High Court · 2025

Petition under section 1s1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to vacate inte.im stay order dated 1$lo2t2o20 passed, in lA No. 2t2o2o in MACMA No- 167 ol '2.02o by granting permission to withdraw the amount deposited in MV oP No. 251> of 2o16 on the fire of the court of the chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - principal District Judge, Warangal. Counsel for the Appettants : SRl. CHANDRA SEKHAR N (sc FoR TSRTC ZONE 2) Counsel for the Respondents I to 4: AJAy I(UMAR MAOISETTY Counsel for the Respondent No.S : - The Court nrade the foltowing: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSTNG RAO NANDIKONDA .i-j - JT]DGMENT: i M.A.C.M.A. No.l67 of 2020 : .' This MACMA is fited under Section 1,73 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short .MV Act',) by t. dated 30.08.2019, passed in M.V.O.P. No.255 of 2016, by the Chairman, Appellant-TSRTC against the order and decree, Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, warangal, (hereinafter referred as 'Tribuna['), wherein the respondent Nos.l to 4 herein - petitioners filed the claim petition under Section 166 of tvtV Act seeking compensation of Rs.32,00,0004 for the death of valusa Sammaiah, father of petitioner Nos.l to 3 and son of petitioner No.4, in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 29.12.201 5. Z. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred as arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 29.12-201'5, after completion of their works at Jammikunta, the deceased along with his wife Saraswathi was proceeding towards their house situated at Pidisilla village of Mogultaplly Mandal, on TVS Victor motorcycle bearing No. AP tOS 5972 +_. and on their way when they reached the outskirts of Motlapalli viltage at about 2 .lnR J UACNA 110.167 ot2O2O *

5.00 PM, the driver of the RTC bus bearing No.Ap 2s?zgl2 drove it in a rash and negligr3nt manner with high speed and dashed the motorcycle of the .' j deceased in opposite direction, as a result, the deceased fell down on the road, sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. rne potice, Mogullapally, registered €t case in Crime No.203 of 2015 for the offence under Section 304-A IPC ;lgainst the driver of the crime vehicle - RTC Bus. ' 4. The petitioners contended that the deceased was hale and healthy and was aged about 50 years at the time of accident and was earning Rs.3,48,150,/- per annum by doing travel agency.business and agriculture. Due to the cieath oithe cieceased, the petitioners sustained loss of dependency, as such, the.r claimed Rs.32,00,000/- as compensation from respondent Nos.t and 2.

5. Before the learned rribunal,.opona"nifior-o*ier of the RTC Bus filed corlnter denying the averments made in the petition and contended that there is no negligence on his part and that the accident occurred due to the rash and negtigent driving of the rider of the motorcycle i.e. the deceased and . ;,., the police ha're falsely implicated him in the case. I ( J I 6 3 *j ,{IiIR,J tAcUA lib.l67 ol2O2O ,,,: . r-:. ,?I: :, The reqpondent No.2 filed a counter on the similar lines as that of ' l ' ..' . :) .-"'i :- t .;. *.. respondent No.1 anO Aenying that there was negligence on *le part of the driver of the RTC bus and that the claim made by the petitioners was exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the petition. , i';$i"i: t"'.. .'r:i,i'!.{{:}-',.' : ";: -

7. Basin$ on the pleadings and avelrnents made by both the counsels, the tearned Tribunal framed the following issues, which read as Whether on, 29,12.20L5 at about 17.00 hours at Motlapatly \?iifagd, Mogullapally Mandal, Warangal City & DiJtrici, the driver"of the TSRTC bus bearing No'AP 28 Z 2812 drbve the same in a rash and negligent manner and causedrac-gident; resulting in death of the deceased Valusa Samniaiah? Wheth'er the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, at *frf-*t:J , To what,iEliefl,' ,i*.I{:;r,. i. ',,j,i !".!. ,, ;,. During.the t ""g,lll- i of fiial, the petitioners examined PW. I to 3 and ' ,: L and X2. No oral anfl documentary of ttre rqspondents. the entire evidence and considering the ," ,:. "otrrril bh both sides, the learned Tribunal came to the 1 t *- ,a unddr: i) ii) iii) 8 9 a ,l.+ /-; 'l lvlEqJ aAcaA. rib. 167 6t 2cr20 conclusion that the said accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus and made the reqpondents liable for payment o[ compensation and awarded an amount of Rs.l4,gz,s0o/- with future inten:st at S,Yoper annum .,,-,. . . , : :.., ,.""..,

