The High Court · 2025

..RESPONDENTS (Respondent Ng. 2 hereln not a necessary party fir t{Aqye t8\tl!t }3$'ReA :4n 1*en*o: +Jolal):1' .,,';.) (R1 CT Name Amended vide C.O.DIO4t1Ot2O21 inlA.5t2O21.) MACMA NO: 730 OF 2021 Appeal filed under Section 173 .of Motor Vehicles Act against the Award and Decree dated 28t}gl2}20 made in MVOP. No. 1805 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-the Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court ert Hyderabad. Between

1. Miss. G. []hargavi, D/o G. Rambabu, Aged 19 years, Occ. Student, R/o Flat No. T 14ttr Ftoor, Sri Sai HomeApatments, Malakpet, Hyderabad, T.S. ...APPE LLANT/PETITION E R AND

1. The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Rep by lts Managing Director, Managing Director Office At Bus Bhavan, RTC Cross Roads, Musheererbad, Hyderabad.

2. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Rep by Depot [Vlanager, Hayath Nagar Depot, Office at Hayathnagar, Rangareddy District.

3. Gunamorri ftlallesh, S/o Lingaiah, Aged 43 years, Occ. Driver in TSRTC, Rl/o H.No. 2-j28, Shivaji Nagar, Choutppal Mandal, Nalgonda District, Driver of crime vetricle, i.e TSRTC Bus bearing No. AP 11 27327 ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDE NTS CounseJ for thrr Appellants in MACMA No. 1ti4 0f 2021 andtor Respondent N,cs. 1 and 2 in MACMA No. 7it0 ot 2021 : Sri R. Anurag rep. Sri N. Vasudeva Reddy Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 in MACMA No. 1ll4 of 2021 and for the Appellant in MACMA No. 730 of 2021 : Sri C. Buchi Reddy Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 in MACMA No. 730 ot 2O21 : Sri R. Mangulal The Court delirvered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT ': I THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA M.A.C.M.A.NOs.184 & 730 OF 2021 coM JU GM D ENT: Both these appeals arise out of the Order and Decree dated

28.09.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.1B05 of 2017 passed by the Chairman, ttlotor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-The Court of Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short "the Tribunal")'

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal

3. The case of the petitioners before the Tribunal was that on 19.09.2016 at about 10:00 p.m., the petitioner got down the RTC Bus at the bus-stop, Moosarambagh and while she was about to cross the road, one RTC Bus bearing No.AP-112-7327 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, dashed against the petitioner, due to which she sustained grievous injuries' lmmediately she was shifted to Yashoda Hospital, Malakpet, wherein she underuvent inpatient treatment. She incurred huge medical expenses, thus claims a compensation of Rs.40,00,000/-.

4. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence, of the accident, age, avocation and income of the petitioner. lt is further i : I I \ 2 E] D,J MACMA Nos. 184_730_2021 contended that the accident occurred due to the sore negtigence of the petitioner and there is no negrigence of the driver. 5' tased on the above preadings, the Tribunar has framed the followirrg issues for consideration:_ 1 2 3 ','Whether the pleaded accident had occurr ';;tr{;"[:::inu^ilr:i:Il:i,;7i:!:{{'::;ii#xtw,:,;; Whether the petitione, a t w h ai r;,; [;;' ;";,; ; "r To what relief?,, i: i ;: i : ri ; I : f {l : ?! i ili I r * ! ; "x? 6' To prove their case, the petitioners got examined pws 1 to T and Exs.A1 to A25 were marked. on beharf of the respondents no oral eviclence was adduced, but Ex.Xl was marked. 7 ' Birsed on the evidence on record, the Tribunar has awarded a corrpeo:sation of Rs.20,31,6441_. Aggrieved by the said order and decree' MA.MA. No. 1g4 0f 2021 is preferred by TsRTc, whire MACMA.No.730 of 2021 is preferred by the claimant. B. Herard the submissions of Sri R. Anurag, learned Standing counset for TsRTc and sri c. Buchi Reddy, rearned counser for respondernt No.1 9' Learned counser for the RTc has argued that the disabirity certificate' is not issued by the Medicar Board, but sti, ,n. ,n;;;r, ETD,J MACMA Nos.184-730-2021 3 has awarded the compensation for disability, which is not proper. He further argued that there is no loss of Academics to the petitioner, she was a B.Sc 1't year student and she has also filed Marks Memo of the subsequent years. Therefore, oo compensation need to be awarded in that regard. He further argued that since the petitioner is a student, only notional income can be considered and there is no need to enhance the compensation on this account. He further r.J' argued that the compensation granted by the tribunal towards extra- nourishment is to an extent of Rs.2,00,000/- which is too high, and also under the head of transportation, the tribunal has awarded Rs.15,00,000/-. He further argued that the total bills of the petitioner was reimbursed, aS her father WaS a Government Employee and after deducting the same, the tribunal has rightly awarded the amounts towards medical expenses and no further amounts be awarded. He further prayed that the rate of interest granted by the tribunal is 9% per annum and prayed to reduce the same to 7.5o/o per annum.

