The High Court · 2025

Judgment

1.1 The Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, fhe MV ActJ assailing the award passed by the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal - cum - I Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy (for short TribunalJ in o.P.No.598 of 2oo9, dated 06.09-2010. t.2 I.A.No.2 0f 2014 is filed. under order XLI Rule 22 0f civil proced.ure code against the findings recorded on issue Nos.2 and 3 in the award passed in o.P.No.598 of 2OO9 dated 06.09-201O by the learned Tribunal.

2.Appellantistherespondentandrespondentsarethe petitioners - claimants - cross appellants [I.A.No.2 of 2Ol4]' For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as the petitioners and the respondent'

3. Petitioners have filed claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act claiming compensation of Rs.10,o0,o0o/- for the death of the deceased [Vishwanath Reddy]. Petitioner No.l is t]re wife and #i : I T 1 I I -I BRMR, J I.A.No.2 of 2Ol4 (Cross Objection (SR).No.7595 of 2O14) In/And MA,CMA.No.1602 of 2Ol1 petitioner N,cs.2 and 3 are the parents of the late Vishwanath Reddy.

4. On L1.O2.2OO9 Vishwanath Reddy was going on a motor cycle, when he reached the outskirts of Chinna Gtranpur village, an APSRTC l:us bearing No.AP-28 -Z-4441 of Siddiper: depot coming from Jogipet. in opposite direction towards the motor cycle of the deceased in a rash and negligent rrr.-anner and dash,:d, as a result Viswanath Reddy died on the spot. Deceased is aLged about 26 years and was earning Rs.5,5O0/- per month by working as work Inspector, Flousing Corporation, Kolcharam Manclal under the employment of Director, Velugu Project and also earning Rs.SO,OOO /- per annum on agriculture. Due to the sudden death of the deceased, petitioners were put to loss of future income and support and prayed to allow the O.P.

5. Respondent filed its counter and denied the mzrnner in which the accident has occurred and further contended ttrat there is no negligence o:a the part of the driver of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP- 28-Z-4441 a:nd prayed for dismissal of the O.P.

6. The learned Tribunal has framed the following issues: 1) Whether the deceased died in the motor accident whictr occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehi:le. 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom. BRMR, J I.A.No.2 of 2OL4 (Cross Objection (SR).No.7595 of 2014) InlAnd MACMA.No.1602 of 20ll 3) To what relief. The learned Tribunal has recasted the first issue which is as follows: 1) Whether the death of the deceased occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle.

7. Petitioner No.1 is examined as PWl, got examined PW2- P.Srinivas Reddy, PW3 - T.Venkatlaxmi and got marked Exs.A1 to A9. The Driver of the RTC bus is examined as Rwl-B.Anjaiah and no documents are marked.

8. The learned Tribunal after analysing the evidence adduced by the parties coupled with the documents marked thereon, awarded. compensation of Rs.6,32,000/- with interest at the rate of 8o/o per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit, which is impugned in the appeal and in I.A.No.2 of 2014.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant [MACMA.No.1602 of 2O11] - respondent submits that the Tribunal erred in not considering the evidence of RWl, who is an eye-witness to the incident and he deposed that there is negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle. The learned Tribunal has not considered Exs.Al and A3 in ,\,"' perspective, also failed to take into consideration the contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle and prayed to set aside the award a/ 4lL2 BRMR, J I.ANo.2 of 2Ol4 (Cross Objection (SR).No.7595 of 2014) InlAnd MACMA.No.1602 of 2Oll 10. Learned counsel for the respondents - petitioners - cross appellants in I.A.No.2 of 2014 submits that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate oral and documentary evidence in right perspective and erroneously granted meager co,npensation of Rs.6,32,OOO I - contrary to the compensation claimed by the petitioners ior Rs.1O,00,0OO/-. Further the Tribunal has wrongly taken the agle of the deceased, awarded less compensation towards loss of future income and the multiplier applied is also wrong, also au,arded le ss compensation towards loss of ,:onsortium to petitioner No. i and loss of love and affection to petitioner Nos.2 and 3 ancl prayed to allow the I.A.No.2 of 2Ol4 by' modifying the award datecl 06.09.2010 and dismiss the appeal.

