The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellants: SRI KALLAKURI SRINIVASARAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: SRI AELLA MADHAVA REDDY The Court made the following: JUDGMENT HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA M.A.C.M.A.N o.94 0F 2o2t JUDGMENT: This appeal is hled by the APSRTC, aggrie,,.ed by the Order and Decree dated 24.06.2020 in M.V.O.p.No.2437 of 2OlZ passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum_Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hydt:rabad (for short.the Tribunal,,).

2. For convenience and claritv, the parties herern are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the claim p.tjtioncr.s belore the.l.ribunal is that on 21.O5.2077 at 1O:45 a.m., u hilc: rhe pctitioner along with others was procecdiag in a Tractor Troller. bearing No.TS-06UA_966T and, TS-06UA-9665 towards.Jaclcherl:r ro pltrchase fcrtilizers and when they reached in front o[ Salguri Comp:rn1., loc:rted in the outskirts of Gollapally Village, one ApSR.tC l3r-rs bearing No.Ap_222_OO27 driven by its rlriver at a high spcerl rn a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the Tractor rr.cr'r'r.rir.r |r.m bchin,l, due to which the Tractor e.nd Trotler.' turne.cl rrLr rli., petirioner and others fell down and rec,:ived injuries.

4. The res,pondents filei.l c()Lut Lcr clcn,r ing their liability and further conterrded rhar thc o*'rcr .i rhr Tractor and rrolrey and its Insurarye Oornpany are necessan.parties to [he case and that the i I I t i t i I I ! I : i i : I 2 ETD,J MACMA No.94 2021 accident occurred due to the overioad in the Tractor and Troliey and that the driver of the Tractor and Trolley do not possess a valid driving license and hence, the RTC is not liable to pay any compensation.

5. Based on the above pteadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for trial 1) Wheth.el the pLeaded acciderLt hod ocqlfted resuLting in injuries sustained bg the petlloier So,blL.luatll Bo,su alios Do-sW Ndik, due to ro.sh and negligent d.riuing of APSRTC Bus beai\g Registration No.AP-222OO27, bg its diver? 2) Whetlld tlp pe.ntoner is entitled to ang compensqlion iJ so, at u)ht't quanlum and u)haL Ls thc ful|)rhty ol lhe respondents? 3) To uhat relef)

6. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PWI and 2 and got marked Exs.Al to A6. On behalf of the respondents no evidence was adduccd-

7. Based on thc eviclence on record, the trial Court has awarded a compensation oi Rs.6,5O,8OO/ with costs and interest @ 9o/o per annum. Aggricved br thc said award, the present appeal is preferred by the RTC.

8. Heard the submrssion of Sri K. Srinivas Rao, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri M- Vijay Reddy, leamed counsel for respondents. 3 ETO,J MACMA No.94 2021

9. Learn,:d counsel for appellants has submitt<:d that the orders of the Tribu:ral are contrary to law and weight of evidence. Though, in the Memc,randum of Appeal, it raised the grounds with regard to quantum of compensation also, while submitting; the arguments, the counsel has fairly submitted that the RTO is particularly contesting ore the point of liability and the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal. His contention is that the Traltor Trolley was carrying 15 ,cassengers and was overloaded. He fr-Lrther contended that the driv,er of the Tractor Trolley did nor have .tny valid driving license and thus, the RTC is mulcted with Iiabitlty in this case and therefore, he prayed to exonerate the RTC from its liabilitv.

10. The resipondent counsel on the other hand ras argued that the charge sh.eet is fited against the RTC driver and that there is no evidence to l;how that the Tractor \\.as ovcr loarled. He further submitted that even as per the charge shcer, onlr. rre labourers for Ioading and unroading were going (,. rrru Trrlle.,. and that the Tractor-Trolley cannot go at a speccr riirlrr:r t,:Lan 20 to 30 kilometers pe:r hour. Thus, the driver ol lhc Tr;rc ror. cannot be held to be in any way rash and neglrgenr.rncl tlat the accident occurred only due to the rash and ncgligencc ol the R.lC driver, .l.rolley 11 Based on the above rival contentir:ns, rhis Coirrt Lr_.,,na following goinr s f61 determinalion I l I I i , : I I j l i I I I i ! I I ,] ! I 4 ETD,J MACMA No.94-2021

1. Whether the RTC is liable to paA compensation? 2. whether tte rat? of inlerest @ 9"/o gra ted bA the Tnba'nal i's t'Lot proper?

