The High Court · 2025

Panjala Bharathi, Wo. Late p.Srinivas, Age 46 years, Occ: .louse hold, R/o. Maddunoor Vittage, Dharmapuri Mandii, bist*i kirirrngal- Panjala Nithish, S/o. Late p.Srinivas, Maddunoor Viilage, Dharmapuri tlla;dai,-Dijtii"t-klrirung, " Panjala Rakesh, S/o. Late p Srinivas, Age 26 years Occ: Str.rdent, R/o. lv1 ad d u n o o r f.anjqta Sathvrika, D/o. Late p Srinivas, Age 24 years, Occ: {:itudent, R/o. Maddunoor t/ ilage, Dharmapuri Mandit, Bistrili kiiinirnga, PanjalaDevakka. Wo. Lachaiah or lachanna, Age 70 years, ,Jcc: Household, R/o Madduncor Viilage, Dharmapuri IM;na;, Di.jr;.j krnn,rngrr. Paniala Lachaiah @ Lachanna, nge gZ years, Occ. Kalal anC Agriculture, R/o. Maddunoor vit|age, Dharmap"uri f,rfjno-ji oi#ici iirr,rr.,gr, i I I a g e, D ha rm a p u ri M a n d a [ -D Giri'"i f J rir m g a ",/ ...Cross Objectors No.1 to 6/Re:;pondents . Nos.1 to6 - AND The A.P State Road Transoort Corporation (Now TSRTC) R _,p.esented by rts IVla nagin g D ir e ctor, Bus Bhavjn, Mtit "i*drol'fu vj"iu oro ...RespondenUAppellant Kharjr^Fa reed udd in. S/o. Md Salar, aged 55 years. Occ RTC l.jus Driver, Staff r'r i1i\'ild.k .r,ri,usudirl" '." No 303716 Farimnagar oepot, nlb "n Kaflmnagar. Respondent No.2 is not negg!9?ry party in this Cross Objections in the above MACMA. No: 2659 ot 2019.' ...RespondenURespondents No.7 Counsel for the Appellant : ll/ts. Bhavishya Amogoni representinr; Sri Chandra Sekhar N (SC FOR TSRTi: ZONE 2) Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Ramchander Rao Vemuganti rr-.presentino ----"J Sri N Janardhan Reddy The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGIvIENT HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI M.A.C.M.A.No.2659 OF, 20 19 AND CROSS-OBJECTIONS No,26 OF 2024 COMMON JT'DGMENT: 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 13.05.2019 passed in M.V.O.P No.351 of 2014, on the frle of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum- III Additional District Judge, Karimnagar (for short, the Tribunal'), the 2nd respondent/RTC in the said M.V.O.P. preferred M.A.C.M.A.2659 of 2O19 seeking to allow the Appeal by setting aside the order of the learned Tribunal. Also, having not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants in the said M.V.O.P. preferred Cross-Objections No.26 of 2024 seeking enhancement of compensation. Since both the cases arise out of the common order passed by the Tribunal, they have been dealt with together and being disposed of by way of this common judgment.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred as they were arrayed before the Trial Court.

3. The facts of the case in nutshell are that the petitioners, who are the wife, children and parents of Late Srinivas (hereinafter referred to as the deceasedJ filed a petition under Section 166(t)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.20,OO,O00/- for the death of the deceased in a motor vehicie accident that occurred on 2l.lo.2ol3. It is stated by the petitioners that on 2l.IO.2OL3, when the deceased aiong with his wife proceeded on Motorcycle bearing I 1 MGP,I l!4ACMA-No.26s9 of 2019 & Cross obJ.No.26 of 2024 No.AP-15-AZ- L 112 from Maddunoor to Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Templt at Itikl al Village to offer Pooja and after perforraing pooja, the deceased wen t to rivulet which is situated. at the outsliirts of Itikyala Village in order to attend nature call and when reachecl house of Raja Guravaiah, a-,- that time, one RTC Bus bearing No.Al'1-28-Z-4078 of Karimnagar I I depot, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dash,:d the motorcycle of the deceased. Al.; a result, the deceased sust ained crush injury to head and other fract.ure injuries all over the body eLnd died on the spot.

4. Based c,n a complaint, Police of Luxettipet Policc Station. registered a cirse in Crime No.138 of 2013 under Section 304-A IPC.

