The High Court · 2025

Judgment

This appeal has been preferred by the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter TSRTC' for brevity) questioning the order and decree, dated 05.1 l.2O2O passed in M.V.O.P.No.385 of 2018 by the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-VIII Additional District Judge (FTC), at Warangal (hereinafter 'Tribunal" for brevity).

For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts leading to hling of the appeal are as under:

3.1. The petitioner/ injured hled the above M.V.O.P. under Section 166(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.30,0O,OO0/ -(Rupees thirty lakhs only) from respondent Nos. 1 and 2 jointly and severally for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident. It is stated that on I 1.09.20 18 afternoon, the petitioner left home on his motor cycle bearing registration No.AP-36- M-5118 to go to Gudibandal on some work; while he was proceeding towards Gudibandal through Raganna Darwaja and when he reached Amrutha Certer at about 15:3O hours, the driver of TSRTC Bus bearing registration No.AP -29 -Z-2036, proceeding from Hanamkonda Bus stand uia Hanamkonda Chowrastha towards Eturnagaram, \ 2 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner rLt high speed, dashed the notor cycle. As a result, the petitioner f e ll dou,n and the bus ran over on his right leg and sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Tfrc Police, Hanamkonda Police Statior-r resistered a case in Crime No.88/2018 under Section 338 of IPC against trt: driver of RTC Bus.

3.2. It is frrrther stated that by the time of accidr:r'Lr, the petitioner was hale anrl healthy and was aged about 30 years .rrrd u,as working as Counter Salesman-cum-Accountant at Saudi A:';rlia and uscd to earn 3O00 Ri5.als per month i.e., equivalent to tis.51,000 I pcr month. Dur, to thc accident, the petitioner sustaincr crush injury on his right leg, Grade III-B compound proximal tibizr Iizrcture (R) with Grade-lll B cornpound fibular neck and multiple sinple injuries all over the body. Immediately, the petitioner was shifted to MGM Hospital, Wrrrangal ancl later admitted to NIMS Hospital, Panjagutta, Hyde rabad lor better treatment, where he urzrs treated from

12.01.2018 to 10.O3.2O18 as an in-patient and lis right leg was amputated above the knee. The petitioner was given further treatment. Hou.ever, due to persistent post surgir al pain, he was admitted as in-patient in NIMS Hospital on 02.04.2018 and re-amputation was performed on 19.04.2018 and h:: was discharged on 13.04.2t118 with an advice to take complete l;red rest for four months. Due to the injuries, the petitioner lost his earnings for the said period and he spent more than Rs.6,O0,00O/- or. treatment and ;:1.:.1?#ry@v , -:!' -+.: r.,r' ,. 3 medical expe nses and Rs.25,0OO/- for transportation. He further incurred Rs.50,OO0/- towards medical expe nse s and extra nourishment; and Rs 5,0OO/- towards attendant charges

4. Before the Tribunal, Respondent No. l-driver of the crime vehicle hled counter denying the averments of the claim petition and contended that.the petitioner has made false allegations against the respondents for unlawful gain and there is no negligence on his part. He further contended that the alleged accident occurred due to negligence on part of the petitioner himself and prayed to dismiss the claim pctition. Respondent No.2-TSRTC hled a counter denying the averments of the claim petition and contended that the allegcd accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of thc bike by the petitioner. Further, there is a delay of 68 days in registering the crime/ FIR against the driver of crime vehicle, which is an afterthought and a result of collusion between the pctitioner and the police authority in order to claim compensation amount. It was contended that compensalion claimed is excessive, exorbitant; further necessary parties to the claim petition i.e., the owner and insurer of the petitioner's motorcycle (moped) are not made party, hence, the petition is unsustainable for non-joinder of necessary parties and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: -- \ ,' '*F '\ d*.;*p:: ,.:. .' 4 1) Wether the petitioner sustained injuies in r uttor uehicle accident on account of rash and negligent dir-'ing of diuer of the TSRTC Bus beaing No.AP-29-Z-2036? 2) WLetIrcr the petitioner is entitled for compen:;o:tion? If so, to ttthat amount and from whom? 3) To tuhat relief

6. Durirrg trial, on behalf of the petitione r, F \{s. 1 to 3 were examined end Exs.A1 to A8 and Ex. X-1 were markr_'d. On behalf of the TSRTC, no oral or documentary evidence was addtrced

7. After considering the oral and documentary e.',rr1ence on record, the TribunrLl came to the conclusion that the accidelt occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of th, r RTC bus and awarded total compensation of Rs.19,07,OO0/- with interest @ 60/o per annum. Aggrieved by the said order, the TSRTC hled the present appeal.

8. HearC Sri G. Niraj Kumar representing Sri Chandra Sekhar, learned StrLnding Counsel for TSRTC appearing for the appellant and Ms. Paladugtrla Arpitha appearing for Ms. Perladugula Alekhya, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the r,:cord.

