The High Court · 2025

Petirion under section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the atfidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to grant interim STAY all further proceedings including execution of the Award and Decree dated 13.05.2019 passed in M.V.O.P.No.238 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Ctaims Tiibunat - cum - Principal District Judge at Mahabubnagar in the interest of lustice. IA NO:1 OF 2021 Yerukali Raiu, S/o Yerukali FUo.Yadavanagar, Makthal, Mahabubnagar District. Thirupathaiah, Presently R/o. Aged 24 years, Housing Board Occ. Student, Colony, Yedira,

1. The Tela Regional .... Petitiorr r/Respondent /Claimant And nglna SlqtgI_oad Transport Co.rporation Rep t| its Regional Manager, Office, TSRTC Complex, Mahabubnagar. .... Respondenl / Appellant / Respondent 2. Undhyala Yerra Reddy, S/o Sanjeeva Reddy, Age . Majc r Occ. Driver, R/o RTC Bus Depot, Shandnagar, Mahabubnagar Di6trictl . ... Respondent /Re: pondenU Respondent Petition under Section 151 cPC praying that in the ( ircumstances stated in l!9_1{qavit filed in support of the petition, the High Co, rt .", be pleased to VACATE the interim stay granted in M.A.C.M.A.No 131 c.2O2O in l.A. No. 3 of 2020 dated 1110212020 and permitting the petitioner r rrein to withdraw the amount deposited to the credit of M.V.o.P.No. 238 of 20 5 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-Principal District Judge at fU, habubnagar. i Counsel for the Appellant : SRt. R ANURAG (SC FOR TSF TC) Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI p. ANIMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : - The Court made the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE NARSING RAO NAITDIKONDA M.A.C.M.A.NO.131 0F 2020 JUDGMENT: This M.A.C.M.A. is preferred by the appellant-Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ('the Act, 1988) aggrieved by the award and decree, dated 13.05.2019 n O.P.No.238 of 2015 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar (for short, 'the TribunalJ.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a claim-petition under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 read with Rule 455 of Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 15.06.2014. It is stated that the petitioner, along with two other persons, was proceeding on a motorcycle and they reached near Dharmapur Village, the driver of the RTC bus bearing 2 No.AP2923432 cante from opposite direction n a rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle beinl driven by the petitioner. As a result of which the petitione: fell down and sustained severe injuries. Based on a compla nt, the Police, Mahabubnagar Rural, registered a case in Ct .me No.2O1 of

2014. Immediately after the accident, the oetitioner was shifted to Sushritha Hospital, Mahabubrt rgar. As the condition of the petitioner was precarious, ht: was shifted to Yashodha Hospital, Malakpet for better treatrru nt. Due to the said accident, the petitioner sustained followjr g injuries i.e., Grade-III C open fracture lower 3rd of rigll ,t tibia shaft, fracture of right medical malleolus, fracture , f lower 1/3rd right frbula, free anterolateral free flap-compct nd fracture of lower 1/3rd tibia and other multiple grievous i rjuries all over the body. The petitioner was treated as zLr . inpatient in Yashodha Hospital, Hyderabad from t ;.06.2014 to

28.06.2014. Subsequenfly, the petitioner took :reatment in a private nursing home. During the course of -reatment, the petitioner underwent with the following sur6 ery i.e., ORIF with malleolus screws right medial malleolus r xterna-l fixator application right leg. A surgery was also con: rcted in SICU ,/,i 3 with I.V. Higher antibiotics, bold transfusions and other supportive treatment. Due to the injuries sustained by the petitioner, he was bedridden for quite some time and incurred an amount of Rs.5,31,500/- for his treatment and he also incurred huge expenditure to purchase medicines and to meet the transport charges. As such he claimed an amount of Rs. 10,O0,000/- towards compensation'

4. Respondent No.2 liled counter which has been adopted by respondent No.l, thereby denying the averments made by the petitioner and contended that there was no negligence on the part of respondent No. I and the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the petitioner himself' It is also contended that the petitioner was not having effective driving licence to drive the motorcycle and also denied about the age' occupation and income of the petitioner and also the injuries sustained, treatment undergone and the expenses incurred by the petitioner.

5. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues

1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and neg[igent driving ? 11 of tlre driver ci: :-ie pi,,ate RTC bus bearing I o.Ay2923432?

2. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in t Le accident? 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim co: rpensation? If so, to u/hat amount?

4. Whether the respondents I and, 2 a., liable to pay compensation? 5. To what relief?

6. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the p,r itioner p.Ws. 1 to 5 were examined and Exs.Al to Al I ar i Ex.Xl were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.W. I was examined but no documents were marked.

7. After considering the contents of the :laim_petition, counter filed by the respondent and evaluatir 1 the oral and documentar5r evidence produced, the Tribuna held that the accident occurred due to rash arrd negligent iriving of the driver of the RTC bus and allowed the claim p,.tition in part and granted compensation of Rs.9,0O,OO0/ ogether with costs aj1d interest @ 9%o per annum from the rl, Lte of petition till the date of realizafien payable by the respo: Ldents jointly and severally. 5

8. Being aggrieved by the said compensation and also the liability, tJre present appeal is filed by the Road Transport Corporation on tJle following grounds:- (i) that the learned Tribunal awarded exorbitant amount of Rs.9,OO,OOO/ -; (ii) that the accident occurred only due to the sole negligence on the part of the injured person but the learned Tribunal has attributed negligence completely on the driver of the RTC bus vehicle without there being any cogent and reliable evidence. (iii) that the learned Tribunal, without considering tJre oral and documentar5r evidence and without following the principles and procedures under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, had awarded an amount of Rs.9,00,000/- which is exorbitant.

