The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to S: SRI SUDINI SRINI\ AS REDDY The Court made the following: JUDGMENT I THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA M.A.C.M.A.NO .427 0F 2021 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by TSRTC, aggrreved by the Order and Decree dated 'l 1.02.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.70 of 2016 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Vlll Additional District Judge, Miryalaguda (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 petitioner before the tribunal is that on

14.O2.2016 at about 2:30 p.m., near Arjuna Rao Functional Hall, one TSRTC Bus bearing No.AP-202-0082 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motor bike of the deceased bearing No.AP-24AP-0543 on which the deceased was going in opposite direction due to which the rider of the motor bike fell down, sustained injuries and died while being shifted to the hospital. They sought a compensation of 40,00,000/-.

4. The respondent Nos.1 and 2/RTC has fited counter, denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the acciCent, age, avocation and income of the deceased. lt is further \ t 2 ETD,I MACN4A No.427 2021 contended that there was no rash and negligenr:, , on part of the driver of RTC Bus 5 The respondent No.3 has remained ex-parte 6 Based on the above rival contentiorrs, the Tr t unal has framed the following issues:- "1 Whether the accident occurred on 14.02.201 (; )t about 2:30 p.m., near Arjuna Rao Function Hall at , vat)thipuranj Village of Miryalguda, due to rash and negli 1 'nt oriving of fSR IC Bus NI.AP20Z0082 by the { respott ) ,t 2 Whether Pusapa Ravinder sustamed in,t -ies in thal accident and died on the injuries? Whether the petitioners are entitled for the r tmpensation from the respondents? lf so, to what amount? To what relief ?" 3 4,

7. To prove their case, the petitioners got exanri red pWs 1 to 4 and Exs.Al to A7 were marked. On behalf of the ro ;pondents, RW1 was examined, but no documents were marked. 8 Based on the evidence on record, the Triburt rl has granted a compensation of Rs.23,64,800i-. Aggrieved bythe r;: rme. the present appeal is preferred by the RTC.

9. Heard the submissions of Sri P. Satish (umar, learned Standing Counsel for TSRTC and Sri Sudini Sriniva: Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents. I I I E, E i 3 ETO,J MACMA No.427 2021

10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the owner and insurer of the motor bike are also necessary parties and the petition is bad for non-joinder of parties. He further argued that the driver of the bus was not rash and negligent in causrng the accident and that there was a turning at which the accident occurred and the deceased could not watch the same and dashed against the bus.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligence of the bus driver and therefore, prayed to uphold the decision of the Tribunal

12. Based on the above submissions, this Court frames the following points for consideration :-

1. Whether the rider of the motor bike bearing N2.AP24AP0543 was rash and negligent in the occurrence of the accident ?

2. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of the owner and insurer of the motor bike?

3. Whether the Order and Decree passed by the Tribunal need any intefference?

4. To what relief? '13. Point No.1:- a) PW2/Sri Chamarthy Nagarjuna Chary was examined as eye witness in this case. He deposed that he is the colleague of the 4 ETD,J MACMA No.427 2021 deceased and that they hail from the same village. t e deposed that the deceased was going from Madugulapally to A; gadapa Village on his motor bike bearing No.AP-24-r\P-0543. After c tmpletion of his duties at about 2.30 p.nt., lvhen he reached r.re ar Arjuna Rao function hall, the driver of the RTC bus bearing lJ r AP-20-Z-0082 proceeding torvards Miryalaguda has driven his bLr, in a rash and negligent rnanner and dashed at a high speed to t- 3 motoi bike of the deceased in the opposite direction, as a resL t of which the deceased fell down, sustained injuries and die: ln his cross examination it is elicited that he is not an eye witness to ilre accident and that he Iearnt about the accident when a person 1as telephoned him from the spot. b) PW4 is Sri Chennaboina Ramesh who is ono of the panchas for scene of offence and inquest. He deposed hat he is the colleague of the deceased and that they hail from t- : same village. He deposed that the deceased was going from l\il rdugulapally to Alagadapa Village on his motor bike bearing No.l P-24-AP-0543 After completion of his duties at about 2:30 p.m., u,t en he reached near Arjuna Rao function hall, the driver of the Rl C bus bearing No.AP-20-Z-0082 proceeding towards tvliryalaguda has driven his bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed at i high speed to the motor bike of the deceased in the opposite dire<;i on, as a result f' ,/ I i : : : i i 1 5 ETD,I MACMA NO,427 2021 of which the deceased fell down, sustained injuries and died. He further stated that Police conducted scene of offence and inquest panchanama in his presence. ln his cross examination, he denied the suggestion that he has not witnessed the accident. He admitted that the road at the accident place is a straight road and the vehicles coming in opposite direction are visible to each other. The witness has clearly stated that the bus overtook another vehicle and hit the motor bike coming in the opposite direction. c) Ex.A1 is the FlR, Ex.AS is the charge sheet. A perusal of the said documents reveal that the charge sheet is filed against the driver of the RTC bus bearing No.AP-20-Z-0082. The recitals further reveal that while the deceased was returning from his work on