5. It is statr:d by the petitioners that the deceased l,rrarl aged 42 yeats and used to (:arn Rs. 15,000/- per month on Agricull ure and toddy tapping and <:ontribute his earnings towards maintenatrce and welfare of family. Drrc to untimely death of the deceased, the petitioners lost their source of income and were put to severe hafdship. Hence, hled petrtion claimir-rg compensation against respondent Nos. L & 2 being the driver and Marraging Director of offending RTC Bus.

6. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 frled its counter denying the averments marle in the claim petition and contended th,:rt the deceased came in wrong direction and dashed against right side bumper of the -r MGP,J MACMA.No-2659 of 2019 & Cross obj.No.26 of 2024 bus and there is no negligence on part of respondent No. 1 and further contended that the claim petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of owner and insurer of motorcycie as necessary parties to the petition and therefore prayed to dismiss the claim against him.

7. Respondent No.2/Managing Director of RTC also hled his counter contending that the accident occurred due to the negligence of motorcyclist and stated that their Corporation paid an amount of Rs.S,OOO/- towards funeral expenses on account of death of deceased.

8. Based on the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal had framed the following issues for conducting trial: (i) Wlrcther the accident hnd occuned due to rash and negLigent diuing of the offending uehicle i.e., APSRrc Bus beaing No.AP-28-Z 4078 driuen bg its diuer? (it Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so to uhat amount and from whom? (iii) To uhat relieJ?

9. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioners, PWs 1 to 4 were examined and Exs.Al to A13 were marked. On behalf of respondents, the driver of crime RTC Bus was examined as RW 1 , but no documentary evidence was addlrced on their behalf. F I I I l l 4 MGP,I r,IACMA.No.2659 of 2019 & Cross obj No.25 of 2024

10. The Tribrrnal, after considering the evidence avail,:lble on record, partly-allowed the claim petition by awarding co: npensation of Rs. 16,4O,00O7- along with interest @7.5% per -annum f.:om the date of petition till the date of realization payable by respondent-s 1 & 2 jointly and several11,. Aggrieved by the said hnding, the responlent No.2/RTC in the said O.F'. preferred M.A.C.M.A.2659 of 2O19 seeking to set-aside the order of learned Tribunal and the claimants therein preferred Cross- objections petit.ion requesting enhancement of compensat.ion amount. 1 1. Heard M s.Bhavishya Amagoni, learned counsel ',vho argued on behaif of Sri N.Chandrasekhar, learned Standing Counsel for. appellant/'lSRTC and Sri Ramchander Rao Vemuganti, learned counsel who argued c'n behalf of Sri N.Janardhan Reddy, IeartLed counsel for respondents /,:.aimants/ cross-obj ec tors. Perused the record.

12. The c(l ntentions of the learned Standing Counsel for Appeilant/ RTrl are that the learned Tribunal failed t c consider the owner and insurer of Motorcycle bearing No.AP-15-AZ- t 112 as proper and necessaqr parties to the claim petition; erred in apprlyrng multiplier '14'without any documentary evidence showing the age of the deceased and also erred in assessing the income of the deceased without there being any propcr evidence and that the compensation au arded is excess \ \ \ t 5 MGPJ MACMA.No.2659 of 2019 & Cross-obj,No.26 of 2024 and exorbitant and therefore prayed to ailow the Appeal by setting aside the order of the learned Tribunal.

13. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondentS/ Cross-objectors contended that the learned Tribunal took the income of the deceased on meager side and therefore requested to allow the cross-objections petition by enhancing the compensation amount.

14. Now the points that emerge for determination are, 1 2 Wlether the order of the learned Tibunal requires interkrence of this Court? . Wlrcther the cross-objectors are entitled for enhancement of compensation? POINTS:- 15. Since learned Standing counsel for TSRTC contended that the claim petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of not making the l owner and insurer of Motorcycle as proper and necessary parties to the claim petition, this Court is inclined to once again discuss the aspects of occurrence of accident and death of the deceased.

