The High Court · 2025

(Petitioner No.3 being minor Represented by her Mother and Natural guardian Smt. Pabbaraju Ramadevi- Petitioner No.1 herein) ...RESPONDENTS / RESPONDENTS NO. 1 to 4 Counsel for the Appellant: SRI K.MADHUSUDHAN REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent No. 1 to 3: KOWTURU PAVAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No. 5 & 6: SRI B.MAYUR REDI)Y Counsel for the Respondent No. 7: None Appeared. The Court made the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA M.A.C.M.A.No.l4O7 OF 2OO9 JUDGMENT: 1. Aggrieved by the order passed b,v the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Judge, Family Court-cum- VI Additional District Judge, Khammam fhereinafter relerred as TribunalJ in M.V.O.P.No.750 of 20 13 dated 11.12.2O18, the 5e responden[/ Insurance Company in the szrid O.P. preferred the present Appeal seeking to set-aside the order of the learned Tribunal

2. For the sake of convenicnce, the parties hereinafter be referred as they were arrayed before the learned Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the claim petitioners, who are the wife and children of Late Pabbaraju Hlnumantha Rao (hereinafter referred as 'the de ceased') filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs. 18,OO,OOO/- against the respondents on account of the death of the deceased in a road accident that took place on 01.O1.20 13 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC hired Bus bearing No.AP-20lY-6669. It is stated by the petitioners that the deceased used to work as a Conductor in A.P.S.R.T.C., Madhira Depot and on O1.O1.2O13, N8K,I i,\LMA No t4O7 ol 2At9 the deceased was on duty and was proceeding frrrrrr Madhira to Basara in Adilabad District in the said hirec ApSRTC Bus bcaring N,r.AP-20/Y-6669 along g,i[h passengers. apd u,hen the bus reached Anksapur Village of Armoor Mancl rl. N izamabad District al about 21.45 hours, respondent No.1 ,1rovc the bus wiLh high speed and dashed against the statione <l Lorr1. bearing No,AP-37l X,4236 situated on the left side oI r hc road on National l{ighr.r,ay-63. As a result, the Condu.l()r's seat on wl-rich the dt:ceased sat, got completely damagec :rnd [herebv, an iron rod poked into the head of the deceasr.rl 'rr,frich h:rs caused grievous injury and resulted into his deall. Some of rhe passengers rvho were travelling in the bus, esczrped from rhe scene of offr:nce and the driver also escaped lr()m the spot without getting any injuries. Immediately, the deccased was shifted to nt:arby Hospital without making an.,, 'i:omplaint to Police. One of the passengers, who was travelllrg rn thc bus, informed the Depot Manager of Madhira Depot rvho in turn inlormed l-he same to the claim petitioners and c thcr relatives.

4. The brother of the deceased lodged a complr rint bcforc the Police ancl the Police registered a case in Crimr: No.2 of 2013 against tne driver of hired APSRTC Bus L,r.aring No.Ap- 20 /Y6669 i.r:., respondent No.1 herein under St,,ctions 304(A) 3 N8K.I MACMA.No 1407 ol2019 and 337 of IPC and after conducting thorough investigation, charge sheet was also filed against the driver of the said RTC Bus and the same was numbered as CC.No. 127 of.20l3 on the hle of the Judicial Magistrate o[ First Classs, Armoor of Nizamabad District.

5. It is stated by the petitioners that prior to accident, the deceased was hale and healthy and was aged 44 years and used to work as a Conductor in A.p.S.R.T.C., Madhira Depot and used to get salary of Rs.2O,OO0/_ per month which is spent for maintenance of entire family. Due to the sudden demise oI the deceased, the petitioners were put to harclship, mental agony and became destitute, as such, they filed claim petition seeking compensation against the responden ts_RTC..

6. During trial before the Tribunal, the claim against Respondent No.l/driver of the crime RTC Bus, was dismissed. Respondent No.2-Depot Manager was set ex_parte.

7. Respondent No.3-Managing Director of RTC filed his counter contending that the accident occurred due to the negligence on part of driver of 1orry bearing No.Ap 37 /X_4236, who parked his vehicle on the centrc of the road, as such, the claim petition is liable to bc dismissed on the ground of non_ 4 NBK,) t 1ACMA.No.1407 oJ 2019 joinder of owner and driver of subject lorry as ne(l rssary partles and therefore prayed to dismiss the claim against lrim' B. Respondent No.4/owner of the bus conterrded that the subject Bus was insured with respondent No 5 with valid the date of accidr: rt, as such, insurance PolicY covertng respondenL No.S is liable to pay compensation z nd prayed to dismiss the claim against him. g. Rcspondent No.S/Insurance Company fil::l its counter denving the involvement of the crime vehicle in the accident lt also contended that as respondent No'4/own:r of the bus entered into an agreement with respondent N r'3, as such' respondent No.3 alone is iiable to pay compense tion and that [he compensation claimed is excess and e >.orbitant and the refore prayed to dismiss the claim agarnst it

