High Court · 2025

Cross Objections filed under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC. aggrieved by the orders passed by the XV Addl. Chief Judge-Cum-l Addl. Metn ,politan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, dt.29.03.2012. l.A. NO: 1OF 2012 MACMAMP. NO: 3218 OF 2012) ( Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the r:'cumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Coui may be pleased to STAY the execution of the decree and all further proc:edings passed in 0.P.No.653 of 2010, Dtd.29.03.2012 on the file in the Cour of the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge cum XV Additional Chief Judge Hyderabad pending appeal and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of iustice. .A. NO: 2OF 2O1 MACMAMP. NO: 468'l OF 2012 Between:

1. Y.LALITHA AND 3 OTS, Wo. Y. Shiva Kumar, Occ Hous .'Wife 2. Y. Shiva Kumar,, Sio. Y. Venkateshwar Rao, Occ Privah: Employee 3. Y. Deepika,, D/o. Y. Shiva Kumar, Occ Student 4. Y. Srinivas Rao,, S/o. Y. Shiva Kumar, Occ Student (All R/o. H.No.1'l-2-512, Upparbashi, Namalagundu, Ser; rnderabad) Petitioner ;/Respondents AND

1. APSRTC, Rep Hyderabad by its Managing, Director, RTC X I oad, Musheerabad,

2. A.P.S.R.T C,, Rep Secunderabad. by its Depot Manager, Ranigunj 3 "rs Depot, Ranigunj, W/' f,' . . .. Respondents/Appellants Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in ttre affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased vacate the stay granted in MACMAMP.No. 3218 ot 2O12 in MACMA.NO. 1679 of 2O12 dated 21-6-2012. Counsel for the Appellant(s): SRl. R. ANURAG (SC FOR APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondents: DHANUNJAYA REDDY K The Court made the following: ORDER {v' Y 'n HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRTYAD.6 RSINI M.A.C.M.A.N0.1679 OF 2012 AND CROSS-OBJECTIONS No.32924 OF 2OL2 lI.A.I\t( .5 OF 2OL2 COMMON JUDGMENT: 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 29.O3.2O1t>. passed in O.P No.663 of 2010, on the hle of the Court t f I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-XV Additionz I Chief Judge, Hyderabad, the respondents/RTC in the saic O.P. preferred M.A.C.M.A. 1679 of 2012 seeking to allow the A1 peal by setting aside the order of the Trial Court. Also, havir g not satished with the compensation granted by the Trial Cou: , the claimants in O.P. preferred Cross-Objections No.32924 of 12 )12 (I.A.No.S of 2012) seeking enhancement of compensation. Since both the cases arise out of the common order passed by he Trial Court, they have been dealt with together and being dis;1 ,osed of by way of this cornmon judgment.

2. For the sake of convenicnce, the partie; hereinafter be referred as they were arrayed before the Trial Cot rt.

3. The facts of the case in nutshell are that _he petitioners, who are the parcn[s, younger sister and youngc r brother of Late Mr.Y.Bhanu Prakash (hereinafter relerred to ar; .the deceased) 2 MGP,J MACMA.No.1679 of2012& Cross-obj.No.32924of mU (l.A.No.5 of 2o12) filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs. 10,OO,O00/- for the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on

15.05.2009. It is stated by the petitioners that on 15.05.2OO9, at about 2.3O P.M, when the deceased was proceeding on his Honda Activa bearing No.AP- lO-AN-4O99 from Seethaphal Mandi to Warasiguda and when reached near House No.12-11- 165, Namalagundu, at that time, one RTC bus bearing No.AP- 9Z-8O58 which was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came at a high speed and dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased from backside, due to which, the deceased fell down and the right rear qrres of the said Bus ran over the head of the deceased and he died on the spot.

4. Based on a complaint, Police of Chilakalaguda Police station, Secunderabad, registered a case in Crime No.314 of 2OO9. As the deceased was no more, the petitioners, with a great hardship, lrled the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.IO,OO,OOO/- from the respondents/ RTC.

5. The respondents/ RTC filed a common counter denying the averments made in the claim petition including, age, v { 3 MGP,J v \CMA.No.1579 of 2012 & Crosr'obj.No.32924 )f 2012 (l.A.No.s of 2012) income, occupation of the deceased and contc rded that the compensation claimed is excessive, exorbitant anc hence prayed to dismiss the claim against it.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the Trial Cct rt had framed the following issues for conducting trial: O Whetler th.e acr:ident occurred on 15.O5.2A(9 at about 2.3O p.m- near *ethaphal Mandi, V arosiguda, *cund.erabad, resulting death of Y. Bhanu c'akr:sh? If so, rulether tlw said accident occur due to tL z rash and negligent diuing of the RTC bus beaing Nr. tP-92-8O58 bg its diuer? fin Whether tlrc petitioners ore entitled to ana con pensation? If so, to uhat amount and from uhom? (tii) To u.that relieJ?

