang Ltmited Vs. Pranag Sethl & Otherss,2Soh of the income needs to be added towards future prospects. As the deceased is aged 42 years, adding 25%o towards future prospects i.e., 1O,O0O+2,500 would give Rs.12,500/- per month, which comes to Rs.12,5OO/- x 12 = Rs. I,5O,00O/- per annum. 3 ArR 2or z scc 5157 7 ETD,J MACMA No.78 2021 c) The number of claimants herein are threc and thercfore, 1 / 3'a deduction need to be made to his income t,r i'ards personal expcnses and this lvould comc up to Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs.1,50,000/- ( ) Rs.so,000/-). d) The multiplier should bc chosen with regarcl t I the age of the deceased as per column No.4 of the table given in ti rrla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporationa, the deceased being tged '42'years, thc appropriate multiplier is '14'. Therefore, the loss of dependency is assessed as Rs.14,OO,OOO/- (Rs. 1,OO,OO0 x 14). e) It is observed that the Tribunal has grante: Rs.1,00,OOO/ towards love and affection, and has not granted p -oper amounts under the heads of "Consortium". The claimants rerein are wife and daughters of the deceased, but the Tribur r I has granted Rs,40,O0O/- to the u.ife and Rs.4O,000/- to both ttr, children. This Court is bound by the guidelines laid down by th: Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case (supral. In the light of Pranag Sethi's case, Rs. 15OO I /, towards loss 0 of estate and Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral rxpenses and Rs.4O,O00/- towards loss of consortium have to b , awarded and the said amounts should be enhanced by 7Oo/o everr three years. \- 'roos 1oy ilc ru r 8 ETD,J MACMA No.78 2021 g) It Mq.gnta Generq.l In,surq.nce Conpang Limited. a. No,nu Ram @ Chuhnt Ram and. other*, the Apex Court has elaborately discussed the principles laid down in Pranag Sethi's case and has further held that not only the spouse but the parents and children of the deceascd are also entitled to loss of consortium. Therefore, in the present case, the claimants would get Rs.48,400/- each towards loss of consortium, hence, the compensation amount under this head would be Rs. 1,45,200/- instead of Rs.4O,OOO/ . Further an amount of Rs. 18,150/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.18,15O/- towards Loss of Estate have to be awarded. h) In ail, the petitioners are entitled to the following compensation amounts:- 1 4 Compensation under the head of loss of dependency Compensation towards loss of consortium Compcnsation towards loss of estate Compensation towards [uneral expcnses Total Rs.14,OO,OOO/- Rs.r,45,2OOl- Rs.l8,l5()/- Rs.l8,15O/- Rs.r5,8l,5OO/- i) Therefore, the compensation to which the petitioner is entitled is calculated as Rs.15,81,5OO /- while the Tribunal has granted Rs. 16,10,000/- Hence, it is held that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal has to be reduced. Hence, point No.2 is answered accordingly. '1zom; rs scc rso -"? 9 ETD,J MACMA No.78 2021

15. Point No.3:- in vier.r, of the findings arrived at Point Nos. I & 2, the order and decree of the Tribunal need to be modifit> [ reducing the compensation from Rs.16, 10,OOO/ to 15,81,50O/- Point No.3 is answered accordingly

16. Point No.4:- In lhe result, the appeal is partly allowec compensation from Rs.16,10,OO0/ to 15,81,5Oo , reducing the - @) 7.5o/o per annum from the date of claim petition till r ralization. The Insurance Company has already deposited 50o1, r f the decreetal amount awarded by the Tribunal which is wi . Ldrawn by the respondents herein. Therefore, the balance arr runt is to be deposited by the Corporation within a period of ti o months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On s,r ch deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the said rr nount without furnishing any security. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in tt is appeal, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// IS )'. A.V.S. PRASAD T) iPUTY REGISTRAR //..,, \_i7' SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cunr City Civil Court at Secunderabad. (With records, if any)

2. one CC to Sri. R.Anurag, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri. Vladimeer Khatoon, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies KH/gh o !!@a=qw-ra"J .c- ,i + HIGH COURT DATED:2510712025 I 1H'- ST4 \ li, JIJAN2m6 t' ,-. JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.No.78 ot 2O21 [ 2 DRAF'r'ril PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS. d' ol ,,6 { 134441 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA MOTOR ACCIDENT clvlL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 78 OF 2021 Between: The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Regional Manager, GH Region, Personal Department, JBS, Picket, Secunderabad. ...AppellanURespondent AND 1 Doornaka Laxmi, Wo. Late D. Sree Ram, Aged about 36 years, Occ Household, R/o. H. No. 11-2-472121, Mohamadguda, Chilkaguda, Secunderabad.

2. Doornaka Deepika, D/o, Late D. Sree Ram, Aged about 11 years, Occ Student, R/o. H. No.'11-2472121 , Mohamadguda, Chilkaguda, Secunderabad.

3. Doornaka Harika, D/o. Late D. Sree Ram, Aged about 8 years, Occ. Student, R/o H. No. 1 1 -247 2t21 . Moha mads uda, ch i rkas.uda, s;:ylllT*rit,,tio ne rs (Respondents No. 2 and 3 here being minors represented by their mother and natural guardian i.e. Respondent No.'1 herein.)

4. S. Yadagiri, S/o. Narsaiah, Aged. Major, Occ. RTC-Driver, R/o. Ranigunj-'l , Depot, Ranigunj, M.G. Road, Secunderabad. N/o. Mundoor Village and Mandal, Warangal. (Respondent No.4 herein not a necessary party as no relief claimed against him in the present appeal)' ...Respondents/petitioners Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,1988 against the Order and decree in M.V.O.P.No. 28 of 2017 daied. 04.12.2019 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- City Civil Court at Secunderabad. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the Case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri. R.Anurag, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri. Vladimeer Khatoon, Advocate for the Respondent No.4 and none appeared for the respondent No.1 to 3. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal it and hereby is partly allowed,

2. That the compenstion amount reducing from Rs.16,10,1 )01 to Rs.15,81,5001 @ 7.5%p.a. from the date of claim petition till realizatiorr 3. That the lnsurance company has already deposited amount awarded by the tribunal which be and herj 0% of the decreetal ry withdrawn by the respondents herein;

4. That therefore, the balance amount is to be deposile within a period of two months from the date of rece J by the corporation pt of a copy of this Judgment;

5. That on such deposit, that the claimnants be and hereL r entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security;

6. That save as aforesaid, the Judgment and decree of tl't Tribunal shall stands confirmed in all other respects; and

7. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. I D/. A.V.S. PRASAD : EPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER Tribunal-curr City Civil Court at //TRUE COPY// To, '1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Secunderabad. (With records, if any)

2. Two CD Copies KH/gh r!- HIGH COURT DATED:2510712025 DECREE MACMA.No.78 o12021 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS. 06