10. Resltondent No-5 also filed additional counti)r stating that respondent No.4/owner of the crime vehicle, dr<l not pay any premium covering the risk of the Conductor an(l that he paid premium only for passengers and one driver anr lhe deceased in the presen[ case was a Conductor in the bus as such, the insurance company is not liabie to pay any cor:pensation and therefore crayed to dismiss the ciaim against it' 5 N8K,J MACMA.No 140/ ol )O19 I 1. Based on the pleadings made by respective parties, the learned Tribunal had framed the following issues lor trial: Whether the accident took pLace on account of rash and negligent diuing of Bus bearing No.Ap-2O/ y- 6669 bg its driuer? Whether the petitioners are entitled to clatm ang compensation? If so, to tuhat amount and from uthich of the respondents? u. To tuhat relief.>

12. Before the Tribunal, on behalt of the petitioners, pws 1 & 2 were examined and Exs.Al to A6 were marked. On behalf of respondents, RW1 was examined and Ex.B1-Copy o[ insurance polcy was marked.

13. After considering the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, available on record, the learned Trirbunal had allowed the claim petition by awarding comp..r=atior, ot Rs.l8,OO,0OO /- along with interest (4 T.S% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization payable by respondent No.5 alone. Aggrieved by the said hnding, the Sth respondent/ Insurance Company preferred the present Appeal.

14. Heard arguments on both sides. perused the record

15. The contentions of learned counsel for 'Aflpellant/ Insurance Company as stated in the grounds ol 6 NBK,] i t^CMA No 1,107 oj )O19 -1 I '..1 appeal arc that the learned Tribunal erroneouslr iastened the liabilitr' r>n the insurance company without appre,--ra ting the fact that thc policv cloes nol cover the risk of conducto lbr the hirecl insurecl br.rs. I-carned counsel also contended tLLr I the learned Tribunal lailccl to appreciate the fact that the clii nr petitioners ought to hrrvc liled claim petition undc Employees Compensatior-r Act instead of preferring Motor Ve lri<:les Act ar-rd thcrefor-t: F,ravcd to allou, the Appeal by setting asLri<: the order of thc iearned l'ribunal. ln support of his conte:rtions, learned cotrnsel also rclerred to the decision of the Hon': lt Apex Court reported in Civil Appeal Nos.1849O-18497 of '-)i)172O22 Law Suit (SC)157rj and (2O2O) 20 Supreme Court Cases 632 u,herein thc Hon'blc Apcx Court at para 8 of its judgment observr:d that 'rvhen thc aclual possessior-r of the vehicle is u.ith the Corporation, thc vehicle, the driver and the cr,lductor were undcr the dircct control and supervision of thl Corporation. Thcrefor-c, through the definition of "Vicarious li rlrility", it can bc inferre<l tlral the pcrson supervising the driver rs Iiablc to pay compensation to thc victim". It also further i'rcld that the Insurancc Crrrnpany u,ould not be able to escape its liabilify to pa!, the arnor-lnl of compensation. 7 NBK,] MACMA.No.u07 ol 2019

16. On the other hand, learned counsel lor the respondents/ claim petitioners contended that the lcarned 'lribunal, after considering all the aspects, had awarded reasonable compensation for which interference of this Court is unu,arranted.

17. Now the point that emerges for determination is, Whether the order passed by the learned Tibunal requires inte rfere nce of this Court? POINT:- 18. A perusal o[ the record along with the grounds of Appeal shows that there is no dispute about occurrence ol accident and death of the deceased. The point that has to be discussed in the present Appeal is with regard to application of liabitity against Insurance Company though the policy does not cover the risk of t conductor for the hired insured bus.

19. It is an admitted fact by RW1, who is an Adminisrrative O[ficer working in the O/o.respondent No.5/lnsurance Company that the subject RTC bus was insured with respondent No.5 and Ex.B1-lnsurance policy was in force as on the date of accident. RW 1 also admitted that the seating capacit_y of the bus is 5O seats and one driver as per IMT 44 and the olr,ner of the bus/ respondent No.4 paid Rs. 1 25/ to cover 8 .- \ '--1 \!'\\ ] i ..1 N'ACMA.No 1407 ol2019 IMT ancl an :rmount oI Rs. 125/ - was also collecte r] u,nder Ex,B1 for legal liabilrtics of cmplo-yt:es. Hence, this part rl the cvidence clearly shorn,s th:rt :rs per IMT Rule 44, coveral,c of Rs.125/- covers 50 passengers and driver. As such, I tt' driver u,as already covercrl undcr IMT 44 and the questior: ol pavment of premium itmounL o[ Rs.25/ - separately to the driv,rr do not arise and as suclr, the premium of Rs.25/- is towar,ls employees, '*,hich rncludes Conductor. As such, the :ontenLion of respondent No.5 that Lhere is no such cor'rage for Lhe conductor urtdcr Ex.B I-lnsurance policy is not at all correcr. Hence, the lcarned Tribunal had rightly fixed liability upon insurance compan-y in paying compensation.

