The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant(s): SRI N' SRUSHMAN REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent No'1 : KONDADI AJAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No'2 to 4 : - The Court made the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE WSTICE MOUSH(Nfi BIIATTACIIARYA AND THE HON'BLE WSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KT'IIAR MACMA.No.l4tl of 2Ol7 Sri N.Srushman Reddy, lcarned Standing Counsel for TSRTC appearing for the appellants Sri Komdado Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents. JUDGMENT: lPet Hon'ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)

1. The presenr Appeal has been filed by the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation Limited ("ISRTCJ against order dated

13.12.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribuna.l (District Judge) at Nizamabad ("IribunalJ in MVOp.No.l lO of 2015.

2. Thc MVOP was hled by the respondents/claimants, who are the wife and chilclren of the deceased. The appellants were the respondents in thc MVOP (which was then Andhra pradesh State Road Transpr)rt Corporation). By the impugned order, the Tribunal allowed the claimants' MVOP in part and awarded an amount o[ Rs.45,2O,ir007 - tonards compensation with interest @ T.S.o/o per annum lnrm the date of pctition titt deposit or till realization.

3. The 'lribunerl apportioned thc compensation amount between the respondcnr No. l/claimant No. 1 (wife of the deceased) and the respondent Nos.2 ro 4/claimanr Nos.2 to 4 (children of the deceased). The appellants rvere directed to deposit the compensation within one month from the date of thc Award. The claimant No.l was permitted 2 to withdraw Rs.5,2O,60O/_ with proportionate c )sts and interest and the balalce amount was to be kept in fi>:t.d delrosit with any Nationalised Bank for a period of two years.

4. Before dealing with th that the two grounds raised the deceasecl and e appeal on merits, ;t should be clarifred by the appellanr/TSI. TC rrre [i) identity of (ii) contributory negligenc<: ,11 tho part of the deceased.

5. According to learned counsel appearing for identity of the deceased was nor cstablished belbr, hence the impugned or'der shoulcl bc set aside. submits that the Tribunal iailed to consider rhirr equally negligen t for thr: accidcnt. Cotrnsel urge ; negligence on the part of the dcccased. l-re agrpellants, the th<: 'lribunal ald Counsel further he dt:ceased was thal there was

6. lcarned counsel appearing for the rcsl)()i clen t s/claimants submits that the identity of thc clcceascd stoocl r.st.r;lishe,l from the records before the Tribunal. Counst:l rclies on thc r(.l,rvanl part of the impugned order to dispute the grorrnd of contribr "r Lulrlrll)t.lt()r \ I)(lgligence on the part of trre deceased.

7. We have considereri tht, su brnissions madc r r bt:l-r:rlf of the parties and have perused the ma t(,rial on rccord 3

8. It is necessary to state that on 18.06'2025' the Court had imposed costs on the appellants for not having any instructions with regard to their compliance of the order dated 06.07.2017 by which tlre appellants was directed to deposit 5O7o of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal along with costs and the respondent No.1 was permitted to withdraw his share as apportioned by the Tribunal. karned counsel appearing for the appellants did not have the instructions on that date. The Court was informed much later, upon instructions, that the appellants had complied with the order dated

06.07.2017. Thc order for costs was hence recalled on 29.07.2025.

9. We first deal with the question raised with regard to the identity of the deceased

10. The namc o[ thc deceased in the impugned order is stated as 'Manthena Narseriah (r Chinnolla Narsaiah'. The Cause Title of the MVOP describes the petitioncr/ claimant No.I as 'Manthena Pushpa W/o. Manthena Narsaiah (ir- Chinnolla Narsaiah' and the petitioners/ claimant Nos.2 to 4 as S/o. and D/o. of 'Manthena Narsaiah @ Chinnolla Narsaiah' along u,ith their individual names. The Death Certificate ol thc deceased (Exhibit A9) mcntions the name of the deceased as 'Chinnolla Narsaiah (zr, Manthcna Narsaiah'. The Salary Certificate (Exhitrit A8) issued by the Mandal Educational Olficer also \ \ - 4 describes the deceased Tllarsaiah Chinolla, Secondary Grade Teacher, working at MppS Nandipet 1l Hence, there is no doubt with regard to the rri mt,and identity of the deceased from the documents which from F €rrt o{. the records. Consequentially, there is also no doubt thar ie claimants (the respondents in the Appeal) are the family membrr; o[ the deceased and frled the MVOP under section 166(l)(c) o[ The V]otor \,,ehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 455 of The A.p M-V. Rulcs, l9 3 )