3. Whether the order anA decree of the tial Court need atA interference?

4. To uhat retieP

12. Point No.1:- a) The contention of appellant counsel is that RTC is not liable to pay compensation as there was no negligence of the RTC driver and that the driver o[ ihc Tractor did not possess valid driving license and contributed to the accident. A perusal of the f'IR under Ex.Al and Charge sheet undcr Ex.A2 would reveal that it is ftled against the RTC Driver. It is lurther revealed that the APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP-222-OO27 w'as drivcn by its driver at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and hit Lhe tractor from behind, as a result of which the dcceasecl No. 1 and 2 and also LWS/ Sabavath Puriya and LW6/Sabavalh Sakri felt dou'n and sustained severe bleeding injuries to their vit:rl orgians. Thus, it is revealed from the contentsofthechargeshcetthatLheLr'r'oinmatestravellingonthe Tractor-Trolley goL injure.l, r,r'hile Lno persons died' The contention of the appellant counsel is that there were 15 passengers on the tractor, but the contents o[ the chzrrge sheet do not reveal the said fact. It is mentioned that tu''o people got injured and two people died in the accident. t I 5 ETD,] MACMA No.94 2021 b) PW2 is one of the injured in the accident, and he was examined as an eye witness in this case. His evidrrnce reveals that he was proceeding along with few other persons; in the Tractor bearing No.'I'S-O6UA-966T arrd Trolley bearing No.TS_O6UA_9665 as labourers and that they were proceeding towards Jadcherla and when they reached near the outskirts of Goltapallv Village on NH_ 44, ot:e RTO Bus bearing No.Ap-222-OO27 cam<: from behind, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and dashed l.heir Tractor-Trolley, as a result oi,,r.ltich rhe Tractor and Trollel,tlrrned turtle and the inmates sustainecl injuries_ c) Further, it is the case of the claimants thar thc passengers on the trolley were going for loading and un-loadin51 prrrposes and the contents of the charge sheet further reveal that they u,ere going lbr purchasirrg agricultural provisions. So non,frcr.r:, ir is elicited that it was overloaded and there is no whisper ,rbout rhc non possession of driving license by the driver of .I.rac r o r, T,rcille1.. Thcre is no rebuttal evidence lead by respondcnts ro pror,,e their contention with regard to the non possessron of clrL,",rng Iicense by thc driver of Tractor-Trolley and his rash a.,d negligence. Therefore, it i:; held that the accident occurred duc ,: rhe rash and negligencc of t-he driver of the RTC Bus and rhus. thc R.l-C is liable Lo p.i\, comperisation in this case Point Nc,.1 is answered accordingly i I i 1 I I 6 €TO.l MACMA No.94-2021

13. Point No.2:- a) The Tribunai has awarded 9olo interest on the compensation which is disputed by learned counsel for the appellants. ln Jadaa Saroia Bai Versus Ghule Naga Rao and b) Anotherl l a Coordinate Bench oi lhis High Court has granted interest @ 7 ,5o/o per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation. ln Blrndaao;th Mangla and Another Versus Banda uath c) Suresh and Others2 and No:tional Insurqnce Compang Limited Vers'us. M. Venkatesuarulu and Others3; also interest @ 7.5% per annum was granted on [he enhanced :imounI of compensation' d) ln united. Insurance Compang Limited Versus' Bollam Lingaiaha; when the Tribunal has granted rate of interest @ 9% per annum, the High Court has modiiiecl the rate of interest to

7.SVo per annum from the date of petition titl realization' A Division Bench of this High Court in National Insurance e) Cotrytang Limited Versus Jagadish Prajapothis; has granted I 2022 scc on{ine Ts 606 '?2023 SCC Onlin€ TS 1095 r 2023 SCC Online TS I 170 4 2024 SCC Online TS 915 5 2024 SCC Online TS 2050 I ,' i I I I I t B I I I I ! t t I I I / l ETD,J MACMA No.94 2021

7.5 o/o per arlnum on the compensation from the date of petition till realization. f) The:re iore, in the light of the above cited decisions, this Court has been consistently granting interest @ Z.5o/o on the compensation that is awarded in such cases. Henoe, in the present case, the rar.e of interest is reduced from 9oh per ilnnum to [hat of 7 .5o/o pe r an num. Point I\,1o.2 is answered accordingly.