16. PW2, who is an eye witness to the accident and who travelled in the crime RTC bus deposed in his evidence that the driver of the subject RTC bus was driving the Bus in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed against the motorcyclist who came in opposite direction. He further stated that the driver of the RTC bus was 6 :a. MGP,J ,4ACMA No.2659 0f2019 & Cross obi.No.26 of 2024 negligent in dr:ving the bus and the motorcyclist is not responsible for the accident. Though PW2 was cross-examined, nothirrg adverse was elicited from him except denying the suggestions put 1ly the counsel appearing for RTC. Further, Ex.A2-Charge sheet clerLrly shows the accused-RTC lriver has committed an offence punishabl,: under section 304-A IPC.

17. Therefort:, from the evidence of PW2 coupled rvitlL Ex A2-Charge sheet, it is clear that the death of the deceased was dre to rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime RTC. Hence, the contention of the learned standing counsel for appellants that the ac()ident occurred. due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the motorcycle and that the claim petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non- joinder of necessary parties to the petition, is unsustai.nable as there is no contributor\. negligence on part of the rider of the m otorcycle in the alleged accidt:ttt. Hence, the finding arrived by the learned Tribunal is held to be proper and it does not require any interferenct: by this Court'

18. The oth,er contention of the learned Standirrg Counsel for appeilant/RTC is that the learned Tribunal erred ir' assessing the income of tht: deceased without any proper evidence arrd also erred in application of multiplier without any documentary prc,of showing the age of the dc<'e ased. .\\ \\ 7 MGP,,/ MACMA.No.2659 of 2019& Cross-obi-No.26 of 2024

19. A perusal of quantum of compensation in the impugned judgment shows that the .learned Tribunal took the monthly income of the deceased @ lO,OOOl- per month; add,ed 2SVo toward.s future prospects; deducted 1/4ft towards personal and living expenses of the deceased; applied relevant multiprier and calculated ross of dependency which arrived at Rs. 15,75,0OO/-. Apart from this, the learned Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.70,000/- under conventional heads and awarded a total compensation of Rs.l6,4O,00O/_.

20. To substaietiate their contention with regard to income of the deceased, the petitioners got examined pWs 3 & 4 on their behalf.

21. PW3-President of Toddy Tapping Society, Buggaram Mandal, Jagtia District, deposed in his evidence that the deceased used to earn Rs.500/- per day as toddy tapper. Apart from working as toddy tapper, the deceased is also having agricurture and milk business and used to earn Rs. 15,000/- per month.

22. The evidence of pW4-Secretary, Karimnagar District Milk Producers cooperative society, is to the effect that the deceased used to supply 5 to 7 litres of milk to their societ5r and used to earn average income of Rs.3O0/- per day. Apart from milk business, the deceased used to get income out of Agriculture and toddy tapping. Ex.A13 is the certificate given by their societ5r showing the amount paid to the l i MGP,I l\/ ACMA.No.2659 0f 2019 & Cross obj.No.26 of 2024 deceased for srqrply of milk. A perusal of the said certificate shows that the deceased used to supply more than 2,000 litres o: miik per year to the said Scciety ald used to receive an amount of more than Rs. llakh per annum. Further, PWl deposed that th: deceased is having Ac. 1.2.3 % guntas of agricultural land and used to earn Rs. 1,O0,000/- per annum.

23. Hence, tl-ris Court, considering the date of acciden', the evidence of PWs 3 & 4 v,ho deposed a-bout the sources of incomt the deceased used to get an d Ex.A l3-Certihcate showing the annu, rl income the deceased used Lo get through milk business, this Court is inclined to " interfere with the hnding of the learned Tribunal and .-rereby fix the monthly income of the deceased @ Rs. l |,OOO/- arrd calculate the compensation.

24. As far as age of the deceased is concerned, Ex.A 1ll-ldentity card issued by Karimnagar District Milk Producers Coopelative Society, shows the age ,rf the deceased as 38 years in the year 2009. As the accident occurrr:d in the year 2O i3, the age of the deceasc d would be 42 years. As there is no rebuttal evidence on respondent's s:de, this Court hnds no reasorl to interfere with the Iinding of the learned Tribunal.

