The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant : Sri N.Vasudeva Reddy (SC FOR RTC) I Counsel for the Respondents : Sri P.Ramakrishna Reddy X-OBJECT|ONS NO.48 0F 202'.t: Between :

1. M. Hari (Since died), his L.Rs, 2. M. Panchapula, Wo. Late M, Hari, Aged 43 years, Occupation Household, R/o. Loyavagu. Kagaznagar, Adilabad District

3. M. Sravanthi, D/o. Late M. Hari, Aged 24 years, Occupation Household, R/o Loyavagu, Kagaznagar, Adilabad District

4. M. Mounika, D/o. Late M Hari, Aged 19 years, Occupation Household, R/o. Loyavagu, Kagaznagar, Adilabad District

5. lvl. Haritha. D/o. Late M. Hari, Aged '17 years, Occupation Household, R/o. Loyavagu, Kagaznagar. Adilabad District

6. M. Pranitha, D/o. Late M. Hari, Aged 15 years, Occupation Household, R/o. Loyavagu, Kagaznagar, Adilabad District

7. M.Srinitha, D/o. Late M Hari, Aged 13 years, Occupation Household, Rio. Loyavagu, Kag;aznagar, Adilabad District. (Petitioners No.5 to 7 being minors Reptd.by their mother/guardian, Petitioner No.2 herein). AND 1 The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, (Prior to bifurcation known as APSRTC), Represented by its Managing Director. Musheerabad, Bus Bhavan, RTC X Road, Hyderabad The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, (Prior to bifurcation known as APSRTC), Represented by its Depot Manager, Uppal Depot, Uppal 2 ...Cross Objectors ...Respondents Counsel for the Appellant(s) : Sri P.Ramakrishna Reddy Counsel for the Respondents : Sri N.Vasudeva Reddy (SC FOR RTC) The Court made the following : COMMON JUDGMENT I HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA M.A.C.M.A.NO.l23 of 2O2t AND x-ob ections No.48 of 2O21 COMMON JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the RTC aggrieved by the order and dccree dated 04.1O.2O19 passed in O.P.No.47B ol 2Ol4 by the XIV Additional Chief .Judge (FTC), Ciry Civil Court, Hyderabad (i<,rr short "the trial Court"). The claimants also filed Cross Objections No.48 of 202 1 through which they are seeking cnhancement ol compensation.

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are refcrrcd lo as they were arraycd before the Trial Court.

3. The casc of the petitioners before the Trial Court is that on

05.12.2012 at 0B.OO PM, the petitioner No. 1 was travelling in RTC bus bearing No.AP 1l Z 7317 from Mehdipatnam to Lakdikapool and when the bus stopped at Lakdikapool bus stop, he was getting down and in the meantime the driver of the bus suddenly started the bus at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner, due to which the deceased fell down and the bus ran over the right leg, due to which he sustained a crush injury on his leg and hc u'as shifted to Osmania Generai Hospital. He u'as - --''1 .i 2 EID,] admitted in the hospital and treated for his in-jrrries and the wound got developed into gangrene, the leg bel,tr,", knee ra,as amputated zrncl that he u,as discharged on O9.01- 20 13 with an advice to go for a revicrv after a week and that he incurred hugc expenditurc towards his treatment and therefor<:, filed claim petition see king comperrsation oI Rs. i 5 Lakhs.

4. Respondcnt Nos. I and 2 hzrve filcd counter dcnying all the materiai averments and they furthcr contended that the accident occurred due to thc sell negligcnce of the pctitioner and that he u,as negligc'nt in getting dorvn thc bus, thns, sustaircd injury

5. Based on the above pleadings, rhe Trial Court has framed the following issues lor trial: "I 2 Whether the pleaded accident had occurred resulting in injuries to the petitioner, M.Hari due to the rash and negligent driving of RTC bearing No.AP 11 Z 7317 by its rider? Whether the petitioner is entitled to any Compensation? And it so, at u,hat quantum and what is the liability of the respondents?

3. l-o u'hat rclieP"

6. At the time of trial, the petitioner got examined PWs 1 and 2 and got marked Exs.Al to A7. No cvidence q.as adduced on behalf of the respondents. 3 ETD,J

7. Based on the evidence on record, the Trial Court has granted a compensation of Rs.l9,3l,946l- along with interest at 9o/o per annum lrom the date of petition till the date of realization along with costs. Aggrieved by the said award, MACMA No. 123 of 2O2l is preferred by the RTC, while X-Objections No.48 of 2O2l is filed by the claimants. B. Hcard the submission ol Sri N.Vasudeva Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and Sri P.Rama Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents

