The High Court · 2025

This appeai is hled by rhe RTC, aggrieved by the judgment and dccree dated 3O.10.2O19 in M.V.O.p.No. 1306 of 2O16 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XlV Additional Chief Judge (FTC), Ciq, Civil Courr ar Hyderabad (for short "the Tribunal").

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they u,ere arra)'ed before the Tribunal. 3. The case of the claimants before the Tribunal is that on 17 .0l.2016, the decezLsed along with another person proceeding from Godai to Kothakun tapalll, on CT 100 bearing No.Ap_09 AN_ 1627 anC rr.hcn rhr'; reacircrl Lingala X Roads, one TSRTC bus bcaring No. AP I iZ-?,77 2 irivcn b1, its driver at a high speed in a rash and negligelr mannrjr dashed the bike due to which the deceased recei'ed mririple qriev.us injuries and died on the spot. The clarmants ar. rhr' iirrnih mcmbers of the deceased seeking compensation of fts.8,0t:),OOrJ / -. 4. Respondenrs iiied counter b-r. denying all material averments in the petition s.irh rcglarcl to the occurrence of the accident, age and inc..te of llt.: c1ei.easccl. The-v further contended that the 2 ETD,J MACMA No.121_2021 accident occurred only due to the negligence of the motor bike rider and there is no negligence ofthe driver of RTC bus.

5. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues:-

1. 2 . Whether the pleaded at:cidenl hod" oanred resulting in injuries k) the petitianer R.Bondhabl; due to rash and. negligent driuing of RTC bu:s No.AP- l 127380 bg its drirar? Whether tIE petitioner is entitied tg ang crtmfrensation" if so, at what quantum dnd uhnt is the liabilitg of th.e req)ondents? To uhat relief ?

3. At the time of trial, claimants got examined P.Ws.l arld 2, 6 got marked Exs.A. I to A.8. On behalf of the RTC no evidence was adduced.

7. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted an amount of Rs.24,64,200/ - towards compensation. Aggrieved by the said Order and Decree dated 3O.10.2019, the present appeal is filccl bv the RTC.

8. Heard Sri. R. Anurag, learned standing counsel for TSRTC and Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy, Iearned counsel for respondents.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the order and decree passed by the Tribunal is contrary to law and that the Tribunal has au,arded exorbitant amounts under various heads and that while the claim of the claimants is to an extent o[ Rs.8,00,O00i the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.25,64,2O0/- tor.r'ards compensation which is highly excessive. He further submitted that the Tribunal ought to have considered thc ncgligence on part of the deceased and that there u,as no rash 7P- FF7- l ETD,J MACMA No.121 2021 and negligence of the driver of RTC bus. It is further contended that the Tribunal erred in making 1/5th deduction instead of making 5O%o deduction towards income of the deceased as he was bacheior at the time of.accident. Thus he prayed to set aside the order and decree passed b1' tl-re Tribunal.

10. karned counscl for the respondents on the other hand submitted that the Tribunal has granted just compensation even if it is more than that claimed bv the claimants and that the Tribunal passed its order on a sound reasoning artd thus there is no need to interfere with the satnc and requested lo confirm the order of the Tribunal. i 1 . Based on the a bovc rival contentions, this Court framed the following points lor dt lcrmitt,rlion:

1. Whether .ht:rc rv:ls anr contributory negligence on part of th. rrclc; ol thc motor bike in the ()ccurrence of acciden t ?

2. Whether thc ci)np.'lsiition gralted by the Tribunal is just and r.-::tsotiitltle ?

3. Whether ttrt' ordcr zrncl ciecree of the Tribunal need any intcrfr:rt'nct'.)

4. To what rcli('f.) FOINT NO.1: P.W. 1 who is t hc rnothcr o[ the deceased is not an eye l2 a) witness to the zrccidcnL. ,\ pcrusal of the Ex.A.4/charge sheet reveals that it is lilcd agirinst thc drir.er of the RTC Bus. It further reveals that the acrcl(lcirt occurred cluc to rash and negligence of the bus driver. P.W.,l is,ritt'S. Bala Srvamv- who is listed as eye 4 ETD,J MACMA No.121 2021 witness in the charge sheet. He slated during his evidence that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of RTC Bus bearing No. Ap_llZ_3TT2 and further submitted that he witnessed the accident from 2O to 25 feet. Therefore, the evidence of p.W.2 coupled with Ex.A.4_charge sheet clearly establishes that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of bus driver and that there is no negligence on part of the deceased in riding the motor bike. point No. I is answered accordingly.