14.02.2016 from Madugulapally to Alagadapa Village on his motor bike bearing No AP-24-AP-0543 at Check Post of Madugulapally at around 14:30 hours, the accused driver of RTC bus has driven it in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, dashed the motor bike of the deceased in the opposite direction near Alagadapa function hall, as a result the deceased sustained bleeding injuries. lmmediately, he was shifted to Area Hospital, ltladugulapally after first aid, he was shifted to Dr. Shankar Naik Hospital, thereafter, to Sunrise hospital and that he died on 15.02.2016, while being shifted to.Global Hospital, Hyderabad for better treatment. t\ 6 ETD,J lviACMA No,127 2021 ! d) Thus, the evidence of pW4 coupled wittr FIR/Ex.A1 and Ex.A5/charge sheet reveal that the accident occurr(), rdue to the rash and negligence of the RTC driver and that there is ro negligence of the bike drivcr The contention of the appellant coLr rsel is that pW4 is a witness for scene of offence panchanama an,J .rat he is not an eye witness and that his evidence cannot be relie.t upon, butt the witness stood firm in his cross and has clearly ; ated about the occurrence of the accident. His name figures as LW6/panch for scene of offence and inquest in the charge sheet. ll -,nce, based on the evidence of PW4 coupled with Exs.A.l and A5, t is held that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligc rce of the RTC driver, but not due to the negligence of the bike rider Point No. l is answered accordingly

14. Point No 2:- The contention of the appeilants counser is the t the owner and insurer of motor bike are necessary parties and therl the petition is bad for non-joinder. Since, it is already held under l;sue No..l that the acceded occurred only due to the rash and n€( ligence of the driver of RTC Bus, the owner and insurer of motr> bike are not necessary parties. Therefore, the petition is not bad cr non_joinder of parties. "/ 5 i I I 7 ETD,J MACMA No.427 2021 Point No.2 is answered accordingly

15. Point No.3:- I ln view of the finding arrived at Point No.1, there is no need to interfere with the order and decree passed by the Tribunal and therefore, the same ls upheld Point No.3 is answered accordingly.

16. Point No.4:- ln the result, the appeal is dismissed upholding the Order and Decree dated 11.02.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.70 of 2016 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Vlll Additional District Judge, Miryalaguda. No costs Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shal! stand closed SD/. M. JAWAHAR REDOY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Chairman Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum-Vlll Additional District Judge, at MirYalaguda.

2. One CC to SRI P SATISH KUMAR (SC FOR APSCR lRRl CL) Advocate loPUcl 3 One CC to SRI SUDINI SRINIVAS REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] cD copies '*" Nr: ASlnvb HIGH COURT DATED:1 510912025 JUDGMENT +DECREE MACMA.No.4Z7 of 2021 .... \( -.:.-:__ ,\ N,\;\ '../ 0 3 l',.i:,fi ?026 l I -.,. .:'i(, .r-,,- a. ^. DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT CoSTS G\,v 'Lb q \ v IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD 134441 MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO:. 427 OF 2021 Between:

1. TSRTC, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, P.ep. by its Managing Director 2. TSRTC, lvlanuguru Depot, Manuguru Town and lvlandal, Khammam District, Rep. by its Depot Manager, (Bus bearing No. AP-20-Z-0082) ...Appellants/Respondents 1 & 2 AND 1- Pusapati Shailaja, Wo Late Ravindar, Aged 23 years, Occ. Housewife RJo Alagadapa Village of Miryalaguda Mandal, Nalgonda District. 2. Pusapati Bhavan, S/o. late Ravindar, Aged 5 years, Occ. Student. 3. Pusapati Pranitha, D/o. late Ravindar, Aged 4 years, Occ. Student. 4. Pusapati Nagamani, Wo. Nagaiah, Aged 45 years, Occ. Housewife. 5. Pusapati Nagaiah, S/o. Late Narsaiah, Aged 52years, Occ. Coolie (R2 and 3 are being minors rep, by their natural mother Respondent No.1 herein) All are R/o Alagadapa Village of Miryalaguda [Vlandal, Nalgonda District

6. Bathini Adinarayana Swamy, S/o. Veerabhadram, Aged 32 years, TSRTC Driver, Manuguru Depot, R/o. Samithi Singarain Village of Manuguru Mandal, Khammam District ... Res pondents/Petitioners (RG is not necessary party) Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, aggrieved by the order and decree made in M.V.O.P.No.70 of 2016 dated 11.02.2020 on the file of the court of the Chairman Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum-Vlll Additional Diskict Judge, at Miryalaguda. ...RespondenURespondent No.3 .ss This appeal coming on for hearing and upon per rsing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and he material papers in the case and upon hearing the argument of Sri P.Satish l. ,mar, Advocate for the Appellant and of S.Srinivas Reddy, Advocate for the Resporc 3nt 1 to 5. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the both Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous A5 1 eal be and hereby is dismissed upholding the order and Decree < ated 11.O2.202O in N/l V.O.P.No.70 of 2016 passed by the Chairman. l\t. tCT-Cum-Vlll Addtinal District Judge, Miryalaguda.

2. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Tribunal s r rll stands confirmed in all other respects; and

3. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeai. //TRUE COPY// sD/- AS II. JAWAHAR REDDY ;: iISTANT REGISTRAR \ t.. \ \:_---*/ 'ilL,o* oFFrcER To,

1. The Chairman Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribur rl -cum-Vlll Additional District Judge, at Miryalaguda.

2. Two CD Copies 4r ,t."Sinvb HIGH COURT DATED:1 510912025 DECREE MACMA.No.427 of 2021 DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS ,,h 6\ 1/