72. In any event, the appellants did not raisc the r,sur: o[ identity of the deceased before the Tribunal as r.r.,oulcl bc, t r iden r from the impugned order. The only point raised by thc appt llants before the Tribunal was that the negligent and rash driving c,r thr. part o[ the deceased led to the accident. The threc issues l.r:rnrr r br the Tribunal with regard to the alleged contributorv ncgligent:t.cr thr. I)art of the deceased, entitlement of the respondcn t s/claimilnt s l and to what relief, the issues formularcd r,r,oulcl al:;r issue of identity of the deceased was not r.rised ltcftrrc slr{)u that the r ('()rr pensation lrc l'ribu nal. 13 We hence reject the contention ol thc appcll:rn: the identigr of the deceased. l1,rtll regard to I 5

14. The impugned order con tains several lindings which address the second issue i.e., the alleged contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. The findings are as follows (i) PW.2, eye witness to the accident, deposed ihat he observed that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the bus driver. (ii) RW.2, the bus driver stated rhat he stopped the bus at Gaggupally village for boarding passengers at the Bus Stop when the accident occurred. (iii) The Scene of Offence Panchanama however states that there is no Bus Stop at rhe Scene of Otfencc which is also admitted by RW. 1 (driver of rhe <:rime vehiclc) in his evidence. 1i") The Tribunal accordingly found it strange as to why the bus was stopped for bclardrng passctlgers when there was no Bus stop at the Scene ol Offencc. ]'he Tribunat found that the appellants did not cxplain rhis point. (") The Scene of Offence Panchan:rma showed that the driver of the bus was on rhc wrong sidc of the road and the bike (which the deceased rvas riding) uas coming on the left side. Although RW. I (bus drivcr) and RW.2 (bus conductor) I I I I i i I I I i i ! i 6 deposed that the accident occurred as thr dcceased dashed the stationed bus and RW.2 admitted r har tl-re bus was stopped on the right side. There is no rerson given by the appellants as to why the bus was stoppecl on rhe right side when there is no Bus Stop at the Scene o[ ( rlTenct:. ("i) The Investigation Reports show that the dli,c:r of the bus was negligent and ttre same led do the accident

15. The Tribunat accordingly concluded that t-r, aJrpellants had failed to discharge the onus of rebutting thc cha-ge of negligence undcr section 166 of the 1988 Act. l (r. We find the reasons given by the Tribunerl n <lis odging the ch,rqe of contributory negrigence to be in order anri rasscrl on logical conclusions on the undisputed facts and on thc e.. it,rrr.r. beftrrc the Tribrrnal. It is relevant to state that the appellants h i,g 111;1 lurnished anv proof in support of the ground of contrib,rtor.,. ncgligcnce inr:luding in the Appeal. l7 We have also perused the Investigatiorr Rcp()rt, derted 29.O3.2O14 of the Sub-Inspector of police, p.S. Arnr ,rr In thc said Rcport, rhe lnvestigating Offrcer refers to the Compl:r nt rniLde by one Manthena Suresh Kumar, who is the nepherv of ri-r rl<.< etrsed. .lhe Rcport further refers to the rash and negligct.rt clrir ir, -, r.,rr rhc p.rr.t of /.// d 7 the bus driver (RW. 1) and dashing of the bus against the deceased who was coming on his motorcycle from the opposite direction. 1 I I :

18. The impugned order also mentions the admission of RW. I made in his cross-examination that there is no Bus Stop at the Scene of Offence. The impugned order further refcrs to admission of RW.2 (bus conductor) in his cross-examination that he did not state that the accident occurred on the right side of the road.

