The High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. 2. 3.

4. Cheema Lalitha, W/o. Late Sathyam, aged 40 years, Occ. House Hold,0 Cheema Sri Charan, S/o. Late Sathyam, aged 25 years, Occ. Student, Cheema Sai Charan, S/o. Late Sathyam age 17 years, Occ. Student (Respondent No. 3 being minor, is represented by his mother and natural guardian i.e. 1st Respondent) Cheema Yellamma, w/o Late Lalaiah, age 65 years, Occ.nil, All are R/o Vattikammaphad Viltage of Chivvemla Mandal Nalgonda District. ... RESPON DENTS/PETITIONERS

5. Kanikuntla Krishna Reddy, S/o. Shekar Reddy, aged 40 years, Occ. Driver, Staff No. 826238, in RTC, Khammam District (Driver of RTC bus bearing No. AP 29-2-2383) ...RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT NO.1 Counsel for the Appellant: SRI A.RAVI BABU (SC FOR TSRTC) Counsel for the Respondents: SRI KADARU PRABHAKAR RAO The Court made the following: JUDGMENT \r.\ f\ i i T I t E I

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA M.A.C.M.A.NO.408 0F 2()21 JUDGMENT: This erppcal is filed by APSRTC, aggrieved b1' the Order and Decrce daterl O'2.O7.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.193 of 201(, passecl by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-ll Additiontrl District Judge, Nalgonda (for short "the Tribunal")

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

3. The case of the petitioner before the Tribr-rnal is that on lO.O3.2O2O, a.t about 3:3O p.m., the deceased-Sathl'am rvas going on his Splendour motor bike from his viilage Vattikammampad towtrrds Suryilpet on his personal work and when he reached near Natraj parboiled Rice Mill situated in the outskirts o1'Beebigudem Village, one R'fC Bus bearing No.AP-29-Z-2383, drirzen by its drivcr in a rash &nrl negligent manner at a high speed coming from Khammam towards Hyderabad, dashed the motor cycle from behind. As a result, the deceased fell down and sustained severe head injury. Irnmediately after the accident he was shifted to Area Hospital, Suryapet in 108 Ambulance, but he succutnbed to the injuries at 5:O0 p.ffi., while undergoing treatment. It is their case that the deceased is an outdoor photographer and is a member of 2 ETD,J MACMA No.408-2021 Photo and Videographer Association and rlras earning Rs.15,OOO/- per month, they claimed a compensation of Rs' 18,00,000/-'

4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.l remained ex-parte

5. Respondent No.2 filed its counter affidavit denying the petition averments and further contended that the bus bearing No.AP-29 -Z-2383 is not involved in the accident and that no such accident occurred on 10.03.2OL6 at 3:30 p.m., and that the RTC driver was not rash and negligenl anci that the RTC is not liable to pay any compensation.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has frameci thc following issues:- 1

3. Whether the deceased Bgnanne Cheertta Satgnrrt died- in the road tralfic accident due to rash ani trcgligent driuittg of the diuer of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP-29-Z-2383? Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim contpertsation, if so to what rate andfromwhom? To uhat relief ?

7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PWs 1 to 3 and got marked Exs.Al to A6. On behalf of the respondents, no eviderice was adduced.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.15,35,OO0/-. Aggrieved by the said Order and Decree dated O2.O7.2020, the present appeal is filed by the RTC. li,l:i .,,+':isgffi;ts-:i3iE# ::::.t::::L_1.--. - f 'r/ /* 'O ttt'u 3 ETD,J MACMA No.408 2021

9. Heard Sri A. Ravi Babu, learned Standing Cot-ttrsel for TSRTC appcaring for the appellant and Sri Kadaru Prabhakar Rao, learned counscl for t.:rr: rcspondents.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant has slrbrnitted that the order ernd decree of the Tribunal is contrary to larv and that the Tribunal has simltly relied upon the oral testimony of PW2 and has helcl that the ilccident occurred due to the negligent Act of the IRTC bus driver. He further argued that the Tribunal erred in assessirro '.dt. the income of the deceased and has applied a wrong multiplier and grossly crred ir-r calculating the,,!ojal.amount of compensation. He therefore, prarred to set aside,the order and decree by allorving this appeal. I 1. Learnecl counsel for the respondents on the <>ther hand has prayscl that thr: Tribunal has correctly calculated the compensation and that there is nr> need to interfere with the same.