13. PTOINT NO.2: b) It is asserted by the ctaimants that the deceased was aged around 21 years at the time of accident and that he was a private employee and earning Rs. i5,0OO/- per month but no proof is filed to that effecr. A perusal ol the postmortem report under Ex.A.3 reveals the age of lhc deceased as 2l years. Claimants have also filed Ex.A.6/SSC ivlemorandum of Marks which also discloses his age as 21 years. Ex.A.S/bonafide certificate issued by principal, Sum Government Degree College, Kondanagula it reveals that deceased r!,as a studenL ol the Sum Government College, Kondanagula during thc academic year 2Ol2_15 wherein he was pursuing B.Sc. A perusal of the Exs.A.6 and A.Z reveals that the deceased has passed iCi,r,class in B.2 grade and intermediate in C grade and thus it is clear that the deceased is an average student 5 ETD,J MACMA No.121 2021 in his studies. Though, they fited bonafide certihcate under Ex.A.8, it reveals that he pursued the degree between 2012-15 but marks memo of B.Sc was not filed. Therefore, it cannot be inferred that he has completed B.Sc. Based on the evidence on record, the tribunal has taken an amount ol Rs.10,OO0/- towards monthly income of the deceased. ln Ramaclr;a;ndra;ppa Vs. Manager, Rogal Sundaro,m Alliance Insttrance Comltang L'mitedl, t}re Apex Court has held that in the abscnce of any proof of income with regard to a labourer, Rs.4,5OO/ per month can be safely taken. In the present case, since the deceased pursued his studies up to B.Sc, on a reasonable hl,pothcsis, the income may be assessed at Rs.12,000/- per month. c) As per the dicta laid down in National Insurance Compang Limlted Vs. Prd.nau Sethi & Others2, lOt)i, o[ rhe income needs to be added towards future prospects. As the deceased is aged 2l years, adding 4Oo/o torvards lliturc prospects would give Rs.16,800/- (Rs.12,0O0/-x 40/tOO = 4,AOol ) per month, which comes to Rs. 16,800/- x 12 = Rs-2,0 I ,600/ per annum. d) The deceased was a bachelor and hcnce 5O,/o deduction has to be made but the ]'ribunal has nr:rdc l/5ri, deduction towards personal expenses. Thus deduct itrg SO,,zi, of the income towards I rl0l I) l2 S('( 236 L\rR 2017 S(C il57 6 ETD,J MAcMA No.121_2021 personal expenses, would come up to Rs.1,OO,8OO/- (Rs.2,0l,600/- (-) Rs.1,00,800/-). e) The Post Mortem Examination report fild under Ex.A.3 reveals the age of the deceased as 21 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 o. Delhl Ttultsport Corporation3. The deceased being aged 2L years, the appropriate multiplier to be applied is '18'. Therefore, the loss of dependency comes upto Rs. 18,14,40O/- (Rs. 1,00,800/- X 18 = Rs. 18,14,4O0l-). 0 In the light of Pranag Sethi's case, Rs.40,OO0/- towards loss of consorLium, Rs.15,O0O/- to\r,ards loss of estate and Rs.15,OO0/- towards funeral expenses have to be awarded. It was further held that the said amounts have to be enhanced by 1O% for every three years. ln Magma General Insurance Company Ltnited o. Nanu d Ram @Chuhru Rann and. otherf, the Apex Court has elaborately discussed the principlcs laid dorvn in Pranag Sethi's case and has further held that the parents and children of the deceased 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 a mount under this head would be Rs.96,8OO/- (Rs.a8,4o0l- X 2 = Rs.96,8OO/-). Further an amount 'zoog (o) scc rz r o (2018) r8 scc Do 1 ETD,,J MACMA No.121 2021 of Rs.18,15O/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 18,15O/- towards funeral expenses have to be awarded. Thus the claimants are entitlcd to Rs. 19,47,5OO/- Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reduced from Rs.24,64,2OO I - to that of Rs.19,47,5OO/- which would be justilied in the present case. h) Now the question is whether this Court can reduce the compcnsation awarded by the Tribunal? In Ranjan Prakash and Ors. Vs. Divisional Manager and Otherss, the Apex Court had heid as under:- 'Where an oppeal is filed chdlen@ng th" quat um of ampensatio4 inespectiue of uho fles tle appeol, the appropriate course for the High Court ts to exanutle the facts and by applyitrg the releuant pnncrples, detenn e the just compensation. If the contpensafion deternrircd bg tt is higher than the contpensation eu,erded blt tlle Tribuno\ the High Court uilt allout the appeel, i'tt ts blJ the claimants and dismiss the appeai tj' n t s bU the the compe^sqtion otaner/ insurer. Similarly, deterrnined bg the High Court is lesser th(In the cotapensation auard.ed. bg the Tribunal, the High dismiss ang dppeal bg the claimo'nts for Court enh(r,,[.ceme,lt, but allous any appeal bg owner/insuret lor reductlon. The High Court contlot obuortslrl urcreGse the conpensation in an appeal b11 otutu,r/ttsurer for reducing the compensatior\ nor can I re(luce ihe compensation tn an appeat b!.1 tte <:lauturttr.s -see[-rlg e nhance ment of compensatio t t.' '1,lll iJ In Shora,namm.a and Ors. Vs. M.D., Diuisional Centre, i) Nekrte6, the Apex Court held that the hnding ol lact recorded by thc Tribunal shouid not be interfercd with in :rn apJrearl unless and until, it is proved that glaring discrepanc-r oi mrslake hers taken piacc- [n the present case, there is glarinq discrcparrcv i,r'ith regard (tl) I t) tl scc 639 (l()11) ll SCC 517 8 ETD,J MACMA No.121 2O21 to the assessment of compensation under loss of dependancy, the said discrepancy occurred as the Tribunal misconstrued the deduction to be 1/5h while it has to be 507o, since the deceased is a bachelor. j) Hence, in the light of the above cited decisions of the Apex Court and in view of the discussion held supra, this Court opines that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excess and thus needs to be set aside. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that if the amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal is reduced to the said extent of Rs.19,47,50O/-, that would meet the ends of justice.

