The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellants: SRI' KALLAKURT SRINIVASA RAO Counsel forthe Respondents: G NARENDER REDDY The Court made the following: JUDGMENT 1 HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA M.A.C. M.A.NO .454 oF 2021 JUDGME NT: This appeal is filed by the ApSRTC, aggrieved by the Order and Decree daLed 22.02.202 1 in M.V.O.p.No.547 of 201Z passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum_Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short.,the trial Court,,).

2. For convenience and clarit5r, the parties herein are referred to as they u.ere arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that on 06.07.2O16 u,hile the deceased was proceeding from Sattenapally towards Anantharam on his motor bike, one APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP- 1 12-6970 rvhich was proceeding from Vijayawada towards Amaravathi, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against thc deceased, due to which the deceased fell down, sustained injuries and riied on the spot, The claimants sought a compensation of Rs. I S,OO,OOO/_. 4) The respondent No. 1 and 2 filed their complaint denying the avermen[s of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. He further contcnded tr-rat the pctiLion is bad for non_joinder oI. the owner and insurer of the motor hil<e. It is their further contention that th9 ---- t ETD,I MACMA No.454-2021 ) deceased was going rt a zrgzag manner at a high speed and on observing the same, the driver of the bus took the bus to his right side and stopped the bus, but the deceased who lost control over his motor bike came into contact with the stationed bus and fell down on the road and sustained injuries' Thus, their contention is that contributory negligence has to be attributed to the deceased and that there is no rash and negligence on part of the RTC Bus driver.

5. Based on above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following lssues: 1) Whether the pleaded accident doted O6.07 2016 occurred resulting tr death oJ the deceased P- Narendra Naik, due to the rash ond negligent diuing of th.e diuer of APSRTC bus bearing registration No AP 112- 6970? 2) Whetler the petitioner is entitled to ang comPensation, if so' from whom and. to uhat ertent? 3) To txhzt relieJ?

6. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PWl to 3 and got marked Exs.Al to ,{6. On behalf of the respondents RW1 was examined.

7. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 13,19,600/-. Aggrieved by the said award' the present appeal is preferred by the APSRTC' i I I 3

8. Hearci the submissions of Sri K. Srinivas Rao, learned counsel for the appellants and sri G. Narender Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents. ETD,J MACMA No.4S4 2021

9. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the order of the Tribunal is contrary to law and weight of evidence and that the Tribunal has granted excess compensation under various heads and that the Tribunal failed to see that there is no negligence on part of the RTC Bus driver. He further submitted that the Tribunal failed to take note of contributory negligence of the deceased as the accident occurred in the opposite direction and that the rider of the motor bike lost control of the bike and dashed against the bus. He further argued that the petition is bad for non_ joinder of the owner and insurer of the motor bike and that the Tribunal failed to consider the evidence of RW1 in proper perspective. Hc also contended that the petitioners have not hled any proof of income of the deceased, but still the Tribunal has granted Rs.6,O0O/ - per month which is too high. He therefore, prayed to reduce the compensation and also with regard to the rate of interest, the Tribunal has awarded 9Zo interest and he therefore, Prayed to reduce it to Z.Soh.

10. Learned counscr for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that the Tribunal has given a very reasoned judgment awarding just compensation to the claimants and that in view of I ETD,J MACMA No.454-2021 4 the loss sustained by the petitioners' the Tribunal has granted 97o cannot be interfered with' He interest on the compensation "vhich therefore prayed to uphold the order and decree of the trial Court' 11 Basecl on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the following points for determinatron :

1. Wtlether tlLe accident has not ocanrred' due to the rash and - igLigence oJ the R'tC bus diuer beaing No-AP-112-6970? 2. W1ather there is ang contibutory negligence on part of the deceased in the occurrence of the accident? 3- Whether the compensation granted bg the Tibunol is just and reosonable'

