The High Court · 2025

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA M.A.C.M.A.No. 5 15 of 2O23 JUDGMENT: Heard Sri M. Ram Mohan Reddy, learned standing counsel for the appellants/TSRTC and Sri G. Narender Reddy, learned counsel for respondents/claimants. Perused the entire record.

2. Aggrieved by tl-e order of the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Xxvl Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court,Hyderabad (for short 'the Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.L729 of 2016, dated O5.O5.2O22, whereby, claim petition hled seeking compensation of Rs.25,OO,O0O/ has been partly allowed awarding with compensation of Rs.22,98,OOO/- with interest at 60/o per annum.

3. The claimants sought compensation from appellants/TSRTC jointly and severally on account of death of one V. Ramulu in a road traffic accident. The claimants are the parents of the deceased V.Ramulu. On 21.09.2O15 at 12.45 am, the deceased and his co-worker loaded debris with JCB in the Tata Tipper bearing No.AP-11-V-O15 near Harazpenta Grass Mandi, Kachiguda, Kamela Road, Hyderabad. Thereafter, said tipper was proceeding on the road. When the deceased was getting into the 2 tipper, one RTC bus bearing No.AP-36-Z-0226 carrt, from Golnaka side in rash ald negligent manner and dashed tt:r deceased and the Tata tipper. Due to the said impact, the derr ased fell down from the tipper and sustained head injury and d t d on the spot. According to the claimants, the deceased was worl. ing as a driver under a contractor by name M/s. Srinivasa Enterp I ses with salary of Rs. i5,0OO/ per month. In vie'"v of the crisis can.r ;ed on account of the death of the deceased, the claimants sough compensation t hc onn-llanra qH[/L I rqr 1(o / /'Fq PT/-

4. The claimalts got exarnined PWs 1 to 4 and r:: hibited Exs.Al to A i 1 anci Exs.C I to C5. The appellants/TSRTr, got exarnineci RWI and did not exhibit any documentary eviderLr e. Considering the evidence adduced by both sides, the Trit unal awarded compensation of Rs.22,98,OOO/- witlr 6%o interest lez Cing to filing of present appeal. 5- in grounds of appeai, the TSRTC challengeci t re quantum of compensation awarded and the frnding about rasF and negligent driving on the part of the driver of RTC bus bearLr .g No.Ap-36-Z- O226. Further, the TSRTC pointed that the decease I while trying to get into the tipper. suddenly fell down on the roa<l and sustained injuries and there \ ras no fault on the part of t te bus driver. 3 However,saidfactwasnotconsideredbytheTribunal. Alternatively, it is urged that the claimants failed to prove rash and negligent drivrng on the part of the driver of the RTC bus and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation under No Fault Liability to a maximum extent of an amount of Rs.5O,0OO/-. Lastly, it is urged that the Tribunal erred in considering income of the deceased at Rs'15'OOO l'- per month r,r,hen Ex.A8/SBH Pass book shows that the deceased was drawing monthly salary of Rs.5,5OO/- only' Further' the Tribunal awarded 4O%o future prospects though his income was not supported by t"y document, as such, prayed that the order passed by the Tribunal be set aside.

6. Coming to the first ground of rash and negligent driving on the part of the RTC bus bearing No'AP-36 Z-0226' the claimants got examined PW2 who is an eye witness to the accident who was driver of the JCB in the Tata Tipper bearing No'AP-11-V-0 15 who was present when the accident occurred' PW2 deposed that the deceased V. Ramulu who was a driver in GHMC was getting into Tata tipper and at that time, one RTC bus came from Golnaka side and dashed the Tata tipper from backside and in the process' V.Ramulu fell down from the tipper, sustained head injury and died on the spot. When an eye witness to the accident is examined' the 4 TSRTC cannot raise any issue about there being ro proof of rash and negligent driving. In addition to oral evider:e of pWl, the police record also is heavily weighed against the rl iver of the RTC bus. A charge sheet is rrled against the driver oi RTC bus under Section 304-A of IpC.

7. Coming to the issue of contributory negligenc : on the part of the deceased, it is to be noted that the tipper was st ttioned ald the deceased was climbing into the tipper ald at tha.1 time, the RTC bus came from the backside and dashed the tipper No negiigence can be attributed to the deceased who was routin<: 7 climbing into the stationed tipper i ne i-eioi'e, the ground c . contrr butorl. .nL ^-^f- sustainable for cha1lenginlJ the impugned negligerrce also is not order.