14. PTOINT NO.3: In the result, the MACMA tiled by the RTC is parfly allowed, modifying the Order and L)ecrcc dated 30.10.2019 in M.V.O.P.No. 1306 of 2O 16 passed by thc Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XlV Additional Chie I Judgc (FTC), City Civil Court at Hyderabad, reducing the compensation lrom Rs.24,64,2OO/ - to Rs. 19,47 ,5OO I - with interest (tt 7 .-c"h per annum. However, the interest for the period of dela-v, ii anv, is [orfeited. Appellants-RTC is directed to deposit the compcnsation amount with accrued interest within a period of t$1) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after declucting the amount if any already deposited. On such deposir, the claimernts are entitled to withdraw 9 E TD,J MACMA No.121 2021 the said amount without furnishing any security, as per their respective shares as allotted by the Tribunal. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closcd. //TRUE COPY// SD/- N. SRIHARI TY REGISTRAR D S ION OFFICER To, GH N\ \) -'. 2' 1 The Chairman, MACT-cum-XlV Additional Chief Judge, CitV Civil Court, (FTC), Hyderabad.

2. One CC to Srr, R. Anurag, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:0210512025 --,:. r tit SI4 ir.C -r U 1s r{AR a&il z * o c ,'Tc-1 * JUDGMENT+DECREE [2 DRAFTS] MACMA.No.121 ot 2O21 PARTLY ALLOWED WITHOUT COSTS. ,t L.' IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 121 OF 2021 Between: 1 The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation and.angther, repres!'nted by its Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, RTC X Road, Hyderabad. The Depot Manager, Telangana State Road-Transport Corporation, Achampet Depot, Achampet, Mahabubnagar (Diskict), Telangana State 2 ...Appellants/Respondents AND 1

3. Balapeeramma and 2 Others, Wo. K.Brahmaiah, Aged 45 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. H. No. 84-372, Borabanda, Hyderabad Bramaiah, S/o. K.Pentaiah, Aged 49 years, Occ. Labour, R/o. H. No. 84-372, Borabanda, Hyderabad K.Shiva @ Shivashankar, S/o. K.Brahmaiah, Aged 2'l years, Occ. Student, R/o. H. No. 84-372, Borabanda, Hyderabad. (R3 is declared as a major by discharging his mother from Guardianship vide c o 12lo2l2o25 in lA No'2/2022') ...Respondents/petitioners Appeal filed Under Section '173 of Motor Vehicles Act,1988 against the Order and decree in M.V.O.P.No, 1306 of 2016 dated: 3011012019 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- XIV Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court at Hyderabad. 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 A- Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No-1 and none appeared for the respondent No.2 & 3. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is partly allowed, by reducing the compensation from Rs.24,64,2001- to Rs.'19,47,5001 with interest @ 75% per annum;

2. That the interest for the period of delay if any be and hereby is forfeited; ,.

3.Thattheappellants_RTCbeandherebyisdirectedtodepositthe 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;

4. That on such deposit the claimnants be and hereby are entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security as per their respective shares as alloted bY the tribunal'

5. That save as aforesaid, the Judgment and decree of the Tribunal shall stands confirmed in all other resPects; and

6. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal' //TRUE COPY// SD/- N. SRIHARI EPUTY REGIST \ ECTION OFFICER ,f The Chairman, MACT-cum-XlV Additional Chief Jud$e' Gity Civil Court, (FTC), HYderabad One CC to Sri. R Anurag, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri A Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD CoPies ':-: ;t ,,,".i I ( oR THE S fa o * 1 I l'lAR 2026 z l\ t q4TC HIGH COURT DATED:02/05/2025 DECREE MACMA.No.'121 ol 2O21 PARTLY ALLOWED WITHOUT COSTS. \^