4. Whether tte ordei anri decree of the trial Court need any interference?

5. 'fo uhat relief POINT No.1 & 2: t2. a) The contention of the appellants counsel is that the driver of RTC Bus was not at all rash ancl negligent and that he was cautiously driving the bus and that on observing the rider on the motor bike going in a zigzag l11anner, he stopped the bus by taking it to the right side, but that the bike rider has come in the opposite directionandlostcontroloverthebikeandhitagainsttheRTC Bus. b) The contention of the petitioners is that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence of driver of the RTC Bus bearing No.AP- 1 lZ-6970. In support of their contention PW2 was 5 ETD,] MACMA No.454 2021 examined who is cited as LW3 in the charge sheet. His evidence reveals that he was travelling in the RTC Bus bearing No.Ap-l12_ 6970 proceeding from Ananthavaram to Amaravath i on 06.0Z.2016 and that when the bus reached l g km milestone near Thulluru and that the rider of the motor bike bearing No.Ap-O7BF_1 242 was proceeding from Sattenapally towards Ananthavaram, the driver ef the RTC Bus has driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner . without blou,ing any horn and went to its extreme right side and dashed to the said motor bike, due to which the rider of the motor bike fell down and sustained injuries and died on the spot. In his cross examitration, suggestions were given to him that the deceased lost contro[ over his bike and hit the bus, which were denied by him. Thus the witness was firm in his cross examination and there is nothing to discredit his evidence. c) RWl was examined b-v the respondents in proof of their contention that there was no negligence of the Bus driver. He is none other than the driver of the RTC Bus bearing No.Ap_ I I Z- In his chief examination, his evidence is to the effect that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the rider of the motor bike 6970 d) In his cross examination he has admitted that a case was registered against him by the police and a charge sheet is filed agarnst him l ETD,] MACMA No.454-2021 .l 6 e) A perusal of t-he FIR under Ex'Al and charge sheet under Ex.A2 reveals that the accidcnt occurrecl due to the rash and negligence of the driver of the RTC Bus bearing No'AP-112-6970 and the charge sheet is filed against him' Thus the evidence of PW2 coupied with Ex'A1 and A2 reveal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence of the driver of RTC Bus and there is no contributory negligence on part of the deceased' Point Nos. I arrd 2 are answered accordingly'

13. Point No.3: a) The contention of the appellant is that the Tribunal has granted huge amounts under various heads and arrived at excess compensation. The case of the petitioners is that the deceased used to work as an Auto Driver and Labourer in Construction field and was earning Rs' l2,O0u/- per month No proof is {iled in this regard ln RrrtnrrchcLndrappa vs' Manager' Rogal Sundarala b) Altiance Insurance Compdng Lirnitedl ' the Apex Court has held that in the absence of any proof of income with regard to a labourer, Rs.4,50O/- per month can be safeiy taken as the income' In the said casc the accident occurred in the year 2OO4' while in the present case, the accident has occurred in the year 2016' In ' (2o r I).,|t scc 236 1 ETD,] MACMA No.454 2021 the present case, the deceased used to work as an Auto Driver and Labourer in Construction field. Considering the same, the notional income assessed by the Tribunal as Rs.6,000/_ per month appears to be justihed. c) The Tribunal has considered the principles laid down in National fnsurq.nce Compang Limited Vs. pranag Sethi & Others2, by the Apex Court and has assessed the future prospects to be 4OVo and has also taken into account the deduction of 1/3ra since the claimants are three in number. d) It is revealed from the post Mortem Examination report under Ex.A4 that the d.eceased was aged 25, years. Therefore, it has applied the proper multiplier of ,1g,. It has also awarded loss of consortium, Ioss of estate and funeral expenses. e) Since all the principles are considered by the Tribunal while awarding compensation, it is opined that there is no need to interfere with the order of the Tribunal and that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. Point No.3 is answered accordingly. I I 2 AtR 2017 SCC 51s7 *l EID,] -) MACIMA No.454-2021 8 L4. Point No.4: In view of the hndings arr-ived at point No' 1 to 3 ' there ts no a) need to interfere with the Ordei: and Decree of the Tribunal and the same is upheld with regard to quantum of compensation' The Tribunal has granted interest at the rate of 97o on the quantum of compensation' The appellant counsel has argued that the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side and prayed to reduce the same lrt Jadau Saroia Bai Vers'us Ghule Ndga Rao and b) Anothef ; a Coordinate Bench o[ this High Court has granted interest @ 7 '5o/o per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation' lo Bandauath Mangla and Another Versus Banda oath c) Suresh and Other{ and National Insurance Compang Limited Versus. M. Venkatesuarulu and Other.J; also interest @ 7 '5% per annum was granted on the enhanced amount of compensation' ln llnited Insurdnce CotrlPoLrrg Limited Versus' Bollann d) Lingatahs; r't'Lr en the Tribunai has granted rate of interest @ 97o per annum, the High Court has modihed the rate of interest to 7.s./:pd annum from the date of petition till realization I 2022 SCC Online TS 606 4 2023 SCC Online TS 1095 5 2023 scc online TS I t70 6 2024 scc online TS 9 t5 9 ETD,J MACMA No.454 2021 e) A Division Bench of this High court in Ndtionar rnsurance Compang Lirntted Versus Jagadish prajapathlz; has granted 7.5 Vo per annum on the compensation from the date of petition till realization 0 has been Therefore, in the light of the above cited decisions, this Court consrstently granting interest @ Z.Syo on the compensation that is awarded in such cases. g) Therefore the same is awarded in this case also. Thus, the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal is reduced to that of 7.SVo. Point No.4 is answered accordingly.