9. Learned Standing Counsel lor RTC has submitted that the Trial Court hars w'rongly awzrrded exorbitant amounts towards compensation and that the Trial Court has grossly erred I11 holding the bus driver to be negligent in causing the accident and that there was cor-rtributory negligence on the part of the petitioner u,hile getting down thc bus. It is his contention that the injurcd tried to get down a running bus and fell down, as such, he himself has contributed to the accident. He further submitted that the name of PW2 is not mentioned in Ex.A2/charge sheel, but still the Trial Court has believed the evidence ol PW2 as an eye witness, which is not proper. He further argued that the Trial Court has erred in taking the ITD,J ) '.t income of the injured as Rs.10,00O/- in the absen<:e of any proof and also has believed the disability to be 90%, as per Ex.A6 though no doctor is examined to prove the disabiJity. He lurther argued that the Trial Court has granted huge zLmount under various heacls and has arrivcd at an exorbitant anrount torvards thc compensation, he therefore, prayed to sel aside the order and decree passed by the Trial Court by allou,ing this a;rpeal

10. The respondents counsel, on the othor hand, has submitted that the claimant is in facl entitled to more compensation and that the Triat Court has ar','arded a lou, amount of compensation and therefore, praycd tc, enhancc the same. 1 1. Based on the above rival contentions and ttre X-objections filed by the claimants, this Court frames the follou-ing points for determina tion: 1 2 Whether the driver of the bus was not negligent in driving the bus bearing No.AP11 Z 7317 on 05.12.2O12 causing thc accident resultLng in injurics to the 1st petitioner? Whether there was any contributory rregligence on part of the petitioner? Whether the compensation granted by the Trial Court is just and rcasonable? 5 tTD,J 4

5. Whether the order and decree of the trial Court need any interference? To r.r,hat reliefl?

12. POINT NOS. 1 AND 2: a) It is borne out by record that by the time of adducing evidence, the injured- i st petitioner has died and his LRs were brought on record. PWl is the wife of the deceased who is the 2"d petitioner and petitioner Nos.3 to 7 are the children of the injured- 1't petitioncr who dicd during the pendency of the proceedings. b) PWl is not an eye u,itness to the accident. A perusal ol Ex.Al/FIR and trx.A2/charge sheet reveals that the driver of RTC bus is the accused and that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the RTC bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 73t7. c) PW2 was examined as an eye witness. It is contended by the learned Standing Counsel that PW2 is not an eye witness and that his name is not cited in the charge sheet. PW2 is one D.Karthik, who deposed that he is an eye witness to the accident, as he was prescnt at the accident spot and that the deceased was travelling in the RTC bus and while he was getting down at the 6 fID,j \-- Lakdikapool bus stop, the driver of the bus suddenly started the bus at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner, due to which the deceased fell down and the RTC bus ran over his right leg. During his cross examination, he admitted that his namc is not mentioned as eye witness in the charge sheet. Even leaving aside the evidence of PW2, by going through the contents of the charge sheet, it is heid that the accident occurred duc to the rash and negligence of the driver of RTC bus and that there is r-ro contributory negligence on part of the deceased. Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered accordingly.

13. POINT NO.3: a) The petitioners have claimed Rs. 15,00,0OO/- and the Trial Court has granted Rs.18,31,946/- along u'ith interest at 90 per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization along with costs. b) On an overall perusal of the orders passed by the trial Court it is revealed that it has considered all tht: compone nts including the loss of future earnings, medical expenses, pan and suffcring, transportation etc., while catculating compensation. The petitioners have asserted that the injured petitioner was ETD,I ) $,orking als security guard at the time of accident and u,as earning Rs. 10,000/- per month c) The contention of the appellants counsel is tkat no proof is filed by the petitioners with regard to the income of the injured. ln Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Rogal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Compang Litnitedl, the Apex Court has held that in the absence ol any prool of income with regard to a labourer, Rs.4,SOO/- per month can be salely taken as the income. But in the present case, the accident occurred in the year 2012 and the injured petitioner is statcd to have been working as a security guard, thus, on a reasonable hypothesis, thc monthly income of the injured petitioner as assessed by the Tribunal to be Rs. 1O,000/- is well.justificd. d) Further, the trial Court has calculated the loss of earnings by taking 9O'/o of disability. It is pertinent to mention here that his leg was amputated below knee and that the 1st petitioner was bed ridden and after three ycars, he died. Considering the said fact on record, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the award passed by the trial Court as it is found to be just and reasonable. Point No.3 is answered accordingly. ' 1:o t t.y t: scc z:o :] -\ -II\ -- -_ l 14 POINT NO.4: In vie.,r, of the findings arrived at point Nos. I to 4, it is held that the order and decree passed by the Trial Court do not nced anv interference and therefore, the same is upheld

15. POINT NO.5: In the result, the MACMA No. 123 ol 2021 file d by the RTC and the X-objections No.48 of 2O2l filed by the pctitioners are dismissed upholding the order and decree datcrl 04. 10.20 t9 passcd in O.P.No.478 of 2Ol4 by the XIV Additional Chief Ju<igc (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad. No costs. Misccllaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appcal, shall stand close d. //TRUE COPY// SD/ MOHD. ISMAIL D PUTY REGISTRAR \\ I ECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Chairman claims Tribunal-Cum-XlV Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Courts at HYderabad.