11. Heard learned counsel for the appellant in MACMA.No. L6O2 of 2011 and learned counsel for cross appellants in I.A.No-2 of

2014. Perused the record.

12. Now the points for consideration are: (i) Whether the learned Tribunal has awarded just compensation to the petitioners, if not, are the petitioners entitled for enhancement (I.A/t{o.2 of 20r4)? I I s/12 BRMR, J I.A.No.2 of 2Ol4 (Cross Objection (SR).No.7595 of 2014) Inl$nd MACMA.No.l602 of 2OlL (ii) Whether the appellant in MACMA-NO-16O2 of 2011 has made out any case to set aside the award passed by the learned Tribunal, if so? (iii) whether the award passed by the learned Tribunal in o.P.No.598 of 20o9 dated 06.09.201o suffers from any perversity or illegality, if so, does it requires interference of this court in the Appeal and in cross Objection? POINT Nos.l to 3:

13. The calculation arrived by the Tribunal is as under: Sl.No Name of the head 1 2 3 4 5

6. 7 Salary Deduct I l3'a towards personal expenditure Supervisory services {Rs.1,000/- Per monthf Total Annual income Multiplier'17' Loss of consortium to the petitioner No.1 Loss of love and affection to petitioner Nos.2 and 3. o00 - each Total Compensation awarded 'by Tribunal Rs.3,0OO/- Rs.2,0OO/- [3,000 - [1/3'd of 3,000

1.00011 Rs.3,00O/- [2,000 + 1,0001 Rs.36,OOO/- (3,000 x 12) Rs.6,12,OOOl- (36,000 x 17) Rs.10,OOO/- Rs.10,OOO/- Rs.6 2 oo0 a BRMR, J I.A.No.2 of 2Ol4 (Cross Objection (SR).No.7595 of 2014) InlAnd MI.CMA.No.1602 of 2OlL l4.l The evidence of PWl is that on I1.O2.2OO9: her husband Vishwanath Reddy was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing No.AP-23 TIR 2444 from Medak to Rangampet a_t about 07.00 p.ffi., when he reached outskirts of Chinna Ghanpur village, APSRTC bus bearing No.AP-2aZ 4441 of Siddipet Depot came from Jogipet side in rash and negligent manner, dashed her husband's motor cyclc, as a result her husband died on the spot. Her husband was aged about 26 years as on the date of accident, 'vvorking as work Inspector in Housing Corporatiorr of Kulcharam Mandal under the employment of Director, Velugu project and was earning Rs.5,500/- per month. Apart from that he was also earning Rs.5O,000 /- per annum on agriculture.

14.2 In her cross-examination she stated that the deceased was not a perrrzrnent employee by the date of his death, Ex.A7 does not contain full particulars, she is not an eye-witness to the accident. She stated that the deceased had driving licence, but it was lost at the time of accident. She denied the suggestion that the accident occurred due to negligence of her husband.

15.1 Pw2 is an eye-witness to the accident, he deposed that himself ancl his friend were coming from Medak in a car, then he saw a mo(rr cycle going ahead of them at a distarlce of 50 yards \ and APSRTC bus came in opposite direction with Jeigh speed in a / 7/t2 BRMR, J I.A.No.2 of 2Ol4 (Cross Objection (SR).No.7595 of 2014) MACMA.No.16., :l'rffii rash and negligent manner, dashed the motor cycle and the deceased died on the spot. L5.2 In his cross-examination he denied the suggestion that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased and there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the ApSRTC bus.

