The High Court · 2025

: Sri. Gundaram Manoj Goud Counsel for the No. 4 : Sri Srinivas Rao Vutla The Court delivered the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR M.A.C.M.A. No.484 of 2024 JUDGMEI.IT: Hearcl Sri Gundaram Manoj Goud, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Sr nivas Rao vutla, leamed counsel appearing on behalf of respondent lrlo.4, and perused the record.

2. The present Appeal is filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the Award passed by the leamed Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal-cum- Principal Dir;trict Judge at Mahabubnagar (for short 'the Tribunat) in partly allowing M. V.o.P.No.85 of 2022 granting compensation of Rs.3,08,000/- against the claim of Rs. 10,00,000/-, along with costs and intere st @ 7 .5yo p.a., and seeks for enhancement of compensation considering the income of the claimant as Rs.20,000/- p.m.

3. The fa:ts reveal to the filing of oP are thaton 15.0t.2022 ar about

14.15 hours, while the appellant along with his deceased wife by name Gupani Kalytmi were proceeding from Raviryal village to Thukkuguda via Thukkuguda service road on Honda Shine Bike bearing No.TS-08-HG- 9295, and when they reached Thukkuguda ORR Junction and crossing Srisailam Highway Road, one RTC Hire Bus bearing No.TS-06IJA-4241 (for short 'Crime Vehicle') belonging to Atchampet Depot, proceeding from Hyderabad to Atchampet, the driver of the Crime Vehicle drove the 2 crime vehicle at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle of the appellant, due to which the appellant and his wife fell down on the road. The wife of appellant received head injury and died while the appellant sustained injuries i.e., RTA Head Injury, fracture right temporal bone, Right Tempo-Occipital EDFVAcute left fronto- temporal contusion, fracture right clavicle and other multiple injuries all over the body.

4. On the complaint lodged by one Gupani venkataiah, Police, Pahadisharief, Rachakonda registered a case vide Cr.No.3512022 for the offences under Section 304-4 and337 IPC against the driver of the Crime Vehicle and investigated into.

5. The appellant filed M.V.O.P.No.85 of 2022 before the learned Tribunal stating. that at the time of accident, he was aged about 30 years, hale and healthy, working as driver and used to earn Rs.20,000/- p.m. and contributing the same to his family, thereby claimed compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- along with interest @ l8o/o p.a. from the date of petition till date of realization from the respondents.

6. In the OP, respondent No.2 (owner of the Hired Crime Vehicle) filed counter-affidavit, which was adopted by respondent No.l (driver of , the Crime Vehicle) disputing the age, occupation and income of the appellant so also the manner of accident' It was contended that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent riding ofthe rider ofthe Motor Cycle bearing No.TS-08HG-9295 arrd that there is no fault on the driveroftheCrimeVehicle,whowaspossessingvaliddrivinglicenceand thattheCrinreVehiclewasinsuredwiththerespondentNo.4-Insurance Company, which has to indemniff and pay the amount.

7. In the OP, respondent No.3-Telangana State Road Transport Corporation filed counter-affidavit denying the age' occupation and income of the appellant so also the manner of accident' It was further contended that the unf,ortunate accident took place due to the negligence of the appellant while riding the motor cycle with Triple riding without having valid ;lnd effective driving licence to drive the said motor cycle. It is further contended that the driver of the crime vehicle was having valid driving licens,e at the time of accident and that respondent No'l/driver of the crime vehicle is very experienced driver in RTC, and that the crime Vehicle was ttaving valid insurance policy at the time of accident'

8. Respondent No.4-United India Insurance Company Limited filed counter in the OP denying the age, occupation and income of the appellant 4 so also the manner of accident. Respondent No'4 also denied that the Crime Vehicle was insured with their Company at the time of accident' It was submitted that respondent No.2, knowing the fact that the driver of the Crime Vehicle did not possess valid and effective driving licence to drive such vehicle, allowed respondent No.l/driver to drive the crime vehicle and thereby viotated the terms and conditions of the policy' [t is also contended that the accident took place due to the negligence of the appellant himself while riding the Motor bike and that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the Crime Vehicle' [t is further contended that the compensation claimed by the appellant under various Heads is highly excessive and arbitrary' 9 Basing on the above pleadings, the leamed Tribunal framed the following issues : I I i I I t i : i i I I I I I " I. Whether the accident occurred on l5'l'2022 at about 14.15 hours at oRR Thukkuguda, Thukkuguda village, Maheshwaram Mandal, was due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of Respondent No' I i'e' driverofRTCBusbearingNo.TS-06rJA-424land whether the petitioner sustained iniuries in the accident? 5 2) Whether the first respondent was possessing valid drivinS: license at the time of accident? 3) l{hether the petitioners are entitled to seek compensation .for the injuries sustained by him in the accident and dso, what amount andfrom whom? 4) To u,hat relieJ? "

