The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondent No.l: Sri S. Manish, representingl on behalf of Sri R. Anurag (SC FOR TS R.TC) Counsel for the Respondent No.2: None Appeared The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI M.A.C.M.A.No.376 of 2Ol7 AND CROSS-OBJECTIONS No.18 of 2023 COMMON JUDGMENT:

1. Aggrieved by the Award passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short, 'the Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.92 of 2012, dated 21.07.2015, respondent No.1/RTC in the said M.V.O.P. filed M.A.C.M .A.376 ol 2017 seeking to set-aside the Award passed by the learned Tribunal. Also, being not satished with the compensation granted by the learned Tribunal, the Petitioner in the said M.V.O.P. hled Cross Objections No. l8 of 2023 seeking enhancement ol compensation amount.

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

3. The brief facts of the casc arc that initially, the petitioner/injured hled a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rules 455 of A.P.M.V. Rules, 1989 read with Section 14O of M.V.Act, 1989 seeking compensation of Rs.30,0O,OO0/- for the injuries sustained to him in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 01.09.20i0. As stated by the petitioner, on 01.O9.2010, when the petitioner was leaving from I I i 2 MCl''J M,4C\!A 376 o12017 dnJ X4bi 1t\ of )02 j offlce on Her Honda Passion Plus bearing No AP-29-AD-2283 towards his residence situated at Malkajgiri, Secul derabad, on the way, when he rcached near Cine Actor Balakrish r a's residence a[ Road No.45, .Jubilee Hills, one A.P.S.R T'C Bus be: ring No AP-282- 5436 of HCU Depot came in a rash and negligent manner at high speed ald hit the vehicle of the petitioner from lrackside' due to which, the petitioner fell down on the road dividr r and sustained Head injuries and other multiple injuries all over the body Hospital rt Jubilee Hills, Immediately, he was shifted to Apollo Hyderabad.

1. Based on the complaint given by the brotl rer in-law of the petitioner, the Jubilee Hills Police Station regis lered a case in Crime No.381 of 2010 under Section 337 lPC, conducted investigation and hled charge sheet against the r river of the RTC Bus bearing No.AP-282-5436. It is further submitted by the petitioner/injr rred that he was 5 3O years old and is an Engineering Graduate a rd working as a Team Leader in ITC Structures 18 Infra Pvt'Ltd. on consolidated salary of Rs. i4,O0O/- per mortth and prosecuting lurther education in Masters Degree. Due to the said 266iir:nt, he became permanently disabled and unable to discharge hLs regular duties as he underwent operations to Brain. Since the alleged accident 3 MAP,J MACMA 376 of 2017 ond x-obj.18 of 2023 occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Driver of APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP-28-Z-5436, as such, he hled claim petition against the respondents, who are the owner and driver of the said RTC Bus.

6. The respondents 1 & 2/RTC filed their written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition including, manner of accident, rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC Bus Bearing No. AP-28-Z-5436, involvement of RTC Bus, age, occupation and income of the petitioner/ injured and contended that the alleged accident occurred due Lo the rash and negligent driving o[ the petitioner/ injured himself and thcrefore prayed to dismiss the claim against it.

7. Based on the pleadings made by both the parties, thc learned Tribunal had framed the following issues for conducting trial:- t. u tu. Whether the pleaded accident had occurred resulting in injuries to the petitioner Kondepudi Nagendra Kuma4 due to the rash and negligent diuing of the motor uehicle (APSRTC Bus beaing registration No. AP-28-Z-5a36) by its driver? Wletlrcr the petitioner is entitled to anA competlsotion and if so, at uhat quantum and uhat is the liabilitg of the respondents? To tahat reliei? / \ 4 LICPJ ttAa.l,lA Ita ol 20I7 dktt X1)ht 13o/ 202J

8. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner himself vas examined as PW1, got examined PWs.2 to 5 and got markcd F'xs.Al to A16 on his behalf. On behalf of the respondents/ R TC, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced to sLL tstantiate their contentions.