8. Next coming to the income of the deceased, t he evidence of PWI is that her son was working as a driver in (l:{MC and had income of Rs. 15,000r/- per month. As per evidence rf pW2 who is the JCB driver, the deceased was a contract tipper ,J -iver in GHMC and was earning Rs.15,ooo/- per month. pw2 as rr JCB driver is also earning Rs. ls,Ooo/- per month. Lastly, the wit. rss pw3 is the Proprietor of Srinivasa Enterprises who supplies la.lt rur to GHMC. PW3 deposed that his orgarization is employed by O rcle_9, GHMC 5 and the deceased was employed as a driver and was paid Rs. 15,OOO/- per month gross. In cross examination, it is elicited that the salaries are paid through bank transaction and that the bank statement of the deceased shows Rs.3,99O/- for 15.09.2015 and Rs.8,82Ol- for 16.i0.2O15. No document is l-rled to show that the deceased was paid an amount of Rs.SO,OOO/- per month.

9. The entire police record shows the deceased was working as GHMC driver. In general, in the year 2015, about Rs.7,000/- to Rs.8,00O/- per month is taken as the notional incorne of an unskilled labourer and about Rs. 12,O00/- per month is taken as the notional income of drivers of non-transport light motor vehicles. Therefore, the Tribunal has taken the fixed income as stated by PW3 as Rs. 15,OOO/- per month and on the basis of Ex.A9 certificate which shows that the deceased was deputed to work as tipper driver to GHMC Circle-9. The Assistant Engineer of GHMC examined as PW4 deposed that in the year 2021, a contract driver is paid Rs. 16,841/-. Exs.Cl to C5 are marked by PW4. On the I l basis of said evidence, the Tribunal has taken the incorne of the deceased as Rs.15,O0O/- per month and this Court does not see ') \ any reason to interfere with the same. The other aspects of computing compensation i.e. adding 407o towards future prospects and deducting 5O% of the monthly income towards personal 6 expenses ald granting funeral expenses and lol; r of estate are proper. In addition, the claimants are entitled to p eyment of filial consortium of Rs.4O,OOO l- each, hut the sarne war not considered by the Tribunal. Thus, in all, the claimants a :e entitled for compensation of Rs.23,78 ,OOO /-

10. In the result, the Motor Accident Miscellal :ous Appeal is disposed off by enharcing the compensation arnol nt awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.22,9B,OOO/ to Rs.23,7g,OOO/- as irereunder: al The enhanced compensation a_moLrnt sh a 1 car:ry interest at 9ok p.a. from the date of petition rill the date of realizatioo. b) The appellants shall deposit the amounl ,r'ithin a period of (8) 'u,eeks from the date of receipt of co ,y of judgment. On such cieposit, the claimants are enti_ :d to withdraw the entire arnount in proportion to their I hares awarded by the Tribunal, without furnishing the r;r curit5z. Miscellaleous Petitions, if aly, pending in ttL: ; appeal, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs^ SD,'- A. i REENIVASA REDDY ,-f$s TSTANT REG|STRAR //TRUE COPYII \ t,./ I SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal_cum_ Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. (With records, if any) 2. One CC to SRl. M.Ram Mohan Reddy, Advocate [Op, )] fiVl Additionat Chief

3. One CC to SRt. G NARENDER REDDy Advocate [OpUC] I 4 Twq CD Copies AS/gh M I HIG!{ COURT DATED:23107/2025 \ \ t I JUDGMENT+DECREE [2 DRAFTS] MACMA.No.S15 ot 2023 \\E STAT rF C C) $ i JIll il1$ * t PAl DISPOSING OF THE MACMA WITHOUI COSTS. G"( 6 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 515 OF 2023 Between: t !g!qng4a State Road Transport Corporation, Rep., by its Managing Director. 2. Telangana. State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Depot Manager, RTC X Roads, Bus Bhavan, Musheeribad, Hyderibad'. Warangal-l Depot, Hanmakonda,Warangal District.' ...Appellants/Respondents AND

1. Smt.V.Bujji, Wo. V.Gopal, Aged about 40 years, Occ. House Wife, 2 V.Gopal or Gopy.a, S-/o late V.Jethya, Aged about 45 years, Occ. Agriculture, Both are residents of H.No.144-976,Bizar Ghat, Hyderabid. 5000"04. ...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,19BB against the order and decree in MVoP.No.1729 oI 2016 dated 05,05.2022 onthe fite of the court of rhe Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum-XXV| Additional chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower court and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of M. Ram Mohan, SC FOR TSRTC for the Appellant and of Sri G Narender Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No.3 and none appeared for the respondents. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: '1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeat be and hereby is disposed o{f by enhancing the mmpensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.22,98,000/- to Rs.23,78,0004:

2. That the enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest @ g%op.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization;

3. That the appellants shall deposit the amount within a period of (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of Judgment; Y I I I

4. That on such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withc 'aw the entire amount in proportion to their shares awarded by the Tribunal, vr hout furnishing the security; and

5. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. SD/- A. I REE ^ri',rr NIVASA REDDY NT REGISTRAR 1\"; N OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To,

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- (XVl Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court,Hyderabad. (With records, if any

2. Two CD Copies AS/gh /a, HIGH COURT DATED:2310712025 DECREE MACMA.No.515 ot 2O23 DISPOSING OF THE MACMA WITHOUI'' COSTS. r1 b .\r>