10. Being aggrieved by the said order and decree, the appeltant-RTc preferred the present appeal on the following among the other grounds that the compensatirln which was awarded by the leamed Tribunat is excessive and exorbitant and that the petitioners did not prove the negligence on the part of the driver of the RTC bus and the learned Tribunal did not consider the negligence on the part of the deceased which caused the accident, due to which the rleath of the deceased occurred. It is further averred that the negligence, which constitute the primary aspect in dcciding the tiability, was on the part of the driver/owners was not arrived,at.sound lines supported by any cogent evidence. As such, the learned Tribunal ought not to have considered the evidence of pw.l, who is not an eye witness and pw.2 who was examinr:d as eyewitness, but admitted in his cross examination that he was behind the bus, at the time of the accident. But, the learned Tribunal eroneously considereci the evidence of pv/.2 and by relying bn thb same, foisted the li,$ility against the RTC bus. Further,-the f.anra Tribunal ought 1 I 5 lulRJ IACIA llo.767 ol2O2O not,to,have considered the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month : ,i and;,aho addition of 25yo towards future prospectus and ought not to have l i !. :liiti ,1 r, I I .i ril' I awarded exorbitant.and excessive amount of Rs.14,92,5001-, and prayed to dismiss the petition and allow the appeal. "-:, Il. Heard Sri N. Chandra Sekhar, learned Standing Counsel for the appeltant - TSRTC and Sri Ajay Kumar Madisetty, learned counsel for the respondents. lZ. Now, the points which arose for consideration before this Court in the present appeal are that: I Whether the appellants rnade out any groundt ryt interfering wiitr- order and decree passed by the Tribunal? i POTNT:

13. Having heard the rival contentions of the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the entire material placed on record, the only ground for which the appellant-RTC is before this Court is in respect of the liability which is being foistd against the driver of the bus on the sole ground thal no eye witnesses werii being examined by the claim petitioners. It is the .ur", o! tq claim. petitioners that they have examined PWs.l and 2' PW'l is I I l { ! : ) 6 not an eye wihess to the accident. pw.2 is an eye witness to contended by the learned counsel for the RTC that though : .': :,. -..,: 'f'Ilzrn.r uACUA rib.t6T ot2O2O , : ,l:, . - t1i! !-':?iti the aCcident nlt is :t , 1 .r ;':{ t' ' ,,,'..1,', ': PW.2 is an eye witness to the accident, in his cross-examination he admitted that he was . , . :; i:.i-j: :, , behind the bus, as such, the question of he witnessing the accident and speaking about the person who is responsible for the accident by the pW.2 does not arise, and that his evicience cannot be considered. 14- Whereas the learned counsel for the claim petitioners contended that when the appellant-RTC contended that the pW.2's evidence cannot be considered, the driver of the bus -respondent No.5 herein, who is also one of the eye witness to the accident ought to have entered into the witness box and state about r:he nature of the accident occurred. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the claim petitioners that there was no evidence placed by the appellant-RTC either oral or documentary and that if there was any negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle i.e. deceased, the driver of the RTC bus ought to have lodged a complaint before the police. Vlhereas it is an admitted fact that the police, after conducting thorough investigation and examining all the witnesses, have came to the conclusion that tn '*iO accident occ*rred due to the negligence on the part of t[e driver or ge,[16 RTC bus, which was neirher questioned by rhe rhem I i 1 )i ";r;;int of time nor -tt-:l '*t$Sffifi r.eb:'.-.., .-... .'-.*rer.+t:\!P : .t. lr,. . 7 . ':1, .:r;... ..:;i'. ..1:...: :r.........:j (. TUEJ any appeal preferred against the same. In fact, pw.t was one of the : wifiresses, who was cited in the charge shet as LW.2. pw.2 was also cited as one of the eye witnesses in the charge sheet as LW6. This Court is of the : opinion that as rightly contended by the learnd eounsel for the claim ': ,',lr ' ,t$ , petitioners, the appellant-RTC has not placed any evidence oral or .; .-: ! -:: documentary before the trial court to prove that the said accident occuned due i ,, * , to th.e negligence on the part of the driver of the motorcycle and on behalf of ,I'i { ;':,;' , the ilaim petitioner besides PWs.l to 3, Exs.Al to 45 would clearly show the r rv J' ,{' ,F.-,.t+ t'.8'x i nafure of the injuries sustained by the deceased and the gravity of the nature of i : the accident, which lead to the death of the deceased, that too instantaneously. rr Lv r'rJ vvvs:uvr 6it' ; : ' 1 \ that the grounds which are raised by the appeltant are not convincing to this court to interfere with the f,rndings of the rearned rribunal. ' 'of' 15- As such, for the aforesaid reumons and the discnssion made by this court does not find any ground to interfere wift the findings of Tribunal.tHenc€,'the appeal filed by tre appellant falts to the '), 'i ' The point is answered accordingly in favour of the reryondent Nos. I petitioners and against the appellant-RTC. ,.# ' :f : .,'}) -rf' i-,: a.:I t 8 f-, I6EqJ r^crA t{d..t67qtAA,O L6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the Order and deeree, dafed 30.08.2019, passed in M.V.O.P. No.255 of 2016, by the Chairrran, Motor Accident Ctaims Tribunal-cum-Principal District {udee- ',':i'.;.. } ,'l tffie.,,,:,i;,ti,i. f .ii Warangal. No order as to costs ,.,;',. . ,ri.. 1 , , ,l,t*{,f.i : ;::l,i i i. Misoellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shatt stand closed. -l.t: i 'i:i ! ' I SD/-M.NAGAMANT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ^ : ,,TRUE COPY'/ OFFICER To, v