25. Coming :o calculation of compensation, as discuss;ed above, the monthly income of the deceased is taken @ Rs. 1 1,000/- Considering *\ ) 9 MGP,J MACMA.No.2559 of 2019 & Cross-obj.No.25 of 2024 the age of the deceased as 42 years, if 25o/o is added towards future prospects to the income of the deceased as per judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court ir National Insurance Co.Ltd..Vs.Pranau Sethil, then his future monthly income would be Rs.13,750/-. Since the number of dependents are 6, if 1/4tn is deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased had he been alive, then his net monthly income comes to Rs. 10,312/- and the annual income comes to Rs.1,23,7441-. After applying multiplier '14', tl:e totai loss of dependency on ACCount of the death of thb deceased would come to Rs.17,32,4161

26. Further, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.70,000/- towards conventional heads by following judgment of the Hon'b1e Apex Court in Prayany Sethi (cited supra) which this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same as the same is in proper perspective. Considering the fact that the petitioners 3 & 4, being minor child, this Court is inclined to award a sum of Rs.40,OO0/- each under the head of Y I parental consortium as per the decision of the Apex Court in Mdgmq. General Insurance Compang Linited a, No.ttu Ro,n @ Chuhru Ram and others2. Hence, the claimants/cross objectors are entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 18,82,416/-. , {2017 {61 r 70 sc) ,(2013) l3 scc l30 10 MGP,J lv ACMA.No.2659 of 2019 & Cross obi.No.26 of 2024

27. In the result, M.A.C.M.A.No.2659 ol 2Ol9- hled by R'TC, is dismissed and the cross objections No.26 of 2024- hled t.,y claimants is partly - allowed by enhancing the compensation amount erwarded by the Tribunal from Rs.16,40,000/- to Rs. 18,82,416/- whic'h sha1l carry interest @ 7 .Soto per annum from the date ol petition 1i11 the date of realization. The respondents 1 & 2/RTC are directed Lo deposit the compensation a.mount within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. Upon such depor;it, the cross- objectors/ ciairnants are entitled to withdraw the sarr.e as per the apportionmenl made by the learned Tribunal by paying dehcit Court fee and by foregoing interest for a period of 1655 days, whi';h is the delay caused in filinq cross-objections petition . There shall be no order as to

28. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- V KAVIT A ASSISTAN r: REGtST AR //TRUE COPYII SECTiON OFFICER To, l The chairman. [40tor Accident craims Tribunar-cum- ,r Additionar district " *1dS:^ri Karim,ragar(with records, ii"nvj z. une cC to Sri Chandra Sekhar N (SC FOR TSRTC ZONE Z) tOpUCl I 9n" CC to Sri N Janardhan Reddi, Adv;;at"iOpJcf 4. Two CD Copies "-"-'' ADK/I'SL . ..-?' , '' 11.E1.-''--j.tq&&ita*r*t**-- - .) .-=- i 'i$t :rt I HIGH COURT 2 DRAFTS I DATED:1310312025 4 COMMON JUDGMENT+DEGREE MACMA.No.2659 of 2019 AND CROSS-OBJECTIONS No.26 ot 2024 IriE S14 14: o?( 1) ta) 1O APfl zffi 'l o - ,-,r r . '.' ,/ 5r' DISMISSING THE MACMA.No.2659 of 2019 AND PARTLY ALLOWING CROSS.OBJECTIONS No.26 of 2024 (" e( . -t-aib-----.- THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2659 OF 2019 AND CROSS-OBJECTIONS No.25 of 2024 MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCEL LANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2659 OF 2019 Between: The A.P State Road Transport Corporation (Now TSRTC), Represented by its Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, [Vlusheerabad, Hyderabad- AND 1 Panjala Bharathi, Wo. Late P.Srinivas, Age 36 years, Occ: House hold, Rio MaddunoorVillage, Dharmapuri Mandal, Diskict Karimangar. ...AppellanURespondent No.2 2 Panjala Nithish, S/o. Late P.Srinivas, Age 19 years, Occ Student, R/o Maddunoor Village, Dharmapuri Mandal, Distiict Karimangar.

3. Panjala Rakesh, S/o. Late P.Srinivas, Age 16 years, Minor, Occ: Student, Rep- by.his mother and natural guardian Panjala Bharathi., i.e., Petitioner No.1 herein

4. Paryala Sathwika, D/o. Late P.Srinivas, Age 14 years, Minor, Occ: Student, Rep. by his mother and natural guardian Panjala Bharathi., i.e., Petitioner No. t herein 5- Panjala Devakka, Wo. Lachaiah @ lachanna, Age 60 years, Occ: Household, R/o- Maddunoor Viltage, Dharmapuri Mandal, District Kariniangar.