12. Based or: the above rival submission, this Court frames the points for determination:-

1. Whether th<z accident has not occurred due to the rash and negligence of the diuer of bus bearing No.AP-29-Z-2383?

2. Whether the compensation granted by the Tibunal is just and reasonable? 4 ETD,J MACMA No.408 2021

3. Whether the Order and Decree passed by tlrc Tribunal need any interference? 4. To what relieJ?

13. Point No.1: a) Learned counsel for the appellants disputed the accident itself, but has failed to produce any evidence. A perusal of the evidence reveals that the petitioners got examined pw2 n,ho is listed as eye witness in the charge sheet. pw2 runs a hotet opposite to Natraj Rice Miit apd his evidence reveals that the accident took place on the other side of the road opposite to his hotel and that he witnessed the same as he was standing in front of his hotel and has clearly stated that the front portion of the bus dashed the motor vehicle from behind. He further stated that the bus was coming at a high speed anci that due to rash and negligence of the bus driver, the accident has occurred and that the bus pertains to Bhadrachalam Depot. Though a suggestion was given to him during his cross exarxunation that he gave a statement to the Depot Manager, stating that he has not seen the accident the same was denied by him. Thus, nothing material could be elicited from him to discredit his evidence. A perusal of charge sheet reveals that it is filed against the bus driver after investigation by the Police. Hence, it is held that the accident I l" 5 ETD,J MACMA No.408_2021 occurred clltc to the rash and negiigence of i.he: driver of bus bearing No AP 29-Z-2383. Point No.1 is ansr,r,ered accordingly. L4. Point No.2:- b) PW t has asserted that the deceasecl used to earn Rs.15,000 I - per month as an outdoor PhotograJrher. Ex.A7 is the Identity Carc'l of the deceased issued by thc Photographers Association. P\\/3 \lras exarhined to prove the income of the dcceased and birsed on the evidence on record, thc Tribunal has assessed the: income of the dedeased as Rs.10,000/- per month. PW3 is the President of Photographer's Association and Ex.A7 is proved through his evidence, thus the deceased is believed to be a photographe:r', on a. reasonable hypothesis, the income of the deceased can be taken as Rs.10,000/- per month as assessed by the Tribunal. c) As per t.he dicta laid down in National Insurance Comp@ng Limited Vs. Pranag Sethi and Otherslr 2Soh of the income needs to be addcd t.ovvards future prospects. As the deceasecl is aged '40' y&rs, adding 25o/o towards future prospects would give 'AIRzorzscc5r5? 6 ETD,J MACMA No.408-2021 Rs.12,5OO/- [Rs.i0,0O0 + (Rs.i0,0OO x 25ll00ll per month, which comes to Rs.1,5O,OOO l- per annum (Rs.12,500 x 12). d) The number of claimants herein are four and therefore, I f 4th deduction need to be made in his income. towards personal expenses and this rnould come up to Rs.lrL2,SOOl- [Rs.1,50,000 - (Rs. 1,50,000 x %) 1 e) The Post Mortem Examination Report filed under Ex.A2 reveals the age of the deceased as '40'years. The multiplier should be chosen with regard to the age of the deceased as per column No.4 of the table given in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation2e PME Report, the deceased being aged '4O'years, the appropriate multiplier is '15'. Therefore, the loss of dependency is assessed as Rs.16,87,500/- (Rs.1,12,500 x 15). 0 In the light of Pranag Sethi's case, Rs.15,0OO/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.4O,O00/- towards loss of consortium have to be awarded and further the said amounts have to be enhanced by 107o every three 'zooe rgl scc t2l I ilj! I I I i 7 ETD,J MACMA No.408_2021 g) ln lltagma General Insurance Companu l-,knited u. Nanu Ram @Chuhru Rann and others3, the Apex Cr>un'r- has elaborately discussecl the principlcs laid down ro Pranag Sethi's case and has lurther helcl that not only the spouse but the parcnts and children of the deceasecl are also entitlecl to loss of consortium. Therefore, in the prescnt case, the claimants would get I?s.48,000/- each towards consortium, hence, the compensation ermount under this hcad woulC be Rs.L,92,OOO/- instead of Rs.40,00t)/-. Further an amount of IRs.l8,OOO/- towards funeral expensert and Rs.18,OO0/- towards Los;s ol trstate have to be awarded. Thercfrrre, it is opined that the enhancement of com.pensation from Rs.L5,35,OOO/- to that of Rs.19,15,5OO/- r,vould be justified in the present case. h) The present appeal is pref'erred by the RTC ernrl no appeal or Cross Objec:tion filed by the claimants. Now iht: question is whether this Court can enhance the compensation in an appeal by Insurance Company. i) In Surekha and Ors. I/s. Santosh and Or#, rhe claimants case 'vvas allou'ed b1, the Tribunal awarding a compensation of Rs.40, 17 ,602 I -. Aggrieved by the said order, the Insurance Company has; filed an appeal before the High Court wherein, the High Court has held that the claimants are entitled to '1zora; 18 scc l3cl o eyzrlrco scc 467 ,l I I i 8 ETD,J MACMA No.408-2021 .i! :, Rs.49,15,3761-, but has held that the High Court cannot enlarge the scope of the appeal and cannot enhance the compensation more than that awarded by the Tribunal, in an appeal filed by the Insurance Company. However, the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company claiming reduction of compensation was dismissed. When the matter reached Apex Court, it has held that in the matters of Motor Accident Claims, the Court should not take hyper technical approach and ensure that just compensation is arvarded to the claimants. By hciding So, the Apex Court has modified the order passed by the High Court to the effect that the compensation amount payable to the appellants is determined as Rs.49,85,3761- with interest thereon as awarded by the High Court. j) In Andhra Pradesh State Roo,d Transport Vs. Dusari Pramila and Anothers , the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.9,00,OOOl- and aggrieved by the same, the Insurance Company has preferred an appeal before this High Court and a Bench of this High Court has held that even in the absence of Cross Appeal or Cross Objection filed by the respondents, it is pertinent to consider the jurisdiction of this Court to grant just compensation and has enhanced the compensation from 'MAe+cR.No.88 of 2ol4 9 ETD,J MACMA No.408 2021 Rs.9,00,0O,) /- to Rs.15,82,600/- r.vith. an interest o1'67o per annum from the date of petition till realization. k) In tht: light of the above cited decisions, thr: (rompensation is cnhanced frorn Rs.15,35,0OO/- granted by tht: Tribunal to Rs.19,15,500/- Point No.2 is answered accordingly