7. Before the Trial Court, the petitioner:; in order to substantiate ttreir case, got examined PWs i to 3 and got marked Exs.Al to A7 on their behalf. r )n behalf of respondents/RTC no oral or documentary :vidence was adduced.

8. The Trial Court, after considering the evij:nce available on record, partly-allowed the claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs.4,7O,OOO/- along with inter.r ;L @ Z.5o/o per annum from the date of petition till the datt. of realization 4 l"'IGPJ MACMA.No.1679 of 2012 & Cross-obj.ilo.32924 of 2012 (l.A.No.s of 2012) payable by respondents 1 & 2 jointly and severally. Aggrieved by the said finding, the respondents in the said O.P. preferred M.A.C.M.A.1679 of 2012 seeking to allow the Appeal by setting aside t.Ire order of Trial Court and the claimants therein preferred Cross-objections petition requesting for enhancement of compensation amount.

9. Heard arguments submitted by Mr.S.Manish, learned counsel representing on behalf of Sri R.Anurag, learned Standing Counsel for appellant/RTC and Sri K.Dhanunjaya Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents/cross-objectors. Perused the record.

10. The contentions of the learned counsel for Appellant/RTC are that the Trial Court erred in considering the income of the deceased on higher side without any documentary proof and also erred in applying the multiplier and hence, requested to set-aside the order of the Trial Court

11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/Cross- objectors contended that the Trial Court failed to award future prospects to the income of the deceased and failed to consider the evidence of PW3 and Ex.A6-salary Certificate and awarded 77 l:c-.?:-=-f.?E?:----- 5 MGPJ MA MA.No.1679 0f 2012 & Cross-obj.No.32924 r' 2012 (l.A.No.s of 2012) meager amount and also awarded less arr cunt under conventional heads and therefore requested for erLl .ancement of the same L2. Now the points that emerge for determinatio r are, I c WhetLer tlw order of the learned Tnit tnal requires interferene of this Court? Whetter tle cross-objectors are entitled for enhancement of ampens ation? POINTS:-

13. Since there is no dispute regarding c< currence of accident and death of the deceased, this Court is n, rt in6lir..6 ,o once again discuss the above said aspects. The onl . aspect rhat has to be considered in the present Appeat is wi _h regard to quantum of compensation.

14. Learned counsel for the appellant/ RTC cor tended that the Trial Court erred in fixing the income of tht: deceased @ Rs.5,O00/- per month and also erred in apply ng relevant multiplier. Learned counsel also contended that t re judgment of the Honble Apex Court in Natlona,t Insurance Co.Ltd.Vs.Pranag Sethi I may not be taken into account for (2017 (6t l70 SCI t E I i, :l 5 I MGPJ MACMA.No.l679of 2012 & Cross-obj.No.32924 of 2012 (l.A.No.5 of 2012) retrospective cases as the inception of the said judgment is 2O17 whereas the date of accident is 2OO9.

15. On tlle other hand, learned counsel for the cross- objectors contended that though the petitioners filed Ex.A7- Salary Certificate showing the income of the deceased, but the Trial Court, without considering the same, hxed meager amount towards the income of the deceased as well as conventional heads. karned counsel also contended that since Motor Vehicle Act is benelicial legislation and should be interpreted in favor of the affected persons, the claimants are entitled for just compensation" one which is fair and reasonable on the basis of the evidence adduced irrespective of the amount claimed.