6. Panjala Lachaiah @ Lachanna, Age 62 years, Occ Kalal and Agriculture, R/o. lriladdunoor Village, Dharmapuri Mandal, District Karimangar. ...Respondents/Petitioners 7. KhSa Fareeduddin, S/o. It/ld.Salar, aged 55 years, Occ RTC Bus Driver, Staff No. 3037 1 6, Karim nagar Depot, R/o. H.Nc.7 4 -1 521 C, Kashmeegadda, Karimnagar. (R - 7 is formal party, not necessary party) ...Respondents/Respondents No. 1 CROSS-OBJECTIONS No.26 of 2024 1 Panjala Bharathi, Wo. Late P.Srinivas, Age 46 years, Occ: House hold, R/o Maddunoor Village, Dharmapuri Mandal, District Karimangar. ..1

3. Paniala Nithish. S/o. Late P.Srinivas, Age 29 years, Occ: Student, R/o Maddunoor Village. Dharmapuri lvlandal. District Karimangar'

4. Paniala Rakesh, S/r. Late P.Srinivas, Age 26 years Occ: Student. R/o' MaridunoorVillage. Dharmapuri Mandal. District Karimangar.

5. Paniala Sathwika, t)/o. Late P.Srinivas, Age 24 years, Occ. Stude rt. R/o' Maddunoor Village. Dharmapuri Mandal, District Kariniangar.

6. PanjalaDevakka. \\t/o. Lachaiah or lachanna, {9e J0 y-ea.rs' Occ: l-{ousehold, R/o. Maddunoor Village, Dharmapuri N/andal, District Kariniangar.

7. Paniala Lachaiah @ Lachanna, Age 67 years,-Oc.c: Kqla! and Agriculture, R/o. tvladdunoor Viiiage, Dharmapuri Mandal, District Karimangar. ...Cross Objectors No.1 to 6/Respon dents Nos.1 to6 AND

1. The A.P State Road Transport Corporation (Now TSRTC), Repres;ented by its Ivlanaging Director, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. . .. Respon de nUAp pellant 2. Khaja Fareeduddin S/o. t\r'ld.Salar, aged 55 yea1sr Occ RTC Bus l)river, Staff No 303716, Karimnagar Depot, R/o. H.No 7 -4-1521C, Kashmeega,lda, Karim nagar Respondent No.2 is not necessary party in this Cross Objections in the above MACMA. No: 2659 of2019. ... Res po n d enURes Pon d e n ts No.7 Appeal filed Unde' Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,1988 and lr4emorandum of Cross Objections Undei-Order41 Rule 22 of C.P.C against the Order and decree in M.VO.P.No.351 of :2C14 dated.13-05-2019 on the file of the C.ourt of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- lll Additional district Judge' at Karimnagar. This appeal and Cross Objections coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal and Cross Objections the Judgment and Decree rlf the Lower Court and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguntents of Ms, Bhavishya Amogoni representing Sri Chandra Sekhar N(SC FOR TSRI-C ZONE 2) Advocate for the Appellant in MACMA and Respondent in Cross Objeclions and of Sri Ramchander Rao Vemuganti representing Sri N Janardiran Reddy Advocate for the Respondents in MACMA and Cross Objectors in Cross ,lbiections. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: '1 . That the M.A.C.N/.A.No.2659 ol 2019 is dismissed; l l i I t I F" T 't 2- rhat the cross objections No.26 of 2024 filed by claimants is parfly allowed by enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunar from Rs. 16,40,000/- to Rs. 18,82,416/- which shall carry interest @ 7.5o/o per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization;

3. That the respondents 1 & 2/RTC are directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment: 4- That upon such deposit, the cross-objectors/craimants be and hereby are entitled to withdraw the same as per the apportionment made by the learned Tribunal by paying deficit court fee and by foregoing interest for a period of '1655 days, which is the delay caused in filing cross-objections petition;

5. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. /, I SD/- V KA ITHA ASSISTANT REGI TRAR //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER : To,

1. The chairman, Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum- lll Additional district 2. Two CD Copies Judge, at Karimnagar ADK/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:1310312025 COMMON DECREE MACMA.No.2659 ot 2019 AND CROSS-OBJECTIONS No.26 ot 2024 DISMISSING THE MACMA.No.2659 of 2019 AND PARTLY ALLOWING CROSS.OBJECTIONS No.26 ot 2A24 8-