15. POINT NO.3: In vieu, of the finding arrived at point No.l a;rd 2, it is held thzrt the or<ler and decree passed by the Tribr-rnirl need to be modilicd rvit.h regard to the ouantum of compcrrsation. The claimants are entitled for Rs.19,15,500/- tou,ards just and Ir I \t' reasonable compensation. Point No.3 is answered accordingly

16. POINT NO.4: In the result, the appeal is disposed of uphol<iir-:g the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due' 1.o rash and negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC bus bearir-rg No.AP-29-Z-

2383. Further, the compensation is enhanced from IRs;.15,35,000/- to Rs. 19,15,500 I - and the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest (@ 7 .soh per annum from the date of ciaim petition till realization. However, the interest for the period of delay, if any is \ I I I i i I , i t 10 ETD,J MACMA No.408 2021 forfeited. The appellants shall pay the deficit Court fee. The respondent Nos.l and 2 are directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment after deducting the amount if any already deposited. on such deposit, the appellant is entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any securitjr as per their respective shares as allotted by the Tribunal. The judgment copy shall be made available subject to the payment of deficit Court fee by the appella:-.ts No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shalt stand closed //TRUE COPYII SD/- N SRIHARI, REGISTR.AR. OFFICER To, Additional District Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet.

1. The Chairperson, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-ll r0\ ? lne pc to sRt A RAV| BABU1SC FoR rsRtcl nouo"ate [opuc] W i ff:33 8;[L^^DARU PRABHAKAR RAo Advocate ropuc] BGS r' ,/ ,/ e. HIGH COURT ETD, J DATED: 2810312025 '( STATE o o 'l \\t\ t$6 '1 -t; * I JUDGMENT MACMA.No.4O8 of 2021 DISPOSING OF THE MACTVIA WITHOUT COSTS b I I I ; 1 i ! I I I I ! i "l' IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT l3aa1 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCE EOUS APPEAL NO: 408 0F 2021 Between: The General Manager, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. (Owner of TSRTC bus bearing No. Ap-29-Z-2383) ...APPELLANT /RESPONDENT NO.2 AND '1. Cheema Lalitha, Wo. Late Sathyam, aged 40 years, Occ. House Hold,0 2. Cheema Sri Charan, S/o. Late Sathyam, aged 25 yearq Occ. Student, 3. Cheema Sai Charan, S/o. Late Sathyam age 17 years, Occ. Student (Respondent No. 3 being minor, is represented by his mother and natural guardian i.e. 'l st Respondent)

4. Cheema Yellamma, w/o Late Lalaiah, age 65 years, Occ.nil, All are Rl/o Vattikammaphad Village of Chiwemla Mandal Nalgonda District. ...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS

5. Kanikuntla Krishna Reddy, S/o. Shekar Reddy, aged 40 years, Occ. Driver, Staff No. 826238, in RTC, Khammam District (Driver of RTC bus bearing No. AP 29-2-2383) ...RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT NO.1 Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Judgment and decree in M.V.O.P.No.193 OF 2016 dated O2.O7.2020 on the fite of the Court of the Chairperson, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-ll Additional District Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet. ORDER:. The appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of lppeal'^the Judgment and Decree of the court betow arid the riateriai papers in lne U!!Oi and upon hearing the arguments of Sri A.RAVI BABU, Advocate'for the Appellant and of Sri K.PRABHAKAR, Advocate for the Respondents. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: of.

1. That the Mot,:r Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is disposed 2. That the compensation amount awarded by the tribunal be and hereby enhanced from Rs.15,35,000/- to Rs.19,15,5001 and the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @7.5o/o p.a from the date of claim petition titl realization.

3. However, the interest for the period of delay, if any, is forfeited. 4. That the Apperllants shall pay the deficit court fee. 5. The respondent no.1 & 2 be and hereby directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after deducting the amount, if any already deposited.

6. That save as aforementioned, the decree of the lower court shall stands confirmed in all other respects;

7. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. ,/TRUE COPY/ SD/. N SRIHARI, UTY REGISTRAR. 1=' \ N OFFICER QEcro A Chairperson, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-Oum-ll Additional District Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet L Two CD Copies To, BGS HIGH COI,RT DATED: 2Bl03 IZO2S ; DECREE It{ACMA.No.40g of 2021 DISPOSING OF THE MACMA WITHOUT CO$TS \ I J