16.1 The evidence of RW1 is that he was working as a driver in APSRTC for the past 19 years. On 1I.O2.2OO9 he was cautiously and caringly driving the bus bearing No.AP-28-Z-4441 belonging to Siddipet from Sangareddy to Medak. At about 07.OO p.h., when he reached Chinnaghanpur outskirts, a motor cycle came in opposite direction in rash and negligent manner and dashed the bus. The rider of the motor cycle could not control his vehicle and was responsible for the accident and he reported the incident to the police.

16.2 In his cross-examination he stated that charge sheet is filed against him. He denied the suggestion that due to his negligence accident has occurred. l7.l On the complaint lodged by Arigae Ramesh on 11.O2.2AO9; police Kolcharam has registered a case in Crime No.15 of 2OO9 under Section 304-A of IPC against the driver of the APSRTC bus No.AP-28-Z-4441[Ex.A1]. Ex.A2 is the PME report. Ex.A3 is ![e ,/ \ --1 ! i :! :: ; t ,) $ BRMR, J I.A.No.2 of 2OL4 (Cross Objection (SR).No.7595 of 2014) InlAnd MI\CMA.No.16O2 of 2011 charge sheet filed by the police under Section 304-4. of IPC against the driver of the RTC bus. PW2 is shown as LW2 in the charge sheet as arl eye witness to the accident. Ex.A4 is the scene of offence panr::hanama, Ex.AS is the Motor Vehicles Inspector report, which shows the accident has not occurred due to urny mechanical defects of thLe bus and Ex.A6 is the inquest report. t7.2 The e"ridence of PW2 coupled with Ex.A2 is sufficient to come to a conclusion that the accident has occurred due to rash driving of RW1, mo:re over RW1 has admitted in his cross examination that charge sheet is filed against him.

18.1 Insofar as the earnings of the deceased Vishwanath Reddy is concerned, Dx.A7 is the salary certificate issued by Treasurer of Zilla Mahil:a Samalrya. PW3 is the Trbasurer of Zllla Mahila Samakya, S;angareddy, she deposed that the deceased worked as work Inspector in their department since two monl.hs prior to his death and hLe was working at Kulcharam Mandal and Rs.5,50O/- is paid as salary to the deceased per month and srhe has issued Ex.A7. Deceased would be eligible for the future prromotions and hike in the salary.

18.2 In her cross-examination she stated that Ex.A7 does not reflect the particulars of the salary and the deductions and the decB?sed wils not a permanent employee. So .also Irx.A7 does, not ,/ 9/ L2 BRMR, J I.A.No.2 of.2OI4 (Cross Objection (SR).No.7595 of 20la) In/And MACMA.No.l602 ot2otl reflect the period from which the deceased was employed and she did not bring any record pertaining to the future promotions. She denied the suggestion that the deceased is eligible for promotions. lg. Ex.A7 is the salary certificate dated 13..05.2009, wherein under different heads the deceased received an amount of Rs.S,SOO/- towards salary for month of January 2OO9. Deductions are not shown in Ex.A7, but the net salary of the deceased is shown therein as Rs.S,SOO I -.

20. The learned Tribunal has taken the salary of the deceased at Rs.3,00O/- per month which is against the evidence of PW3 with that of Ex.A7. As the deceased was not a permanent employee and this Court feels that the income of the deceased is taken at Rs.4,5OO/- per month after standard deductions.

21. Petitioners contended that the deceased also used to earn Rs.50,OO0 l- per annum on agriculture. Ex.A8 is the certificate issued by Tahsildar, Kowdipally Mandal, which shows that the deceased was possessing various extents of lands in different survey numbers to an extent of Ac.5-13 gts and was earning Rs.2,25,O00/- on agriculture. Ex.A9 is the pahani for the year 2oo7-2oo8, which shows different extent of lands in different surveyLnumbers total admeasuring Ac.5-13 gts showing the deceased as pattadhar and possessor. The Tribunal has awarded .,, ./ .-, t0lt2 BRMR, J I.A.No.2 of 2Ol4 (Cross Objection (SR).No.7595 of 2O14) InlAnd MLCMA.No.16O2 of 2Oll supervisory sen'ices at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month. As the petitioners are claiming Rs.50,0OO/- per annum towards agricultural income of the deceased, this Court fixes an amount of Rs.2,500/- per month on agriculture income, u,hich arrives at Rs.3O,000 l- per annum as he possessed Ac.5.13 gtr; of land as per Ex.A9