1. The Ctrairman, MotorAccident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Waran,gal,(with records, if any)

2. one ctl to sRl. CHANDRA SEKHAR N (sc FoR TSRTC zoNE 2) Advocate loPucl

3. One Ct] to SRl. AJAY KUMAR MADISETW Advocate tOpUCl 4. Two CD Copies GUpsl HIGH COURT DATED:11/0812025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.167 ot 202O TIIE S ( o Q t * 2 3 JAl{ 702$ p) { DISMISSING THE MACMA WTHOUT COSTS IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 167OF 2020 Between: Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad. Rep. by its Managing Director, ...APPELLANT'RESPONDENT ANO

1. Valusa Mahesh, S/o. Late. Sammaiah, A,ge.25 yearc, Occ. Un-employee. R./o. Plot No.809, Avirbhav Society-1, GHB Road, Pandesara, Surat, Gujarat State. N/o. H.No.1-30/A, Pidisilla Village, Mogullapally Mandal, Warangal District, Telangana State.

2. Valusa @ Methuku Ramadevi @ Rama, D/o. Late. Sammaiah, Wo. Methuku Venkanna, Age . 23 years, Occ . Housewife. R/o. H.No.1-30/A, Pidisilla Village, Mogullapally Mandal, Warangal District.

3. Valusa @ Devasani Padmaja, D/o. Late. Sammaiah, Wo. Devasani Karthik, Age. 21 years, Occ . Housewife. R"/o. Near Palachettu Veedhi, Mandarnarri Town, Adilabad Diskict.

4. Valusa Mallamma, Wo. Late. Mallaiah, Age . 80 years, Occ. Household. R/o.H.No.1-30/A, Pidisilla Village, Mogullapally Mandal, Warangal District.

5. Ponaganti Swamy, S/o. Mallaiah, Age . Major, Occ . Driver of the Crime Vehicle R/o. Repaka Village, Regonda Mandal, Warangal District. RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS ...RESPONDENT'RESPONDENT Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, against Order and Decree dated 30/08/2019 passed in M.V.O.P.No.255 of 2016 on the file of the court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Warangal, 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 argument of SRI N CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO, Advocate for the Appellant and SRI M. AJAY KUMAR, Advocate appeared for Respondents No.1 to 4, and none appeared for Respondent No. 5. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1 . That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and is hereby dismissed. Conforming the order and decree dated 30/0812019 passed in MVOP 255/'16 by the chairman,MACT-Cum-PDJ District and Judge,Warangal.

2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. SD'-III.NAGATIANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR llTrueCopyll To

1. The Chrrirman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunak#-principal District Judge, SECTION OFFICER Warangal. 2. Two CD Copies. GE HIGH COURT DATED:11/0812025 DECREE MACMA.No.167 ot 2O2O DISMISSINIS THE MACMA WTHOUT COSTS \ \I $ $