14. Point No.3:- I In vierv of the finding arrived at point No. I and 2. it Ls helcl that the Order and Decree of the Tribunal d.ated,|24.06.2020 need to be rnodilrr:d only with regard to the rate of int,:rest reducins it from 9'lo to {]'rat of 7.5olo. \ i I5, POINT NO.4: ln the result, M.A.C.M.A frled by the RTC is partlr. :rllorr.ccl modilr,'irrg rhe Order and Decree dated ?,4.06.2O2O in M.V.O.P.No.,',137 of 2OL7 passed by Motor AccrdenL Clairns Tribunal cunr-Chief Judge, City Civil Court, I{yderabad, by re ducing rhe raLe of interest from 9%o to T.Sok per .rnnllln lrom the clatt: .f cl.inr petition till the date of rearization. rlorve'cr, thc interest for the period of delay, if any, is forfeited. .lhe respondcnt Nos. I irnct 2 irrc directed to deposit the compensati)n alnount \r.lth accrued irltcrcst within a periocl of two months lrom rhe datc of I ETD,J MACMA No.94 2021 receipt of a copy of this judgment after deducting the amount if any alreadydeposited.Onsuchdeposit,thepetitionersareentitledto withdraw the said amount without furnishing any securif , as per their respective shares as allotted by the Tribunal' No costs' Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in rhis appeal' shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. M.OSMAN ALI BAIG A SISTANT REGIST SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal+ hief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. One CC to Sri Kallakuri Srinivasarao, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Aella Madhava Reddy, Advocate {OPUC j 4. Two CD Copies I AS/NVB { I t ,-x; .-.-':..- : "': v't- .,l \t ,)' ' t) fiSti l<- :l\::-- ,: r: ,i 1., * i.: i+\ 'i" ,'\ rl:r. i . N6 i.'i\ ;,..::i L.',' .'.' .,, -:'- - : jt'' HIGH COURT DATED:0110512025 JUDGMENT + DECREE MACMA.NO.94 0F 2021 MACMA IS PARTLY ALLOWED 6 I I I l ftaa1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THTJRSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA MOTOR AC CIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOU S APPE AL NO:94OF 2021 Between: l.APSRTCANDANOTHER,Rep.byitsManagingDirectorMusheerabad'RTC ' i'io,o;,'i,o"ilbiO. ipibseritty 2. The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Adhoni Bus Depot, Adhoni' A'P -l.trehru Bus Station, Vijayawada, Krishna Diskict) 'at Pandit ...APPELLANT(S) AND

1. Sabavat Mohan, S/o. Late Bhasu or Desiya, Aged about 21 years' OccuPation. Nil.

2. Sabavat Devi, D/o. Late sabavat Ramu, Aged about 19 years, occupation. Nil,

3. Sabavat shirish, D/o. Late Sabavat Ramu, Aged about 18 years, occupatron (All Are Rl/o. Rajkunta Thanda Ralapur Village' Balanagar Mandal' Nit. Mahabubnagar District). ...ResPondents AppealfiledUnderSection'lT3ofMotorVehiclesAct'againsttheOrderand decree'inM.V.o.P.No.2437of2017dated.24lo6l2o20onthefileoftheCourtofthe Ct alr-.n Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge' City Civil Court' Hyderabad. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal' the Judgmeni and Decree of the Lower Court Td the material papers in the case ind upo"n hearing the argurnent of Sii K.Srinivas Rao, Advocate for the appellant and Sri A.ivladhava {eOoy, AOvocate for the Respondent Nos.I to 3. This Court doth Order and D'ecree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident civil Miscellaneou.s Appeal be and hereby- is^partly --ii't"- 'ordei-- ina otcit" dated 24:06 202.0 in " ;id;;d rno'oitying M.v.o p.N" radl 6t zii'lz prss"o uy Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum- /, ctief Judgt:, city civir court,.Hyderabad, by reducing the rate of interest from 9Yo to 7.5o/o per annum from the date of ciaim petition-titt realization.'-'--''-"'

2. That the rnterest for the period of deray if any, be and hereby is forfeited. 3. That the respondent No.l and 2 be and hereby are directed to deposit the crmpensation amount with accrued interest wi(hin a period t*il d;;ii;; from the dare of receiot of a copy of this Judgme;i lft"r?.Ortinsih; #;,;;i if any already depositbd. 4. That on sur>h deposit, the petitioners be and hereby are entifled to withdraw the said amount shares as illotted by tne iriOunit. -' 5. Jhal save as aforesaid, the decree of the Lower coun shafi stands confirmed 6. That there be no order as to costs in this appeal. in all other respects; and. "f //TRUE COPY// I To,

1. The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal_cu 2. Two CD Copies Court, Hyderabad. ASAIVB .OSMAN ALI BAIG ANT REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER m-r)hief Judge, City Civit --t HIGH COURT DATED:01 t0St2O2S DECREE MACMA.NO.94 0F 2021 MACMA IS PARTLY ALLOWED \\ L1vr