9. After considering the evidence and documr nts available on rccord, the learned Tribunal had allowed thc t laim petition by awarding compensation of Rs.37,12,000/- alonl with intcrcst @ 7"k per annum from the date of petition till the tlate of realization payable by both the respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Aggricved by the same, respondent No.1/APSRTC in the said M.V.O.P. filed M.A.C.M.A.No.376 of 2017 and the ciaim petitirner filed Cross Objections petition No.18 of 2023. 1o. Heard arguments submitted by Sri S.ldanish, learned counsel representing on behalf of Sri R.Anurag, .earned Standing Counsel for Appellants-RTC as well as Sri E.V,:nugopal Rcddy, learned counsel for cross-objector/ Respondent No.l in O.P. 1 1 . The contentions of the learned counsel for tL e appellant/ RTC are that the learned Tribunal erred in considerinE, the disability of the petitioner/ injured @ IOO% based on Disc -rarge Summary without any Disability Certificate issued by Me lical Board and \ 5 MGP,J WCL{4.376 of 20 I 7 ottt X-obj.l8 ol202J calculatcd the compensation; it also erred in fixing the income of the petitioner @ Rs.13,500/- per month and also failed to consider the fact that the claim petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of owner and insurer of the motorcycle as parties to the claim petition. 1,2. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/cross- objector contended that as the petitioner/ injured never became normal person due to the said injuries, it ought to have awarded future prospects to the income of the petitioner and further contended that it ought to have awarded more amounts under conventional heads and therefore praycd to allow the cross- objections petition by enhancing the compensation.

13. Now the points that emerge for consideration is, (i) Wlether the order passed by the learned Tibunal requires interkrence of this Court? (i) Whether tle cross-objector is entitled for enhoncement of compensation? Points- 14. This Court has perused the entire evidence and documents available on record. The father of the petitioner was examined as PW1 and reiterated the contents made in the claim application and deposed about the injuries sustained to his son. In order to prove I l 6 MGl'..1 L,tAaMA l7a o12017 and .f 4ht l8 of 2t)2J 4: a about the injurics sustained to his son, he got examined PW4- Doctor/ Neuro Surgeon who treated him. PW4 in his evidence deposed that the petitioner/ injured was adm itted in Apollo Hospital on 0i.09.2010 with the injuries of (i) Clo;ed Head Injury, (ii) Left Hemisphesic Thin Subdural Hematoma, (iii Traumatic Sah, (iv) Left Frontal and Temporal Contusion and (r' Diffuse Axonal Injury and underwent surgery for Left F'onto Temporal Decompressive Hemicraniectomy on 08'09'2llO and was discharged on 22.09 .2010 with an advice to come again for Cranioplastl,. on 22.09.2o 10, Titanium Mesh Plate was inserted for the injury sustained by thc petitioner/ injurc 1. PW4 lurther deposed that due to the said injury, his left side of the brain got affected and as a result, there is a loss of memorv and de-function of right side of the body and speech.

15. As far as documentzrry evidence is concern ed, trx.A 1 is the FIR registered by Jubilee Hills Police Station in lrime No 381 of 2010 under Section 337 IPC, conducted invest gation and filed charge sheet under Ex.A1l against the driver rf the RTC Bus bearing No.AP-282-5436. Ex.A2 are the medical bills. trx.A3 is the Discharge summary. Ex.A4 is the appointmer tt order of the peLitioner/ injured Ex.AS is the Salary slip of petitioner/ injured Ex.A6 is the Eye institute cer ificate. Ex.A7 is I I 1 MGP) MACMA 176 of 20 I 7 onl X4bj.l8 of202l Lhe Driving License. Ex.A8 is the ID card of M.Tech course. Ex.A9 is the ID card of K.Nageswara Rao. Ex.A10 is the Registration Certificate of vehicle bearing No.AP-29-AD-2283. Ex.A12 is the Copy of judgment in CC.No.1766 of 2O7O. Ex.A13 is the SSC certificate of the petitioner/ injured. Ex.A14 is the B.Tech provisional certificate. Exs.A15 & A16 are the Medical Bills.

16. Therefore, from the oral evidence of PWsl to 5 coupled with the documentary evidence marked under Exs.Al to Ai6, it is clear that the petitioner/ injured sustained grievous injuries in the accident that occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of RTC Bus bearing No.AP-282-5436. Moreover, the driver of said RTC bus voluntarily admitted that he had committed the offence and surrendered himself before the Police. Therefore, there is no requirement in making lhe owner and insurer of the motorcycle as necessary parties lo the claim petition. Hence, the finding arrived by the Tribunal that there was negligence on part of the driver of RTC Bus bearing No.AP-282-5436 do not suffer from any irregularity.

17. As far as quantum of compensation in the impugned judgment is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant/ RTC contended that the Tribunal erred in fixing the income of the 1 petitioner/ injured @ Rs. 13,500/- per month without considering \ \ 8 MG? J MACMA 376 ol2017 on.l X ab| 18 of2023 Ex.A5-Salary slip and had aiso not considered tlte percentage of disability @ 100%.

18. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer to the evidence of PW4 who deposed that due to the Head injury s rstained to the petitioner, his left side of the brain got affected ani there is loss of memory and further deposed that the pet tioner requires rehabilitation for his entire life and requires contir uous assistance for performing his daily needs and he also d,:posed that the rnJ une s sustained by the petitioner are grievou:, in nature and there is no chance of improvement of his conrlition in future Hence, the learned Tribunal considering the lc ss of economic deprivation on accoun t of loss of memory caused o the petitioner, assessed his disability @) looo/o. This Court, b1. considering the grievous injuries sustained by the petitioner, surgteries undergone by him, treatment taken by him and by considerin 1 the evidence of PW4 who deposed that there is complete loss o{ memory to the injured and the said condition will be continued throughout his life, is of the considered opinion that the learnc d Tribunal had rightly held that the petitioner suffers 100% economic deprivation on account of the said injuries. Hence, the finding arrived by the Tribunal requires no interference by this Court. 9 MGPJ MACMA.J76of20t7 tut) x-oh) 18 of 202J

19. As far as income of the petitioner/injured is concerned, the learned Tribunal fixed an amount of Rs.15,500/- per month notionally towards the income of the petitioner which includes attendance expenses. This Court, by considering Ex.AS- Cheque payment made by M/s.Structures 18 Infratech pvt.Ltd towards salary for the month of August, 2O10 and Ex.A4-Appointrnent letter issued by Structures 18 Infra Tech private Limited, is inclined to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal and hereby fx an amount of Rs.14,00O/- towards monthly income of the petitioner/ injured and calculate future loss of earnings as under:- Future loss of earnings = Monthly income x 12 x percentage of disability x relevant multiplier. = 14,000 x 12 x 77 x1O0% =Rs.28,56,O0O/-

20. Apart from future loss of earnings, the learned Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs. 1 ,50,000/ - towards pain and suffering; Rs.4,O0,OOO/- towards loss of amenities and expectation of life which this Court finds it to be excess and hereby reduce the same to Rs.1,00,OO0/- .

21. Further, a perusal of Para 18 of the impugned judgment sho$s that though the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.4,63,295/- \- I l I I I l l I k Li t] l0 M(iI'.J VA('MA J76 al 2Al7 dnd X-obJ 1E oI202 3 towards Hospital expenses incurred by the petitio: rer/ injured ' but it failed to add the said amount while calculatin;1 compensation. Hence,thisCourtisinclinedtointerferewiththehndingofthe learned Tribunal and hereby award an amount t 'f Rs'4'63'295/ - towards Hospital expenses incurred by the petition':r/ injured '

22. Hence, the total compensation tr: which the petitioner / injured is entitled to, is calculated herer nder:- S.No. Name of the Head Amount awarded this CouLrt Rs.28,5t,,000/ - Loss of earnings due to disability Medical expenses Rs.4,63,295l- Pain and suffering and loss o[ amenities in life Attendant charges Rs. 1,O0,000/- Rs. iO,0t)O/- TOTAL Rg34,29,2951- 1 2 4 5

23. As far as interest is concerned, the lcarned "ribunal awarded interest @ 7ok per annum on thc compensation allount which this Court finds the same to be meager and hereby enhances the same to 7.5%o by relying upon the decision of the Hon'1'le Apex Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and othersl r 2013 AC.J 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35 MGP,J MACMT t76 oI20 t7 ond X-abj. t8 oIlul

24. In the result, M.A.C.M.A.No.376 of 2017 fiIed by RTC is party allowed by reducing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal i from Rs.37, I2,000/- to Rs.34,29,2951- and the Cross'Objection petition No. 18 of 2O23 hled by the petitioner/ injured is also partly- allowed by enhancing the rate of interest on the compensation amount from 7o/o Lo 7.Soh per annum. Except the said findings, the findings arrived by the Tribunal with regard to liability and apportionment shall remain same. There shall be no order as to costs.