9. Durirg the course of hearing of appeal, learn--rl counsei for the appellant r;ubmitted that the Tribunal erred in arvilrding a sum of Rs. 19,O7,00O/ - towards compensation without there being any acceptable eviclencc on record; that the Tribunal orLgl-rt to have taken into consirler:ttion the evidence of R.W. 1, the drir.er of Bus on the ,/ J w 5 aspect of the negligence on the part of the petitioner, who drove the Honda Activa Moped bearing No.AP.36.M.5118 in a rash and negligent manner; and that the injuries suffered by the petitioner are self-inflicted. Learned Tribunal ought to have considered the fact that negligence of the driver of crime vehicle was not established, so as to prove the liability of R.W. 1 and also that the petitioner failed to submit any cogent evidence to properly explain the delay of 68 days in hling the FIR. The explanation sought to be offered that the petitioner was grievously injured and the delay occurred on lhat count is not at all acceptable, as the complaint was not filed by lhe petitioner, but u,as filed by the brother of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the TSRTC further contended that the police authorities were not examined, which is not just improper, but fatal to the case of the petitioner. Further, the Tribunal ought to have dismissed the claim petition on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties i.e.. the owner and the insurer of petitioner's motorcycle bearing No. AP.36.M.5118. The learned counsel further submitted that Tribunal erroneously hxed the notional income of the petitioner at an exorbitant sum of Rs.10,0OO/- per month, in absence of any basis or income proof. The learned Standing Counsei for TSRTC vehemently argued that the Tribunal ought not to have awarded the exorbitant amounts under different heads and finally, prayed to set aside the order passed by the Tribunal. YW 6

10. I-earned counsel for the petitioner supported trre order of the Tribunal anrl submitted that on due consideration ol'rhe evidence and material pL Lcerl on record, the Tribunal had righ:lv awarded the amount and therefore, there is no need to interfere r'. r,h the reasoned order of the Tribunal and prayed to dismiss the appt:,r1. Consideratiou: 1 1. Insofar as the quantum of income of th petitioner, the Tribunal dirl not consider thc income of the petitior r:r in spite of the petitioner's claim that hc is earning 300O Riyals per;rLonth equivalent to Rs.51,Ot)O I per month, u,orking as Counte r Sale sman-cum Accountant at Saud i Arabia. The Tribunal has rr: tlrrned a hnding that the re;pondents have not seriously disputed .he occupation of the petitioner. The petitioner has not filed his salan, r'ertificate before the Tribunrl. The Tribunal has also observcd tlrat the minimum wages paid in Saudi Arabia are of no avail. The leirrned Tribunal, in absence of any income proof, had assessed the monthly earnings of the petitioner at Rs. IO,OO0/ notionally considerinr' rninimum wages on par witll the clerks/ accou ntants working in Incija at the relevant time when the accident occurred. This Court is ol' the considered opinion th,rt the notional income arrived by the lt arned Tribunal is neither art,itrary nor unjustihable from the evidencr' placed on record. Therefore, this Court does not frnd any reason to interfere with the notional incorne ftxcd by the Tribunal. ) 7

72. On evaluation of the medical evidence, i.e., p.Ws.2 and 3 and also the documents placed before the Tribunal, the Tribunal awarded the following amounts under various heads: i) Loss of future earnings on account of disability:

13. With regard to the injuries sustained by the petitioner, p.W.2- Dr.V. Samba Raju and P.W.3-Dr.C. Laithmohan were examined. P.W.3 deposed that he treated the injured (petitioner) in NIMS Hospital and amputation surgery was performed to right 1eg above knee and also conducted follow up treatment which includes ( i ) revision amputation of right stump of lower limb and skin grafting to left leg (2) secondary suturing of right stump (3) closed sub prochaltric fracture demur and femoral head fracture on the right side (4) on O2.O4.2O18 again skin grafting was done to left tower limb and the petitioner was discharged on 13.04.2018. P.W.3 further deposed that patient with the above injuries was advised bed rest. P.W.3, u,ho is the Resident Medical Oflicer in Government Hospital, Warangal, and P.W.2 both assessed the disability as 8O7o and issued permanent disability certificate to the injured. Though both P.Ws.2 and 3 were cross-examined, nothing contra could be elicited about treatment ald disability of the injured.

13.1. On considering the evidence and material placed on record, the Tribunal had rightly held that the petitioner/injured suffered wirh permanent disability at 80%o, which is evident from Exs.AS and ,{6 disability certificate issued by MGM Hospital, Warangal and also by 8 NIMS Hosp ital , Hyderabad and taking the sair disability into consideration and also the fact that the petitioner \\'iis aged about 62 years as on lhe date of accident, by applying muit.iplier'7', awarded an amount ,rf Rs.6,72,OOO/-, u,hich is proper and jtrs-. ii) Pain & sufferance and extra nourishment:

