The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellants : Sri. Kondadi Ajay Kumar Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: Sri G Ravi Chandran Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 : Sri Devender Babu Goli Counsel for the Respondent No. 4:Sri Md. Kaleem Pasha The Court delivered the following: j\ 'l i I I I I i I ' l i THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KT'MAR M.A.C.M.A.No.44O oF 20/24 JUDGMENT: Sri K.Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for tlre petitioners; Sri V.Akshitha, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri Md. Kaleem Pasha, learned counsel for respondent No.4.

2. The present appeal is fiied aggrieved by the decree and judgment passed in MVOP No.80 of 2021, dated 2L.11.2O23 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Asifabad.

3. The facts leading to file O.P. before the learned trial Court ',..'.,i are that on 23.06 .2017, the pillion rider of the motorcycle bearing No.AP-O1-R-9993 along with respondent No.3, while proceeding to Wankidi after purchasing cotton seeds, met with An accident with MSRTC Bus bearing No.MH-40-N-9582 that was coming from Chandrapur towards Asifabad, driven in a rash and negligent manner in a high speed. As a result, the deceased sustained head injuries, other grievous injuries all over the body and died on the spot. 2

4. Prrsuant to the accident, a compraint was registered in crime No. 66 of 2017 under section 304-A of Ipc in the wankidi Police Station.

5. Following the untimely death of the deceased., the appellants who are the parents, younger brothers and grandfather of the d,:ceased, approached the learned trial court under section 166(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act r/w Rule 455 of the TSMV Rules, 1989 claiming a compensation of Rs.2o,oo,0o0/-. It is averred that the deceased was hale and healthy at the time of the acciden'-, aged about 2t years and was earning Rs.1o,0oo /- per month by doing agriculture and used to contribute his entire earningr; for the well being of his family.

6. Rr:spondent No.1 and 2 filed a counter affidavit denying the allegatic,ns and stating that there can be no liability against the driver of the MSRTC bus. Learned trial court issued notice to respondent No.3, rider of Motorcycle bearing No.Ap-01-R-9993, who made appearance through an advocate but no counter affidavit was filed nor was any specific evidence adduced. wherea:;, respondent No.4, owner of the motorcycle bearing No.AP-o1-R-9993 though served, remained absent and set ex- Parte' a:4 1 3

7. However, relying upon the material available on record, learned trial Court framed two issues:

1. Whether the pteaded. accident occttrred resulting in the death of the deceased-Sidam Sagar, due to ra.sh & negtigent driving .of MSRTC bus bearing No.MH-40-N-9582 by its driuer?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitted to ang compensation and if so, at uhat qtantum and what is the liabilitg of the respon'dents? on behalf of the appellants PWl and PW2 were examined and Exhibit A1 to A7 were marked. Whereas on behalf of respondent No.l and 2, RWl was examined and Exhibit 81 to 83 were marked. The learned Tribunal appreciating the material available on 8. rqcord, only hearing the appellants and respondent Nos. I and 2, and following the principles laid down in Saro;la'Venna. as Delhi TVansport Corporationl, came to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled for a compensation of Rs.LL,4O,8OO|- under relevant heads, together with an interest at 9o/o per annum from date of passing of the award till the date of realization. g. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Tribunal erroneously appreciated the material available on record '2oog AC'l 1298 I 4 and carrre to an erroneous conclusion that there was negligence on the 1>art of the respondent No.3 and awarded compensation against respondent Nos.3 and 4. He further contended that the Tribunal ought to have awarded the entire compensation amount of Rs.2O,OO,000/- instead of Rs.11,40,800/-, considering the fact that it is established against the respondent No.1 in occurrence of the accicent. Learned trial court erroneously assumed that the decease<l carried 50 to 60 kg cotton seeds packets and that the road in the same offence was uneven, so the accident occurred due to loss of balance. Further, learned rribunal failed to take into consideration that the act itself is a beneficial tegislation. 1(). Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.l and 2 cc,ntended in the Tribunal that there is no liabitity on behalf of the respondent No.1 and 2 and further contended that the rider of the rrtotor vehicle drove the vehicle by allowing two persons as pillion rjders along with big cotton seed bag and after crossing the chikli river, the rider of the motorcycle felt down on the road and one perrlon, by name, Sidam Sagar died on the spot. At that time, the MSIRTC bus was coming from Maharashtra to Dharmapuri, reached the chikli vagu, by observing the accident, the driver of the bus stopped the bus to the left side. By that time, the police r a/^\ 5 also reached. Therefore, no fault or liability can be attributed to respondent No.l and 2.

11. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 vehemently contended that no notice or summons was served upon respondent No.4 and that the claimants have taken out notice to incorrect address of the answering respondents, despite being were aware of the last known address as per the paper publication wherein they mentioned the complete address with house number. L2. l,earned counsel for respondent No.4 placed reliance upon the report of the Field Assistant, who took an oath stating that, when the persons reached the address located under reference it was found that there was no such person available at that place with the Motor Cycle bearing No. AP-O1-R-9993 and no person was available for acknowledging the summons.

13. On perusal of the cause title as well as the report submitted by the Field Assistant, it is clear that there is no house number referred. Fursuant to the directions of the learned trial Court for substituted service, the house number of respondent No.4 was mentioned as House No. 28-136, Gopal wada, Mancherial District. Therefore, learned counsel for respondent No.4 contends that he 6 was not provided any opportunit5r for lodging any evidence or prove thr: claim on his behalf.

14. He ard learned counsel and perused the record

15. Upron perusal of the entire record as well as the contentions raised b'r both counsel, it can be seen that the Tribunal allowed M.V.O.P.80 of 2O2L, hxing the liability against respondent Nos. 3 and 4 jointly and severally to compensation of Rs.11,40,800/- together with 9o/o interest, even though there is no representation, counter or any specific evidence adduced by respondent No.3 and 4, beforr: the learned trial Court. Therefore, it is apparent on the face of the record that the Tribunal before proceeding with final conclusicn ought to have provided one more opportunit5r to respondr:nt No. 3 and 4, having permitted for substituted service.

16. Th.erefore, to meet the ends of justice, the impugned order passed oy learned trial Court in M.V.O.P No.80 of 2021 dated

21.11.2023 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned trial court to decide the matter afresh, duly providing an opportunity to the parties. However, since it is the case of death, the learned trial court shall endeavour to dispose of the main case as expeditiously as possible, within a period of six (06) months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. This ) I, l :I I 'I ;r I I I t' I l i. i : 7 Court also observes that in view of the death of the deceased, the claimants are also entitled for a reasonable compensation.

17. In view of the same, the M.A.C.M.A is allowed Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed \ To, Sd/. M. JAWAHAR REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER / //TRUE COPY//

1. The Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge Asifabad. (With records)

2. One CC to Sri. Kondadi Ajay Kumar Advocate IOPUC] 3. One CC to Sri G Ravi Chandran Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri Devender Babu GoliAdvocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri Md. Kaleem Pasha, Advocate IOPUC] 6. Two CD CoPies -W t I , () .-) sHET ( 2 7 ti:B /ljzfi .CI * Ta.udl HIGH COUFIT DATED:31 l1Ol2O25 JUDGMENI' MACMA.Nc,.44O ot 2024 ALLOWNG THE MACMA >L