16. A perusal of Ex.A7-Salary Certi[rcatc issued by Sri Ramchandra Rice Stores clearly discloses that the deceased worked in the above stores since 3 years prior to accident and he has been pa.id monthly salary of Rs.7,SOO/-. Therefore, considering the said Salary Certificate and also the evidence of PW3, who deposed that he used to pay salary to the deceased @ Rs.7,50O/- per month, this Court is inclined to interfere with 7 MGP,J MACN \'No 1679 of 2012 & Cross-obi.No 32924 of 21 12 (l A-No 5 of 2012) the finding of the learned Trial Court and hereby fi:: 'he monthiy income of the deceased @ Rs'7'500/-' 17. A perusal of the impugned judgment sho r's that the Iearned Tribunal failed to award future prospects -t tlte income of the deceased. Hence, this Court, consider i rg that the should be M.V.Act is a beneficial piece of legislation an( interpreted in favor of the affected persons and t[ e applicants shouldnotbeprecludedfromgrantofjustcomptnsation,this Court, following the judgment of the Hon'lcle A 'ex Court in National Ins'urance Co'Ltd'Vs'P'ratuag Srettr-:i2 ' s inclined to award 4O7o towards future prospects to the ir come of the deceased considering the age of the deceased as !l: ' years as per charge sheet, inquest and post mortem reporls Thus' the luture monthly income of the deceased comes tc Rs lO'500/-. Since the deceased being Bachelor' if 50% is derl rcted towards his personal and living expenses had he been a1i'r r' then his net monthly income comes to Rs'5'250/- and the z nnual income comes to Rs.63,OO0/-' After applying multiptier '18" the total loss of dependency would come to Rs' 1 1 '34 '000 7 - L.lO t7 (, 170 SCI 8 M6P"' MACMA.No-1579 of 2012 & Crors obj.No.3292a of 2012 {l-A.No S of 2012)

18. Further, a perusal of the amounts awarded under conventional heads in the impugned judgment would show that the learned Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and an amount of Rs.15,OOO/- towards loss of estate which this Court finds the same to be meager and is inclined to interfere with the same by relying upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of No,tional Insurclnre Co. WL Vs.Ptuag Sethl & others (2017 ACJ .': 27OO) and hereby award Rs-33,O00/- towards conventional heads. Thus, in all, the claimants/cross objectors are entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 1l,67,OOOl- -

19. In the result, M.A.C.M.A.No.1679 of 2Ol2 filcd by R T C is dismissed and the Cross Objections No.32924 ot 2Ol2 (l'A No 5 of 2Ol2l frled by claimants is allowed by enhancing the compensation amonnt awarded by the Trial Court from Rs.4,70,O00/- to Rs. 1l,67,OOOl. which shall carry interest @ 7.5o/o per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The respondents I & 2/RTC are directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period o[ two months [rom the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. Upon such dego(rt, the cross-objectors/claimants are entitled to withdraw 9 M6P,I M,\l \4A.No.1579 of 2O12 & Cross-obj.No.32924 ,)l lo12 (l.A No.5 ot 2o12) the same as per the apportionment made b1 the learned Tribunal by paying deficit Court fee' There shall b: no order as to costs.

20. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if anv shall stand closed. S )/- MOHD.ISMAIL DEf UTY REGISTRAR /ITRUE COPY// l L L\ \ S ECTION OFFICER To, '1 . The I Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge-Cum-XV " { Cdl' Chief Judge' Hyderabad. 2' One CC to SRI R. ANURAG (SC FoR APSRTC) Advocat : [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. DHANUNJAYA REDDY KAdvocate tOP- 3l 4. Two CD CoPies HIGH COURT DATED: 1 110312025 t? STATE ' \ I\\ l$t o O 6) * + JUDGMENT MACMA.No.1679 of 2012 AND CROSS-OBJECTIONS No. 32924 OF 2012 DISTV{ISSING THE APPEAL & ALLOWING THE CROSS-OBJECTIONS (A1 x7 ) HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI CROSS-OBJECTIONS No.32924 OF 2012 fl.A. No.S OF 2O12) Between:

1. Y.LALITHA AND 3 OTS, Wo. Y. Shiva Kumar, Occ House Wife 2. Y. Shiva Kumar,, S/o. Y. Venkateshwar Rao, Occ Private Employee 3. Y. Deepika,, D/o. Y. Shiva Kumar, Occ Student 4. Y. Srinivas Rao,, S/o. Y. Shiva Kumar, Occ S{udent (All R/o. H.No.1 1-2-512, Upparbashi, Namalagundu, Secunderabad) Cross Objectors/Respondents '1 to 4 in MACMA/ Petitioner 1 to 4 in O.P. AND

1. APSRTC, Rep. by its Managing, Director, RTC X Road, Musheerabad, Hyderabad

2. A.P.S.R.T.C,, Rep. by its Depot Manager, Raniguni Bus Depot, Ranigunj, Secunderabad. Respondents/Appellants MACMA,iRespondent No. 1 & 2 in O.P. Cross Objections filed under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC., aggrieved by the orders passed by the XV Addl. Chief Judge-Cum-l Addl. tMetropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, d1.29.O3.2012. This Cross-Objections coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgrnent and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the suit qnd upon hearing the arguments of and Sri K. Dhanunjay Reddy, Advocate for the Cross-objectors and of Sri R. Anurag, Standing Counsel for the APSRTC., for the Respondents. The this doth order and decree as follows: 'l . That this while allowing the Crossobjections enhancec the compensation from Rs.4,70,0001 to Rs.1 1,67,000/-.