25. Miscellaneous petilions pending, if any, shall stand closed I I i //TRUE COPYII ^'.:::6t&T* To, 1 . The [Votor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyd 2. One CC to M/s. E. Venugopal 3. One CC to Sri R Anurag (SC F 4. Two CD Copies erabad. (with records, if any) Reddy, Advocate [OpUC] oR rsRrc)[oPUC] Kam/plp HIGH COURT DATED:1410212025 I : SIAI(- I .Jr\ { 12 Jull zffi t z\1 It f-t spa. o ! .a+ COMMON JUDGMENT+COMMON DECREE MACMA.No.376 of 2017 AND CROSS-OBJECTIONS No.18 of 2023 PARTLY ALLOWING MACMA & CROSS.OBJECTIONS 7 A2 5 / IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI M.A.C.M.A.No: 376 of 2017 AND CROSS-OBJECTIONS No.1 8 ot 2023 M.A.C.M.A.No.376 of 2O17 Between: Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Chairman, RTC Bhavan, Chairman "X" Roads Azamabad, Hyderabad. AND ...Appe lla n URes pon de nt No.1 1 Sri Kondepudi Nagendra Kumar, S/o. Sri, K.Nageswara Rao, Age: 30 years, Occ: Employee of Structure 18 R/o. H.No.1S--i75, Sai Apartiments,' Raia Nagar Colony, Mirjalaguda, Secunderabad (tr/entally Disorcier) Rep. father and natural guardian Sri Kondepudi Nageswara Rao,'S/o.'Late Sri !! |iJan_ikya.ry. Ag9: .q5 years, Occ: JTA, Geoto-gicat Survey of tndia, R/o. H.No.1-3-114 / 1, Akkireddypalem, BHPV post, Visakhapalnam _ 530012, Presently. R/o.D.No.39-33-20, MIG i99, Phase-|, Madhavadhara, VUDA Colony, Visakhapatnam - 530 018. PlISll" Srinivasa Reddy, S/o. Sri Pedda Anki Reddy, Age 28 years, Occu APSRTC Driver Staff No.982517, HCU Depot R/o -H. NolASt Zt, Balajinagar, Shameerpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy- District. ...RespondenUpetitioner 'by 2 (Respondent No.2 is not necessary party to this petition) ...2nd Respondents/2nd Respondent in MVOp.No.92 of 2012 Cross Obiection No. 18 of 2023 Between: Sri Kondepudi Nagendra Kumar, S/o. Sri. K.Nageswara Rao, Age: 30 years, Occ. Employee of Structure 1B R/o. H.No.15-175, Sai Apartments, Raja Nagar Colony, Mirjalaguda, Secunderabad (Mentally Disorder) Rep. by his father and natural guardian Sri Kondepudi Nageswara Rao, S/o. Late Sri K.Manikyam, Age: 55 years, Occ: JTA, Geological Survey of lndia, R/o. H.No.1-3-1 14 / 1, Akkireddypalem, BHPV Post, Visakhapatnam - 5300'12, Presently R/o.D.No.39-33-20 Mlc '199, Phase-t, Madhavadhara, VUDA Colony, Visakhapatnam - 530 018. ...Cross Objector/Respondent No.1 AND 1 Th_e State Road Transport Corporation rformerly known as 4,i 9,8 f.C.) RTC Bhavan, Chairman "X" Roads Azanrabad, Hyderabad - 500 020 -Telan_gana

2. Sri Konda Srinivasa Reddy, S/o. Sri Pedda Anki Reddy, Age 28 years,'Occu APSRTC Driver Staff No.982517, HCU Depot R/o. H.No. l-65t27,Balajinagar, Shameerpet lt/landal, Ranga Reddy District. ...Res;pondenUAppellant ...ResPonderr URespondent No.2 Appeals filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act & Memorandum of Cross Objections filed under Order 41, Rule 22 of CpC aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 21-07-2015 passed in M.V.O.p.Nc .92 of 2012 on the file of the Motor vehicle Accidents claims Tribunal-cum- K Additional chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad. These appeals 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 oP and upon hearing the arguments of sri S. Manish, represen ring on behalf of sri R. Anurag (SC FOR TSRTC, for the appellant in MACMA and .iespondent No.1 in Cross Objections and of M/s. E. Venugopal Reddy, Advocate For the Respondent No.'l in MACMA and cross objector in cross objections and None Appeared for the Respondent No.2 in Cross Objections. This Court Doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the M.A.C.M.A.No.376 of 2017 fited by RTC be a,.rd hereby is parfly allowed by reducing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.37,12,000/- to Rs 34,29,295t ;

2. That the cross-objection petition No.18 of 2023 filed by the petitioner/injured be and hereby is partly allowed by enhancing the rate of interest on the compensation amount fromTYo to 7.5% per annum;

3. That the except said findings, the findings arrived by the Tribunal with regard to liability and apportionment shall remain same; and

4. That there shall be no order as to costs. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. V. HARI PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR \.nr- I..b{z- SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad.

2. fwo CD Copies Kam/plp HIGH COURT DATED:1410212025 COMMON DECREE MACMA.No.376 ot 2017 AND CROSS-OBJECTIONS No.18 ot 2023 PARTLY ALLOWING MACMA & CROSS.OBJECTIONS ,I / 1 I g/*