20. As iar as quantum o[ compensation is c,)ncerned, the lcarned Tribrrnal, consiclering trx.A5 Pay slip, to,rl< the monthly income of [hc <lcceasecl (r Rs.21,0OO/-, deducte,t tt7,a.o amount tolvards personal anci living expenses of the ,l,r<:eased and applied relevant multiplier and calculate6 1e55 ,rl' dependency which arrivecl at a tot:rl amount of Rs.23,52,OO,] / Since the claim of pr:titioners is onlv Rs. i8,00,O00/-, the learned Tribunal, ,:onsidering the same, restricted its conr rcnsation only to a sum ol lts. 18,OO,00O/-. This Court do not lilcl any reason to interfere u ith the finding of the learned Tribur a I u,hich is in i - I NBK.) MACMA-No-1407 ol2019 propcr perspective. Hence, the Appeal is devoid of merits and substance and is liable to be dismissed.

21. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed without costs

22. Pcnding miscellaneous pctitions, if any, shall stand closed SD/.MOHD. ISMAIL OEPUTY REGISTRAR 6-- //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -Cum-Judge, Family Court - Cum-Vl Addl. District Judge, at Khammam (with records) 2. One CC to SRI K MADHUSUDHAN REDDY Advocate IORUCI 3 One CC to SRI KOWTURU PAVAN KUMAR Advocate IOPUC] 4. One CC to SRI B.MAYUR REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies \ To, BGSiPSL HIGH COURT DATED: 3010412025 : -_ - , -- .'-..-.- ..: ..\\ - L./,4. \ ': lt :, , '1 _^^\\ .., :t Lr. l\ JUDGMENT MACMA.N o.1407 of 2019 J '''r 2t25 I il ,a) L) ..1<. . :-..-.-., -.r' I l DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS [ 33001 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY. THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL ,.-"TWO TTIOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA EOUS APPEA LNO:1 407 0 MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVI L MISC ELLAN F 2019 Between: AND 1 The Oriental lnsurance Company Llmited'. SVC Office (CBO-4) Near Eenadu' s B H c o m p I e x, P, d ; ;"' ;; ; ['' il'r c n ""1tv;;;3; 5;1$ 3'J- r N o. 5 Pabbaraju Ramadevi, Wo Late Hanumantha Rao' Aged 30 years' Occ Household, 2. Pabbaraiulaxrnt Narasimha Rao' S/o Late Hanumantha Rao' Aged 19 3. Pabbaraju Navya Rani, S/o Late Hanumantha Rao' Aged lTyears' Occ' years, Occ. Student ^+i'#3 Student, All are R/o H.No.5-4, Jalagam Nagar' Peddatanda Village' Khammam Rural It/landal and District "'RE'P.NDENTS /PETlrloNERs

4. Konakoppu Suresh, S/o Venkata Ratnam' Aged 31 yearsl -Oi9: nisnfC, Madhira Deport, C/o APSRTC' Madhira Depot' Madhira' Khammam District. 5. The Depot Manager,APSRTC, Madhira Depot' Khammam bistrict' 6. The Managing Director, APSRTC 7. P.BhaskaiRao, S/o Late Koteswara Rao, Aged Adult' Occ Owner of Bus U""ringNo.AP20Y6669,R/oDNo'1-385,SundariahNagar'Madhiratown and Mandal, Khammam District Driver of (PetitionerNo.3beingminorRepresentgdb.vherMotherandNaturalguardian bmt. Pabbaraju Ramadevi- Petitioner No'1 herein) ...RESPONDENTS / RESPONDENTS NO' 1 to 4 AppealfiledunderSection,lT3ofMotorVehiclesActagainsttheJudgmentand oecree in M.V.O.P.No. 750 0f 2013 dated 11-12-2018 0n the file of the court of in" gn"irrrn, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -Cum-Judge, Family Court -Cum- Vl Addl. District Judge, at Khammam. ORDER: The appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and D"ecree of the court below and the material papers in the case and upon nerring the arguments of Sri K IvIADHUSUDHAN REDDY' nOro"rt" for the Appellant ind Sri rbwrunu PAVAN KUMAR' Advocate for the ' to 3 and Sri sRt B.MAyuR REDDY, Advocate for the ilil;;;".1 No. i 7r HIGH COURT DATED: 3010412025 DECREE MACMA.N o-1407 of 2019 DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS { 1t