22. As the petitioners are three in number, the deduction is 1/3'a towards personal expenses of the deceased. The age of the deceased is shown as 26 years in the claim petition as on the date of accident which is also reflected in Ex.A2-PME report and Ex.A6 - inquest report. Hence the age of the deceased :.s taken as 26 years and tl-re appropriate multiplier is '17'which is applied by the Tribunal and it is correct.

23. The calculation arrived by the Court is as under: Sl.No Name of the head 1 Income per month (Salary: Rs.4,500/- per month + Income on agriculture: I?s.2,500/- per month) Compensation awarded by Court Rs.7,OOO/- (4,500 + 2,5OOl 2 Deduct 1/3'a towards Rs.4,65O/- [7,000 - 2,350] \ r.': tt/t2 BRMR, J I.A.No.2 of 2Ol4 (Cross Objection (SR).No.7595 of 2014) InlAnd MACMA.No.l602 of 2Oll [1/3.4 of 7,O00 = 2,333 rounded off Rs.2,350/ -l Rs.55,8OOl t4,650 x 121 Rs.9,48,600l- (55,800 x 17) Rs.10,00O/- Rs.10,00O/- Rs.10,0OO/- personal expenditure [Smt. Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 1l Annual income Multiplier'17' [Sarla Varma's case'] Funeral Expenses Loss of love and affection to petitioner No.1 Loss of love and affection to petitioner Nos.2 and 3. (Rs.5,OOO/- each) 3 4 5 5 6 7 Pain and suffering Rs.15,0OO/- (Rs.5,OO0/- each) Total Rs.9,93,600/-

24. In the result MACMA is dismissed and I.A.No.2 of 2014 is allowed in part as under: a) The impugned award dated 06.09.2010, passed in \ \ O.P.No.598 of 2009, stands modified. b) The compensation awarded by the Tribunal i.e., Rs.6,32,OOO/- is enhanced to Rs.9,93,6OOl- together with interest at the rate of 8oh per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of deposit. 'lzoos; 6 scc 121 --I t 12l12 , BRMR, J I.A.No.2 of 2014 (Cross Objection [SR].No.7595 of 2014) InlAnd MA.CMA.No.1602 of 2011 c) The respondent is hereby directed to deprosit the awarded amount with interest and costs less the amount already paid if any within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. d) Cross appellant No.l - petitioner No.l is entitled for Rs.5,96,1601- and she is permitted to withdraw her entire share amount with costs and interest thereon without furnishing security. e) Cross appellant Nos.2 and 3 - petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are entitled for Rs.1,98,720/- each and they are permitted to withdraw their entire share amount with costs rand interest thereon without furnishing securit5r. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders if any stand vacated. Miscellaneous petition/s pending if any shall stand closed. SD/- JAWAHAR REDDY ANT REGISTRAR /ITRUE COPY// OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Cum - I Additional District Judge, Medak at SangareddyXwith records, if any)