19. As stated above, the Tribunal found that the deceased was coming on the left side and the bus was on the wrong side (right side of the road) at the time of the accident and the appellants had failed to explain as to why the bus was stoppcd on thc rlght side when there is no Bus Stop on the road. Significantlv, the impugned order also refers to the evidence of an indcpcndcnt eye witness/ PW.2 who supported the case of the claimants i.t:., the accident occurred due to negligence of the bus driver.

20. We are hence constrained to reject the sccond issue of contributory negligence on the part of the rleceased

21. We also do not frnd any error in the in-rpugned ordcr since the Tribunal referred to Exhibit A9 (Dezrth Ccrtificate) u,ith respect to the identity of the deceased- Further, PW-3 (S.Lingzrnna) rvho was working as the llead Master of ZPHS, Vanncl (K) and lncharge MEO at 8 Nandipet, rleposed that the deceased was working r s Secondary Grade Teacher ar MppS Nandipet Mandal. Exhibit A{! (Salary Certificate) shows the sarary of the deceased as Rs.3o,o6g/-. rhc Tribunar relied on Exhibit A8 and the evidence of pW.3 to hold tlr: r the deceased did not fall within the purview of income tax.

22. Therelorc, the contention of the appellantr; thzrt :he Tribunal errcd in takint the gross income as opposed to th,. ner rncomc is also completely u'ilhout basis. We accordingly do not rn<l any scope for interference in the compensation calculated by the_l _ibunal.

23. The 'l'ribunal relied on Sarla Vorma V:;. Delhi Transporl Coryorationt and arrived at a figure of Rs.43,2O,60(I/_ rn zrccordance u'ith thc trgr:. income and tlle number of dependent, or thc deceascd. The Tril;unal aclclitionally awarded an amount of R:i. )0,O0(.)/ t()urards consortiurn and Rs.2S,OO0/_ towards funeral ex[)(.ns(]s :rncl Rs. 1,O0,000/ towards loss of love and affection .l.h(, total of Rs..*.-,20,600/ r.r,as awarded to the claimants alorrr r{ rrh rnrcrcst r.r 7.:t",i per:rrtnLlm from the date of petition till deposrt .,r r<.zrlrsaliorr. '24 Wt: rrr'<'orrlrngly hnd no reason to interfere witl or sct :lsr(lc the tmpuqncd orrit'r ;rs prayed for. The proceeding Sher r; slrorv I trat the appell:rnts obl:rined stay of all further proceedings in , rrsrrirncc o[ the | 2a)o9t6) sct(. l2 t i i I I I I i I { i 9 impugned order/decree dated 13.12.2016 subject to the appellants depositing 5O%o of the compensation awarded in favour of the respondent Nos.l to 4 and costs within six weeks from the date of interim protection i.e-, 06.07 .2OL7 . The respondent No.l was permitted to withdraw the costs and her share of the compensation as apportioned by the Tribunal without furnishing security and the remaining amount was directed to be kept in the hxed deposit in a Nationalised Bank.

25. Since we have found that the impugncd order is without any error either in facts or in the law, we deem it fit to dismiss the Appeal. We also cannot ignore the equities involved in the Appeal. This is a ( \ case of death, the family members of the deceased approached the Tribunal in 2015. The impugned order was passed on 13.12.2016 allowing the claim of ttre dependants in part. The appellants/TSRTC challenged the impugned order in 2Ol7 by wav o[ the present Appeal. Hence, ten years have passed from the time o[ Irling of the MVOP by the claimants. This means tJ:at the challengc to thc impugned order, after nine years, is restricted to an amount o[ Rs.23 lakhs approximately (taking into account the principal sum). Considering that the deceased died in 2014 and thc dependants have remained deprived for eleven years, this Court also does not find any grounds to 10 continue that dcprivation particularly where the in Lpugned order is correct in both, facts and law.