10. Learned counsel for the claimant has argued that the tribunal has not considered the 60% disability suffered by the petitioner and has assessed only 30% disability towards loss of future earnings. He further argued that the earnings of the petitioner was assessed as low as Rs.6,000/- by the tribunal. Since she was a student of B.Sc, I i 4 ETD,J MACMA Nos.184_730_2021 her incrrme has to be taken atteast Rs.12,000 t_ permonth and she also suffered a toss towards marriage prospects in future and that the saicr aspect is not considered by the tribunar. He arso argued that the tribunar has not awarded any amount under the head pain and sufferinl; and future medicar expenses. He-therefore, prayed to enhancr-' the compensatiOn. 11 Based on the above submissions, this court frames the following points for determination: t.

2. Whethelthe compensation granted by the Tribunat is just and reasonabb? Wheth,er the order and decree of the Tribunal need any interference?

3. 12. pqint No.1: To what relief? Tr^e grievance of the RTC is that the compensation granted by 'l the tribu,at is too high, whire the grievance of the ctaimant is that she is entiflerl for enhancement of the compensation. b) A ;rerusar of the record revears that the petitioner got herserf examined as pwl and further got examined the doctors who treated her. c) p\lrzrDr. Krishna subramanyam, is an orthopedic surgeon at Yashoda Hospitar, Marakpet. His evidence revears that the petitioner sustained the following injuries i.e., i)Head injury,,D;r* ETD,J MACMA Nos. 184-730-202 1 5 dislocation of left hip with sciatio nerve palsy iii) Bilateral superior and inferior pubic ramus fracture, iv) Sacrum Fracture, v) Hemmoragic shock, vi) Left periorbital edema, vii) Blunt injury abdomen, viii) Left black eye, ix) Left mild hemothorax and that she was treated in their hospital from 19.09.2016 till 10.10.2016 and that they have issued Ex.A2, A4 and A5. d) PW3ru. Prasad Rao, who is a Billing Manager of Yashoda Hospital. ln his evidence it was revealed that the petitioner has paid Rs.8,48,604/- towards inpatient bill under Ex.A10. Nothing material was elicited during their evidence in cross examination to dislodge their evidence. e) PW4/Dr. M. pradeep Reddy who is an orthopaedic Surgeon, Hyderabad Multi Speciality Hospital. His evidence reveals that the petitioner went to their hospital on 05.02.2018 with a history of post traumatic operative left hip osteoarthritis and was given inpatient treatment till 09.02.2018. Again she was admitted on