2. One CC to SRI U SHANTHI BHUSHAN RAO (SC FOR TGSRTC )tOPUCl 3. One CC to SRI B VENKAT RAMA RAO, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies ADK/PSL w i::r!r: rtii?Sr* I. , .: !. aririlr!; .. .,"Tu ., : 6r' HIGH COURT DATED:03/1 112025 TI.iE S t O I 1 I 0t: * \r * COMMON JUDGMENT+DECREE l.A. NO .2 of 2014 (CROSS OBJECTION (.SR) NO.759S oF 2014I. IN/AND MACMA. No. 1602 ot 2011 DISMISSING THE MACMA AND PARTLY'ALLOWING THE CROSS OBJECTTON (SR) NO.7s95 OF 2014 .,dd G &, IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTTCE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO l.A. No.2 of 2014 (cRoss oBJECTtoN (sR) No.759s oF 2014) ,o.*o.ffi* orror, ' MACMA. No.,1602 ot2011 Between: Managing .Director, APSRTC, Rep. by its Regional, Manager, shanthinagar, Sanga Reddy AND

1. Y L,.yrryq,.wo Late Vishwanath Reddy, occ: Househord, R/o sanga Reddy, Medak District. -..Appel lanURespondent Medak District.

2. Y 9npwireddyu, s/o Laxmareddy, occ. Househord, R/o sanga Reddy, 3 Yr,l4?ntygffna, Wo Bhoomireddy, Occ: Househotd, R/o Sanga Reddy, Medak District. ... Res pondents/Petitioners l.A. NO zoF 2014(x . NO:7595 20141 BETWEEN:

1. v. Lavanya wo. Late vishwanar Reddy, Aged about 24 years, occ: Household, R/o chitkulvillage, Kowdipally Mandar, presenfly residing ai shanthinagar, Sanga Reddy Town, Medak District. !.v.eloomlleddy s/9. Laxma Reddy, Aged about 54 years, occ: Agriculture R/o.chitkulvillage, Kowdipally Mandat, fresenfly residing at shanthinagar, sanga Reddy Town, Medak District.

3. V. Manikyamma Wo. V.Bhoomireddy, Aged about 52 years, Occ: House! old, R/o.ChitkulVillage, Kowdipally Mandal, presently residing at Shanthinagar, Sanga Reddy Town Medak District. ...Cross Appellants/Respondents AND The Managing Director, APSRTC, Rep by its Regional Manager, Medak Region, at Sanga Reddy, Medak District. ;.. RespondenUAppellant Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,1988 and Memorandum of Cross Objections filed under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC against the Judgment and decree in O.l'].No.598 of 2009 dated.06-09-2010 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Cum - I Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeat, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material oapers in the Case and upon hearing the arguments of SRI U SHANTHI BHUSHA,N RAO ( SC FOR TGSRTC)Advocate for the Appellant in MACMA and Respondent in Cross Objections and of Sri B VENKAT RAMA RAO, Advocate for tlre Respondents in MACMA and Cross Objector in Cross Objections. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is dismissed;

2. That the l.A.No.2 of 2014 is allowed in part as under: a) That the impugned award dated 06.09.2010, passed in O.p.No.598 of 2009, stands modified; b) That the compensation awarded by the Tribunal i.e,., Rs.6,32,0001 is enhanced lo Rs.9,93,600/- together with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of deposit; c) That the respondent is hereby directed to deposit the awarded amount with interest and costs less the amount already paid if any within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; d) That the Cross appellant No.1 petitioner No.1 is entitled for Rs.5,96,160/- and she is permitted to withdraw her entire share amount with costs and interest thereon without furnishing security; e) That the Cross appellant Nos.2 and 3 petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are entifled for Rs.1,98,720l- each and they are permitted to withdraw their entire share amount with costs and interest thereon without furnishing security.

3. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal SD/. M JAWAHAR REDDY ISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII N OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Cum - I Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy 2 . Two CD Copies ADK/PSLw 6 HIGH COURT DATED:03/1 112025 DECREE l.A. NO.2 ot 2014 (CROSS OBJECTION (.SR) NO.7595 oF 24141 IN/AND MACMA. No. 1602 ot 2011 DISMISSIT{G THE MACMA AND PARTLY ALLOWING THE CROSS OBJECTTON (SR) NO.7595 OF 2014 t-\ ,dA i{(/ YL-