2. One CC to Sri N Vasudeva Reddy (SC FOR RTC), Advocate IOPUC] 3. One CC to Sri P Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies Sr srgh ?nn(' I ) HIGH COURT DATED:0410412025 cN F I {b o I .L .T { UrrD a) rrJ I \\,\ \'^ )' COMMON JUDGMENT + COMMON DECREE MACMA.N o.123 of 2021 AND X-oBJECT|ONS NO.48 0F 2021 DISMISSING THE MACMA AND X.OBJECTIONS flq. r-z tto[>'i l [344+l IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 123 OF 2021 AND x-oBJECT|ONS NO.48 0F 2021 MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 123 OF 2021 : Between :

1. The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, (Prior to bifurcation known as APSRTC), Represented by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Bus Bhavan, RTC X Road, Hyderabad

2. The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, (Prior to bifurcation known as APSRTC), Represented by its Depot Manager, Uppal Depot, Uppal ...Appellants/Respondents AND 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 M. Hari (Since died), his L.Rs, M. Panchapula, Wo. Late M. Hari, Aged 43 years, Occupation Household, R/o. Loyavagu, Kagaznagar, Adilabad Diskict M. Sravanthi, D/o. Late M. Hari, Aged 24 years, Occupation Household, R/o Loyavagu, Kagaznagar, Adilabad Diskict M. Mounika, D/o. Late M. Hari, Aged 19 years, Occupaiion Household, R/o. Loyavagu, Kagaznagar, Adilabad District M. Haritha, D/o. Late M. Hari, Aged 17 years, Occupation Household, R/o. Loyavagu, Kagaznagar, Adilabad District M. Pranitha, D/o. Late M. Hari, Aged 15 years, Occupation Household, R/o. Loyavagu, Kagaznagar, Adilabad District M. Srinitha, D/o. Late M. Hari, Aged 13 years, Occupation Household, R/o. Loyavagu, Kagaznagar, Adilabad District. ...Respondents/Petitioners Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act and Memorandum of Cross Objections under Order 41 Rule 22 C.P.C., against the Judgment and decree in MVOP No.478 of 2014 daled 0411012019 on the file of the Chairman claims Tribunal-Cum-XlV Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Courts at Hyderabad X-OBJECTTONS NO.48 0F 2021 : Between : '1 . M. Hari (Since died), his L Rs, 2. M. Panchapula, Wo. Late M. Hari, Aged 43 years, Occupation Household, R/o. Loyavagu. Kagaznagar, Adilabad District

3. M. Sravanthi, D/o. Late M Hari, Aged 24 years, Occupaiion Household, R/o. Loyavagu, Kagaznagar, Adilabad District

4. M. Mounika. D/o Late M. Hari, Aged 19 years, Occupation Household, R/o. Loyavagu, Kagaznagar, Adilabad District

5. M. Haritha, D/o. Late M. Hari, Aged 17 years, Occupation Household, R/o. Loyavagu, Kagaznagar , Adilabad District

6. M Pranitha D/o Late M. Hari, Aged 15 years, Occupation Household, R/o. Loyavagu, Kagaznagar, Adilabad District

7. M.Srinitha, D/o. Late M. Hari, Aged 13 years, Occupation Household, R/o. Loyavagu, Kagaznagar, Adilabad District. (Petitioners No.5 to 7 being minors Reptd.by their mother/guardian, Petitioner No.2 herein). AND 1 The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, (Prior to bifurcation known as APSRTC), Represented by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Bus Bhavan, RTC X Road, Hyderabad The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, (Prior to bifurcation known as APSRTC), Represented by its Depot Manager, Uppal Depot, Uppal 2 ...Cross Objectors ...Respondents These appeals coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeals, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the Case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri N.Vasudeva Reddy, Counsel for the appellant in MACMA and Respondents in Cross Objections and Sri Sn P.Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate for the Respondents in MACMA and for the Appellants in Cross Objections. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows : ) .1 . That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.123 of 2021 filed by the RTC and the Cross-objections No.48 of 2021 filed by the petitioners be and hereby are dismissed;

2. That there shall be no order as to costs. //TRUE COPYII SD/ MOHD. ISMAIL EPUTY REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Chairman claims Tribunal-Cum-XlV Additional Chief Judge (FTC), Crty Civil Courts at Hyderabad

2. Two CD Copies S\ S ft,rk. HIGH COURI DATED:0410412025 ! COMMON DECREE MACMA.No.123 of 2021 AND X-oBJECTIONS NO.48 0F 2021 DISMISSING THE MACMA AND X.OBJECTIONS 8"" C.. 2s\ ro \ 'rt