14. Considering the nature of injuries sustained bv the petitioner i.e., multipJe grievous injuries and 80% permanent disability due to the injuries and taking into consideration that the pi:titioner has been taking trealment cven after filing of the O.P,, and als,o considering the statements of I).W.2 and P.W.3 Doctors that the petitioner would continue to face difficulties in carrying out his di rilv activities, the Tribunal hzLd awarded a reasonable amount of Rs.1.00,00O/- towards pain and sufferance and Rs.50,00O/- tou,ards lut ure medical expenses aed extra nourishmcnt. iii) Medical expense and Treatment Charges:

15. The 'fribunal had considered Ex.A4-bunch ol rneclical bills and Ex.A8-discharge records and awarded a sum of Rs. 'r.00,OOO/-, which the petiticner expended towards medical expen ies. Further, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.25,O0O/- tower -cis transportation and Rs.40,000/- tou,ards loss of earnings. Exs.A4 ar-rd A8 testify as to the nature of injury suffered by the petitioner. ThrLs. considering the same, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.6,00,00O/ - (Rupees six lakhs only) under the head of medical o,:l)enses. r' ! 9

16. In the light of the above, the contention of the appellant that unreasonable and exce ssive compensation amount was granted I under diffcrent heads in the absence of any supportive evidence is unacceptable. Thus, in the considered view of this Court, the petitioner is entitled to the just compensation, as quantihed by the Tribunal. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the quantum of compensation awarded under different heads and also the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal. 17 . In view of the above discussion, evidence and material placed on record, in the considered opinion of this Court, the Tribunal passed a well reasoned order by taking into consideration all the relevant aspects i.e., the disability sustained by the petitioner, nature of treatment undergone by the petitioner, medical expenses, pain and suffering and the expenses incurred towards extra nourishment etc., and has rightly awarded an amount of Rs.19,O7,OOOl- with interest (4 60/o per annum from the date of filing of the petition tilI the date of realization. This Court is also of the considered view that the appellant-TSRTC failed to make out any case warranting interference by this Court with the impugned order.

18. Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed confirming the impugned order and decree passed by the Tribunal. The appellant-TSRTC is directed to deposit the said compensation amount after duly deducting the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of 10 six(6) weekr; from the date of receipt of a copy of t.ris order. There shall be no lrder as to costs. Misccllaneous petitions, if any, pending shall s r zrnd closed SDr- M.65rO* ALt BA'G AS SISTANT REGISTRAR /:(9 S[ CTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY' To, 1 2 3 4 ltt 5|l1 n' chandra sekhar, (sc toR'isRr r; , )Nl 2r Advocare The charrman, rvlokrr Accidents craims Tribunai.cUi\r *rlqg lFl Cr. at Warangal lwrrh records rf anvr EH;.Y One CC to SR1 pr116rnr-rla Alekhya, Advocate [OpU(] i Two CD Copies r\dditronar District '1, .IA/CIt M :i;t: S Ih rI ).f i'c 1._: r\'--L i'rIP 216 _z .'.r '' 1; .'. - -,'-i '"'-,- " 1 ':" -+- - -:, :- ----: - - ' I HIGH COURT DArED.12t09t202'5 JUDGIVlENT MACIVIA No 134 of 2021 \4.A.C.\'1,,\ IS I]ISNIISSI]D iG I \;. \' t\ c\ ,V, IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEI/BER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G N/, IVOHIUDDIN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 134 OF 2021 Betwee n Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Rep by its Ailanaging Director, lvlusheerabad, Hyderabad. Appellan t/Respondent AND 1 [\,4ohanrnred Zainul Abidden, S/o Abdul Wahab, aged 62 years, Occ. Private Employee, H.No.7-4-16, Kapuwada, Machrlibazar, Hanamkonda

2. Md. Sulthanoddin, S/o Not Known, aged fVajor, Occ RTC Driver in Warangal- 2 Depot, Hanamkonda, Staff No 650849 . . Re s po nd en t/Respo n d e nt Appeal U/S 173 of Morlor Vehicles Act against the order and decree dated 0511112020 passed in M.V.O.P.No.385 of 2018 on the file of the Chairman, lt/otor Accidents Claims Tribunal-CU[/-VlllAdditional District Judge (FTC), at Warangal ORDER.This appeal coming on for heanng and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the court below and the material papers in the Ir/IVOP and upon hearing the arguments of Srr N.Chandra Sekhar, Advocate for the appellant and of Sri Paladugula Alekhya, Respondent. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows

1.That the IIACMA be and hereby is dismissed confirming the impugned order and decree passed by the Tribunal;

2.That the appellant-TSRTC is directed to deposit the said compensation amount after duly deducting the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of six(6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;

3.That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal SDi'M.OSMAN ALI BAIG ASIJISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY' (, SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Chairman. [V]otor Accidents Claims Tribunal-CUtv \,rlll Additional Distrrct 2 Two CD ()op es Judge (F I C), at Warangal. (with records if any) .t..\/cil( +)\- HIGH COURT DATED 12t09t2025 DECREE MAC|VIA.No.1 34 of '.ta21 M.A.C.M,,,\, IS I] IS} IISSEI) 6l/