12.05.2019 and that they have done auto bone graft and she was discharged on Ag.02.2018, she was advised for non weight bearing left leg, and was also supervised under physiotheraphy for one month. Again she was admitted in their hospital on 12.05.2019 for left THR (total Hip replacement), she was discharged on 15'05'2019 e :r 6 ETD,J MACMA Nos.184_730 2021 with an advise of supervised physiotheraphy, from then on she came for follow up treatment regurarry. Ex.A 7 and Ag are the discharge summaries issued by their hospitar. He further stated that the rife of the imp'rant is 15 years and after that she has to undergo another operation for re-implant and she is further advised to undergo tendon transfer for the foot drop. t) pw' is the Biring Manager of Hyderabad Murti speciarity Hospitar and it is ericited from him that the petitioner has paid an amount of Rs.5,35,205/- towards the inpatient biil. Ex.A12 and 413 were issued by their hospital g) p\A/6/Dr. G. subash Rao, is a consurtant at Doctors Murti speciarity Hospitar, Dirsukhnagar. His evidence revears that the petitioner went to his hospitar on 14.0g.2019 requesting for a disability certificate and that he perused her previous medical record and that the patient is suffering with rimping stiffness in reft hip joint with painfur restricted movements. Thus, he estimated the disabirity @ 60% which is partiar and permanent in nature. Ex.A26 is the disability certificate issued by him. h) PtAtTtB. D. Thirumala Rao, is the Employer of the petitioner,s father. Hr= is the Administrative Officer of DG prisons and it is the petitioner i.e., Sathyanarayna elicj.ted from him that the father of \ \ ETD,J MACMA Nos, 184-73O-2O2 1 7 works in their department as Head Warder vide Employee No.1406801 and that on producing the medical bills and essentiality certificate, they have reimbursed the bills, a total sum of Rs.6,08,000/- was reimbursed against the total bills of Rs.16,45,324 as per the eligibility and no further reimbursement is available to him. The attested copy of the said statement is marked as Ex.X1. A perusal of Ex.X1 reveals the same. Therefore, through the evidence on record i..e, the i) doctors/PW2 to 4 and PWO reveals the nature of treatment undenruent by the petitioner and it is further supported by the discharge summaries under Ex.A4, A6, A7, Ag and also the :. :.'.: diagnostic reports. j) Though it is contended by the RTC counsel that the disability certificate is not issued by the Medical Board and the same cannot be considered. Looking into the aspects of the injuries suffered by the petitioner and further the treatment underwent by her, it is opined that the doctor who is examined as PW7 has assessed the disability and also considering the evidence of PW7 coupled with EX.A25, it is l- opineO\frat it can be considered, as the doctor has spoken about the injuries sustained by the petitioner and difficulty faced by the petitioner, which is well corroborated by the evidence of PW2 to 4 7 i 6 . ETD,J MACMA Nos. 184_730_2021 and Pw./doctors who treated the petitioner. Therefore, there is no hesitalion to hold that the disability is also proved. k) rlonsidering the evidence on record, the tribunat has passed a reasoned order, granting Rs.20,31 ,644t_ towards compensation to the petitioner which appears to be justified. l) rr: has considered a, the heads of pain and suffering, medicar expenditure a,,d also toss of earning power due to functionar disabirity and arso expenses towards transportation, extra- nourish Tent, diet and attendant charges. Therefore, the same is found tc, be just and reasonable. Print No.1 is answered accordingly. No.

13. Pot a) rn view of the finding arrived at point Nol, it is herd that the order a,d Decree of the Tribunar need not be interfered with regard to liabilit,l and quantum of compensation. With regard to the rate of interest' the grievance of the standing counser for RTc is that the tribunal has granted a high rate of interest i.e.., @ g%o. I ETD,J MACMA Nos:184-730-2021 9 b) ln Jadav Saroja Bai Versus Ghute Naga Rao and Anothe/; a Coordinate Bench of this High Court has granted interest @ 7.5o/o per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation. c) ln Bandavath Mangla and Another Versus Bandavath Suresh and Others2 and National lnsurance Company Limited Versus. M. Venkateswarulu and Others3; also interest @ 7 .5o/o per annum was granted on the enhanced amount of compensation. d) ln lJnited lnsurance company Limited versus. Bollam Lingaiaha,'when the Tribunal has granted rate of interest @ 9% per annum, the High Court has modified the rate of interest to 7.57o per annum from the date of petition till realization. e) A Division Bench of this High Court in National lnsurance Company Limited Versus Jagadish Praiapathis; has granted 7.5 % per annum on the compensation from the date of petition till realization Therefore, in the light of the above cited decisions, this Court 0 has been consistently granting interest @ 7.5% on the compensation that is awarded in such cases. \ \\ 'zoz2ScC online TS 606 2 zozl scc online TS 1095 3 zoz3 scc online TS I 170 o zoz4 scc online TS 915 t zoz+ scc ontine TS 20-s0 I \ \ ,,J 10 erri,r MACMA Nos. 184_730_2021 g) r-herefore the same is awarded in this case arso. Thus, the g% rate of interest granted by the Tribunar is reduced to that of 7.50/o. F,oint No.2 is answered accordingly. 14 Eoint No.3:_ rrr the resurt MA.MA.No.730 0f 2021 fiied by the craimant is dismissr-'d, whire tuAcMA.N o-1g4 0f 2021 fired by TsRTc is parry a,owed modifying the order and Decree dated 28.09.2020 in M.v.o.F'.No 1805 0f 2017 passed by'the chairman, Motor Accident Claims fribunal_cum_The Court of Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, by reducing the rate of interest from go/o to 7.50/o per annum f-onr ilre date of clairn petition till realization. However, the interest lbr the period of delay, if any,is forfeited. The appellant_ TsRTc i:s directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest vuithin a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after deducting the amount if any arready depositecr' on such deposit, the respondent-craimant withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security. No costs Misce'aneous petitions, pending if any, in this appear, sha, is entired to stan( closed. M AHAR REDDY T REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/ ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Mol:or Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cumthe Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Corlrt at Hyderabad.