15. poin No.5:- t In the result, M.A.C.M.A filed by rhe ApSRTc rs partly allowed modif5,ing the Order and Decree daLcd, 22.O2.2O2I in M.V.O.P.No.S 4Z of 2Ol7 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal_cum_Chief Judge, Ci$ Civil Court, Hyderabad, by reducing the rate of interest from 9%o to Z.S,)/. per annum from the date of claim petition till reaiization. However, the interest for the period of delay, if any, is forfeited. The respondent Nos. I and 2 are directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after deducting the amount il:any alread y depositecl 7 2024 SCC Online TS 2050 ETD,J MACMA No 454-2021 10 On such deposit, the petitioners are entitled to withdraw the said amount without fumishing an)' security' as per their respective shares as allotted by the Tribuno'l No costs' Miscellaneouspetitions,pendingifany'inthisappeal'shail stand closed. Sd/. SRt MOHD. OSMAN ALI BAIG SS STANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge' City Civil Co"urt] iva"raoad' (with records) One CC to SRI KALLAKURI SRINIVASARAO Advocate [OPUCI One CC to SRI G NARENDER REDDY Advocate [OPUCI

2. J 4 Two CD CoPies (u- GR HIGH COURT DATED:13 t}6t21zs JUDGMENT MACMA.N o.4i4 ot 2021 SfA o ? i Hut 2t15 * _:1 * PARTLY ALLOWNG THE MACMA WTHOUT COSTS I L// $ 1) /! b t IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCE LLANEOUS APPEALNO:45\OF2021 Between: 1 APSRTC, Rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad (presently at Vijayawada, Krishna District) Bus Bhavan, RTC X roads, Pandit Nehru Bus station,

2.APSRTC,rep.byitsDepotl\/anager,VijayawadaDepot,ViiayawadaUrban' Krishna District -.52001 3 ...APPELLANTS AND 1 z 3 B. Ratnakumari, W/o. Late Narendra Naik, Aged about 19 years, Occ Household, R/o.n.No.t +-6-980, Bazaar Ghat, Hyderabad' P. Gopi Naik, S/o. Balaiah Naik, Aged. about 48 years, Occ Agriculture.' Rl/o ' H.f.roB-r Sr, Ananthavaram Villagd' Thulium Mandal, Guntur District, A'P' P. Laxmi, W/o. P. Gopi Naik, Aged about 45 ye-ars, Occ Labour, Ri/o H No 5- r si, Anuhtnru"ram Village, Thulluru Mandal, Guntur District, A P' ...RESPONDENTS Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and Decree made in [vl.v.o.P No. 547t2017 dated 22.O2.2021 0n the file of the court of the chairman Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum-the chief Judge, city civil court at 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 sri K. Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the Appellants and of Sri G. Narender Reddy, Advocate for the respondents' This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is Partly allowed. 2 That the Tribunal be anrf h_e1gby- modifying the order and decree dated 22.02.2021 in M.V.o.p No 547.;f 201;,;;".;; iy the Chairman, Motor Accident Ctaims Tribunat_cum_Chief iroS", CiiV Aivil Court, Hyderabad :iitri:,,l[".lii?""J,,:j;:"'] i,oi s7; i"" rYiz"oJ' ],n,, r,.o, rhe date or ? However, the interest for the period of delay, if any, is forfeited. 4 That the respondents Nos_ 1 and 2 be and hereby directed to deposit the ,13;ri#i:l: :?",J::,XJ,:.,..,,"0 i ni"l" J, ;il# ; pe riod or two mo nths uro,ntlr ;;;ri;;;i[31,,x01"" of this judsmeni after o"Jr.ti,g' il" 5 on such deposit. that- the. petition e rs be and hereby enti,ed to withdraw y as per their respective the said amount without furnishinl;;r" ;fi;i; shares as allottdd by the Tribuna I u .l#i.":J;,,i,i itin I",."'.Xlt#: :'"a n d d ecree or t h e rri b u n a r s h a, "T?l"i,?

7. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. SD/. SRI MOHD OSMAN ALl BAIG ISTRAR S //TRUE COPYII FFICER To, 1 2 I3i-:ifi#iibMotor Accident claims rribunar-cum- chier Judse, city civir Two CD Copies tP GR HIGH COURT DATED: 1ttO6t2O2S DECREE MACMA.N o.454 ot 2021 PARTLY ALLOWING WITHOUT C OSTS {r- i >\