9. Having heard Mr.R.Anurag, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri P.Animi Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the claimalt-petitioner arrd on perusal the material on record, now the point that arises for consideration before this Court is "whether the appellant had made out er y grounds for interfering with the judgment and decre,: passed by the learned Tribunal, if so, to what extent?"

10. POINT:- The main grievance of the appellant befor : this Court is that there is negligence on the part of the ric er of the said motor cycle and the learned Tribunal did no consider the contributory negligence on the part of tJ'e ri j:r of the said motorcycle, though the said aspects were rai: ed before the learned Tribunal, but no evidence was pla,: :d before the Tribunal by examining the RTA ollicials to sho'r that the rider of the said motorcycle was not holding alr valid driving license. Learned Tribunal having considered th fact that the driver of the said RTC bus i.e., respondent No. I has conceded and admitted his guilt before the learned Magir trate u,herein he was convicted and sentenced to pay a lin : of Rs. 1OO0/ - and he paid the said fine amount. Taking into consideration of the said admissions made by the driver of he said RTC, Iearned Tribunal came to conclusion that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent drivir g of the said RTC bus. Besides that the sarne was also bein5l proved by the petitioner by leading the evidence of P.W. I . who is the 7 victim / injured. Except the suggestions which are made to him that at the time of the accident three persons were travelling on the said motorcycle and he tried to overtake the bus, due to which they were skid from the vehicle ald fell down but the same was denied. Except examining the driver of the RTC bus as R.W.l no evidence was placed by the respondents to prove that tJle said accident occurred only due to triple riding. In fact the evidence would prove that the said accident occurred when t}re bus came from the front side and dashed tJre motorcycle of the petitioner, which is evident from the record. As such, ttris Court is of the opinion that there is nothing to interfere with the finding of the learned Tribunal in respect of Issue No.l that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the said RTC vehicle'

11. Coming to tJre compensation, there is no cross appeal being made by the petitioner for enhancement of compensation. However, the Tribunal passed a well reasoned order by taking into consideration of all the aspects i'e', 5O% disability sustained by the petitioner and the nature of treatment under-gflne and medical expenses incurred by him, the Tribunal awarded Rs.8,97,25O/- -ounded off to 8 Rs.9,OO,OO0/-. Therefore, I see no reason to ir terfere with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tri t rna1.

12. The other contention raised by the k.r rned Standing Counsel for the appellant is that the learnr:, . Tribunal has awarded interest at 9o/o pet annum, which is excessive and exorbitalt, and it was not based on any sour C reasons and that the interest may be reduced to 60/o p.A.

13. As seen from the record, the said accid,: rt occurred in the year 2014 and the same was filed in the lear 2015 and the fact that the nature of the accident, this ( ourt is of the opinion that the interest which has awarded b.. the Tribunal @,9o/o appears to be in the higher side. As per t re decision of the Apex Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajb ir Singh and othersr the claimants are entifled to interes t @ Z.Svo per arrnum on the compensation awarded by the . Hbunal from the date of petition till realization,. Henct,, the interest granted by the Tribunal @ 9o/o per annum is rel rced to 2.5%. per annum | 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35 9

14. Keeping the compensation - awarded by the learned Tribunal intact, the appeal is partly allowed by reducing the interest from 9o/o to 7.5o/o per annum. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, il any, pending in this appeal sha-ll stand closed. SD/- T.SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The chairman, Motor Accidents craims Tribunar-cum-principar District and ^ Sessions Judge, I\Iahabubnagar. 2. One CC to SRt R ANURAG-(SC FOR TSRTC) Advocate tOpUCl g 9ne CC to SRt p ANtMt nedOv eavocaie IOpUCi' 4 Two CD Cooies GE/PSL )6, T t HIGH COURT DATED:28/0712025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.131 ot 2O2O 1t\i- , ,ift: I ! !_) 1? i,, jl15 z C) :i. 't\1{','t * ^'.rl 1l-2' PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COS] S b \C) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT [ 3443 ] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCEL LAN EOUS APPEAL NO: 131 OF 2020 Between: Andhra Pradesh State Road Tran Regional Manager, Regional Office, sport Corporation (Now TSRTC), Rep APSRTC Complex, Mahabubnagar by its ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT AND 1 2 Yerukali Raju, S/o Yerukali Thirupathaiah, Aged-z4years, Occ. Student, R/o Yadavanaglr, Makthal, Presently Rl/o. Housing Board Colony, Yedira, Mahabubnagar District' .... Respondent / petitioner Undhyala Yerra Reddy, S/o Sanjeeva Reddy, Age . Major, Occ Driver, R/o RTC Bus depot, Shandnagar, Mahabubnagar District. , ...RESPONOENT/RESPONDENT Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, against Order and Decree dated 13 05.2019 passed in M.V.O.P.No.238 of 2015 on the file of the court of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Mahabubnagar. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, thejudgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers rn the case and upon hearing the argument of SRI R. ANURAG, Advocate for the Appellant and SRI P. ANIMI REDDY 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 Miscellaneous Appeal be and is hereby partly allowed.

2. That the interest be and is hereby reduced from 9% to 7.57o per annum

3. That there shall be no order as to msts in this appeal Itfrue Copyll sD/- r.. IRTMVASA REDDY ASS,I ]TANT REGISTRAR I \ .+\ ION OFFICER To

1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-f) incipal District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.

2. Two CD Copies. GE/PSL M HIGH COURT DATED:28/0712025 DECREE MACMA.No.131 ol2O20 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COI: TS \Ci-