10. Before the learned Tribunal, on behalf of the appellant, P.Ws.1 and 2 examined and Exs.A-l to A-ll were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no witnesses were examined, however, Ex.B- I copy of Insurance Policy was marked with consent. ll. Since, it is a case of injuries, which were caused on account of negligence on the part of the appellant, the leamed Tribunal, after considering the various issues, taken the income of appellant/claimant as Rs.300l per day, which comes to Rs.9.000/- p.m. Leamed Tribunal held that though the appellant claimed monthly income of Rs.20,000/-, the appellant failed to produce any documentary evidence with respect to his avocation an<l income. However, the leamed Tribunal taking the age of the appellant as 25 years at the time of accident as per Ex.A-7 Discharge Summary of the Hospital, considered the monthly income as Rs.9000/- (Rs.300/- per,Jay). 6 t2. The material on record reveals that at the time of accident, the claimant was driving the motor cycle with triple riding in violation of the Traffic Regulations. The learned Tribunal, on due consideration of the evidence adduced, particularly the age of the claimant as reflected in Ex.A-7 Discharge Summary, has rightly considered his monthly income at Rs.9,000/- p.m. Therefore, the compensation awarded under various Heads is just and reasonable in matters pertaining to injuries.

13. Therefore, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the determination of income or in the quantum of compensation awarded. The findings of the learned Tribunal are supported by material on record and does not warrant interference by this Court.

14. Hence, this Court finds no merit in the Appeal and is not inclined to interfere with the Award passed by the learned Tribunal.

15. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A.No. 484 of 2A24 is dismissed-

16. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. M. JAWAHAR REDDY ANT REGISTRAR //TRUE SECTION OFFICER To,

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

2. One CC to Sri. Gundaram Manoj Goud, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Ont: CC to Sri Srinivas Rao Vutla, Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CD Copies AS/DL w i HIGH COURT DATED:14/11/2025 JUDGMEN'I' MACMA.Nc,.484 of 2024 STATE e g 11 ilt\$ * DESP;-tr"i 6, .b * DISMISSING THE APPEAL 6),-J6 \-.../ rafzf>e . IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR L EOUS APPEAL Appeal filq! under Section t 73 of M.V.Act, against Order and Decree dated Dt. 0310112024 passed in M.V.O.P. No.85 of 2O22 on the file of the court of the Chairmgn Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge at Mahabubnagar. Between: Gupani Raju, S/o. Gupani Kondanna, Age. 30 years, Occ. Driver, Pesently Nil, R/o.Upparipally Village, Khilla Ghanpur Mandal, Wanaparthy District, Now Residing at Housing Board Colony, Mahabubnagar. ...AppellanUClaimant D

1. Gundala Jangaiah, S/o. Gundala Venkataiah, Aged.25 Years, Occ. Driver of Hire Bus Bearing No.TS-06-UA-4241, R/o.H.No.13-59/1, Gokulanagar, Achampet, Nagarkurnool District.

2. Bande Govardhan Reddy, S/o. B.Bhoopal Reddy, Aged. Not Known, but major, Occ. Owner of bus Hire Bus Bearing No.TS-06-UA-4241, R/o.H.No.'l- 2-1 1 0l 1 2, Subhashnagar Christian Colony, Mahabubnagar.

3. The Regional Manager, TSRTC, Regional Office, New Bqs Stqld Complex, Mahabubnagar (Hirer of RTC Hire Bus Bearing No.TS.06-UA-4241 of Achampet Depot).

4. The United lndia lnsurance Company Limited, Represented by its Branch Manager, H.No. 1-5-107, Nethaji Road, near Mallikarjuna Enterprises, New Town- Behind lng Vysya Bank, Mahabubnagar. (Policy. No. O522O0312OP 1 127 12939 valid from 07 lO2lO2O21 to OOlO2l2O22) This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the ludgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the argument of Sri. Gundaram Manoj Goud, Advocate for the Appellant and Sri Srinivas Rao Vutla, Advocate for Respondent No.4. -'._---.}- This Coutt doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and is dismissed; 2. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Tribunal shall stands confirmed in all c,ther respects; and

3. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. Sd/. M. JAWAHAR REDDY T REGISTRAR s //TRUE COPY// S OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman Motor Accidents .Claims Tribunal-cum- principal District 2. Two 3D Copies Judge at Mahabubnagar. AS/DL HIGH COtrrRT DATED:1A11'll2O25 DECREE MACMA.No.484 of 2024 DISMISSINGi THE APPEAL Ics elz-lz-e .