2. That the enhanced amount carry the interest @ 7 .5% [ er annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

3. That the respondents are directed to deposit the coml> rnsation amount within a period of two months from the date of receipt t f a copy of this judgment.

4. That the cross-objectors/claimants are entitled to withd 'aw the same as per the apportionment made by the leamed Tribunal tl paying deficit court fee.

5. That there shall be no order as to costs. iD/. MOHD.ISMAIL D[ PUTY REGISTRAR ::'--- ' \.<-=-.- \ /,TRUE COPY// I iEcrroru oFFrcER To

1. The Chairman, MACT-Cum-l Addl. Metropolitan Sessir ns Judge-Cum-XV Addl. Chief Judge, Hyderabad.

2. Two CD Copies. M,- HIGH COURT DATED:1 1lO3l2O25 DECREE CROSS OBJECTIONS IN MACMA.No.1679 ot 2012 HL .) $ll I'?6 1 1 * S )'i :a z 6) .L T ALLOWING THE CROSS-OBJECTIONS \L HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH' TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1679 OF 2012 Between:

1. APSRTC, Rep. by its Managing, Director, RTC X Road, Musheerabad, Hyderabad

2. A.P.S.R.T.C,, Rep. by its Depot Manager, Ranigunj Bus Depot, Ranigunj, Secunderabad AND ...APPELLANT(S)

1. Y.LALITHA AND 3 OTS, Wo. Y. Shiva Kumar, Occ House Wife 2. Y. Shiva Kumar,, Sb. Y. Venkateshwar Rao, Occ Private Employee 3. Y. Deepika,, D/o. Y. Shiva Kumar, Occ Student 4. Y. Srinivas Rao,, S/o. Y. Shiva Kumar, Occ Student (All R/o. H.No.11-2- 512, Upparbashi, Namalagundu, Secunderabad) ...RESPONDENTS/PETITONERS Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, aggrieved by award and Decree dt.29.03.2012 passed in O.P.No.653 of 2010 on the file of the I Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge4um-XV Addl. Chief Judge, 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 suit and upon hearing the arguments of Sri R. Anurag, Standing Counsel for the APSRTC., and Sri K. Dhanunjay Reddy, Advocate for the Respondents. That this court doth order and decree as follows 7

1. That this Court while dismissing the appeal confirmed i ll the averments made by the tribunal.

2. That there shall be no order as to costs. //TRUE COPY// ;D/. MOHD.ISMAIL DE PUTY REGISTRAR ' l=- +,.- OFFICER To

1. The Chairman, MACT-Cum-l Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge-Cum-XV Addl. Chief Judge, Hyderabad.

2. Two CD Copies. )W HIGH COURT DATED:1 110312025 DECREE MACMA.No.1679 ot 2012 DISMISSTNG THE APPEAL l" ,/\ HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH' TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1679 OF 2012 Between:

1. APSRTC, Rep. by its Managing, Director, RTC X Road, Musheerabad, Hyderabad

2. A.P.S.R.T.C,, Rep. by its Depot Manager, Ranigunj Bus Depot, Ranigunj, Secunderabad AND ...APPELLANT(S)

1. Y.LALITHA AND 3 OTS, Wo. Y. Shiva Kumar, Occ Flouse Wife 2. Y. Shiva Kumar,, S/o. Y. Venkateshwar Rao, Occ Private Employee 3. Y. Deepika,, D/o. Y. Shiva Kumar, Occ Student 4. Y. Srinivas Rao,, S/o. Y. Shiva Kumar, Occ Student (All R/o. H.No.11-2- 512, Upparbashi, Namalagundu, Secunderabad) ...RESPONDENTS/PETITONERS Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, aggrieved by award and Decree dt.29.03.2012 passed in O.P.No.653 of 2010 on the file of the I Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge-Cum-XV Addl. Chief Judge, Hyderabad. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgrnent and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the suit and upon hearing the arguments of Sri R. Anurag, Standing Counsel forthe APSRTC., and Sri K. Dhanunjay Reddy, Advocate for the Respondents. That this court doth order and decree as follows

1. That this Court while dismissing the appeal confirmerl all the averments made by the tribunal.

2. That there shall be no order as to costs. SD/. MOHD.ISMAIL tII IPUTY REGISTRAR rl-- fecrrou OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To '1. The Chairman, MACT-Cum-l Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge-Cum-XV Addl. Chief Judge, Hyderabad.

2. Two CD Copies. Ny HIGH COURT DATED:1 1lO3l2O25 DECREE MACMA.No.1679 ot 2012 DISMISSINGTHE APPEAL \1/