26. MACMA-No.1411 of 2Ol7 is accordingly disnrssed in terms of the above. The appellants are directed to deposit th: remaining 50yo of the awarded amounL along with interest within t.ight rveeks from date. The responden ts shall be at liberty to .withdrrii u the amount, as apportioned by the Tribunal. Misccllzrneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. lnterim ordcrs, il any, shall stand vacated. There strall be no order as to costs SD/- 1 ..;RIN IVASA REDDY A.S,I ;TANT REGTSTRAR I \ //TRUE COPY/' SECTION OFFICER To, (Tribunal') 1 . The Motor Accident claims Tribunal (District Jrrdge) at Nizamabad 2 b;cc id sRl N VASUDEVA REDDY(SC FoR RTt);Advocate [oPUC] 5 5;; 6d io sni rotrDADl AJAY KUMAR Advocate [ol']uc] 4. Two CD CoPies GE Yt HIGH COURT DATED:01/09/2025 ; ::-':':].- .1\ i .7:::r.: ,1r, -,''' I ii i{.!i JUDGMENT MACMA.No.'1411 ol 2017 : ,^1 1 , v I I { 1 I l DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS G..d"^ Yr- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD [34e] I MONDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISGELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 14'll OF 20'|7 Between:

1. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation Limited, (Prior to bifurcation known as Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Limited), represented by its Depot Manager, Armoor Depot, Nizamabad District.

2. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation Limited, (Prior to bifurcation known as Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Limited), represented by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. ...APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS AND

1. Manthena Pushpa, Wo. Manthena Narsaiah @ Chinnolla Narsaiah, 37 years, Housewife, R/o. H. No.7-74 ft I 1, Y elmal village, Nand ipet Mandal, N izamabad District.

2. Manthena Harshith,, S/o. Manthena Narsaiah or Chinnolla Narsaiah, 13 years, Student, minor, rep. by his mother Respondent No.'1, R/o. H.No.7-741711 , Velmal village, Nandipet Mandal, Nizamabad District.

3. Manthena Anuragh,, S/o. Manthena Narsaiah @ Student, minor, rep. by his mother Respondent N village, Nandipet Mandal, Nizamabad District. Chinnolla Narsaiah, 10 years, o.1, R/o. H.No.7-74l7/1 , Velmal

4. Manthena Harini,, D/o. Manthena Narsaiah @ Chinnolla Narsaiah, 10 years, Student, minor, rep. by her mother Respondent No.1, R/o. H.No.7-74l7l1,Velmal village, Nandipet Mandal, Nizamabad District. ...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, against Order and Decree dated 13.12.2016 passed in M.V.O.P.No.110 of 2015 on the file of the cou( of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District Judge) at Nizamabad ('Tribunal'). This appeal coming on for hearing and upon per:;ing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and :l-'e material papers in the case and upon hearing the argument of SRI N. SRUSHMAN REDDY, Advocate for the Appellants and SRI KOIJDAD(IAJAY KUMl,F. Advocate appeared for Respondent No.'1 and none appeared for Respondent No. 2 to 4 This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1 . That the [r'lotor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appe,a I be and is hereby dismissed.

2. That the appellants be and are hereby directed to depl:;it the remaining 50% of the awarded amount along with interest within eight weeks from date.

3. That the respondents shall be at liberty to withdraw the amount, as apportioned by the Tribunal.

4. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal SD / - T -C RINI\/ASA REDDY ASS]S]-ANTREGISTRAR lfirue Copyll \ \ I qFCfiOt'l-OFFrcFR To '1 . The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Diskict Juc ge) at Nizamabad ('Tribunal') 2. Two CD Copres. GE W HIGH COURT DATED:01/09/2025 DECREE MACMA.No.1411 ol 2017 ,.. l: 1 7 tl[I ?025 a\ DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS u.r4"L w-_.GIAP