2. One CC to Sri R. Anurag Rep. by N. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocate TOPUCI

3.oneCCtoSriC.BuchiReddy,Advocate[oPUC] 4. One CC to Sri R' Mangulal' Advocate [OPUCI 5. Two CD CoPies w ,i.-,,:re 1 ... .-1,;lr:jri u 41 STA 1 \l 1l ilAn2ffi $ +r * HIGH COURT ETD, J DATEDi 21210812025 1 \ COMMON JUDGMENT+ DECREE MACMA.hto.184 of 2021 MACMA.ltlo. 730 of 2021 PARTLY,ALLOWING THE MACMA.ltlo.184 of 2021 AND DISMISSING THE MACMA. No. 730 of 2021 WITHOU'T COSTS * dfreb- &* IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA MAGMA NO: 184AND 730OF 2021 MACMA NO:1 21 Between:

1. The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Represented by its Managing Director, Managing Director Office at Bus Bhavan, RTC X Roads' Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

2. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by Depot Manager, Hayathnagar RTC Bus Depot, Depot Office at Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District. ...APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS AND

1. Miss. G. Bhargavi D/o. G. Rambabau, Aged 19 years, Occupation Student, Flio. Flat No. T 14th Floor, Sri Sai Homes Apartments, Malakpet, Hyderabad- TS.

2. Qunamoni Mallesh, S/o. Lingaiah, Aged 43 years, Occupation Driver in TSRTC, Rl/o. H. No. 2-28, Shivajinagar, Coutuppal Mandal, Nalgonda District' Driverof Crime Vehicle i.s., TSRTC Bus bearing No. AP't'l 27327- RESPONDENTS (Respondent No. 2 herein not a necessary party (Rl CT Name Amended vide C.O.DI 0411012021 in lA. 5/2021.) A NO: 2021 n Miss. G. Bhargavi, D/o G. Rambabu, Aged 19 years, Occ. Student, Ri/o Flat No. T 14th Floor, Sri Sai Home Apatments, Malakpet, Hyderabad, T.S. AND 1 . The Telarrgana State Road Transport Corporation, Rep by lts Managing Director, lManaging Director Office At Bus Bhavan, RTC Cross Roads, Musheeral:ad, Hyderabad.

2. Telanganer State Road Transport Corporation, Rep by Depot Manager, Hayath Nergar Depot, Office at Hayathnagar, Rangareddy District.

3. Gunamon l\/allesh, S/o Lingaiah, Aged 43 years, Occ. Driver in TSRTC, R/o H. No. 2-28, Shivaji Nagar, Choutppal Mandal, Nalgonda District, Driver of crime vehicle, i.e TSRTC Bus bearing No. AP I 1 27327 .] ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Appeals liled under Section '1 73 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Award and Decree dated 2810912020 made in MVOP. No. 1805 of 2o1T on the file of the court of the lvlotor Accidents claims Tribunal-cum{he court of the chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. These a6rpeals coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the court below and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri R. Anurag rep. sri N. Vasudeva Reddy, Advoczrte for the Appellants in MACMA No. 1g4 ot 2021 and for Respondent Nc's. 1 and 2 in MACMA No. 730 ot 2021 and Sri C. Buchi Reddy, Advocate for tlre Respondent No. 1 in MACMA No. 1g4 ot 2o21 and for the Appellant in MACtr/A No. 730 of 2021 and sri R. Mangulal, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3 in MACMA No. 730 of 2o21 none appeared for Respondent No. 1 either in lterson or by Advocate. This Court doth Order and Decree as fo ows:

1. That the MACMA No. 184 of 2021 be and hereby is partly allowed and MACMA No. 730 ot 2021 be and hereby is dismissed;

2. That the MACMA No. 'r 84 of 2021 be and hereby is parfly allowed by reducing the rate rrf interest from g% to 7.50/o per annum from the date of claim petition till realization;

3. That the interest for the period of delay lf any be and hereby is forfeited; 4. That thr: appellant-TsRTC be and hereby is directed to deposit the compenr;ation 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 lf any already deposited;

5. That on such deposit, the respondent-claimant be and hereby is entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security

6. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Tribunal shall stand confirmed in all other aspects; and

7. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. Sd/- M. JAWAHAR REDDY SISTANT REGISTRAR /TRUE COPYII CTION OFFICER To,

1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-the Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad.

2. Two CD Copies V HIGH COURT ETD, J DATED: 2'.t-10812025 COMMON DECREE MACMA.lrto.184 ot 2021 MACMA.lrlo. 730 of 2021 PARTLY,ALLOWING THE MACMA.I{o.184 of 2021 AhID DISMISS!NG THE MACMA. No. 730 of 2021 WITHOUT COSTS )^..of"o-&i*