The High Court · 2025

Petition under section 'l 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to vacate the interim stay granted in lA.No.2 of 2021 in MACMA No.101 of 2021 on dated O3tO2l2O21 , by permitting the Applicants / Respondents 1, 2 & 3 to withdraw their respectrve shares out of deposited amount by the appellant and consequently dismiss the appeal with costs in the interest of justice. lA NO:4 oF 2021 Petition under section order xxx, Rure 12 0f cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to decrare the Respondent / craimant no.2 as major by discharging from the guardianship of Respondent/crarmant no. i in the interest of justice. lA NO:5 oF 2021 Petition under section 1s1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner/ Respondent no.2 to withdraw his share of compensation amount in the interest of justice lA NO: 6 oF 2021 Petition under Section .Order XXXII Rule i 1 of CpC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to discharge the Respondent / craimant no_ 1 from guardianship of Respondent/craimant no. 2 in the interest of justice. MOTO R ACCIDE NT CIVIL MISCEL LANEOUS APPEAL NO: 260 oF 2021 Appeal filed under the Section j73 of tvl.V. Act against the Award and Decree dated 0g/05i2020 in M.V.O.p .No.2go2t20-16 0n the fire of the court of the Motor Accidents craims Tribunar-cum-chief Judge, city civir court, Hyderabad. Between: wo Late Dharmaram Kumawat, Ased about 38 years, occ s/o Late Dharmaram Kumawat, aged abour 15 years, occ. ' f,313:f,31r?evi ' Srlj}:fi'nuwat 3. Dayalaki Wo. Tejaram Kumawat, Aged about 60 years, Occ. Household, being minor rep. by his naturat suardian and mother ie E:llllSffilno.r2 All are R/o. plot No.93, Chandra Nagar, Meerpet, Saroornagar, R.R.District. ... PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS AND 1 The APSRTC, Rep. by its Managing Director' Bus Bhavan' RTC X roads' Musheerabad, l-lyderabad, P;;;;;iil"'t p;tiit ilerrru bus station' Vijayawada district. The APSRTC, Rep. by the Depot Mana-qer' Vijayawada Depot' Krishna oili,iii 6iCer.I"r,iig No AP 2e z0e46) tvtora Anii RedCy S/o. Poli Reddy Aged abot 38 vears Occ Driver ot ApsRrc Bus bearins ull 'Xp"lg'Z-osi6' Rvo' o t'to zo-14-128' lndra F iiil j riJr, i iic,r i-o nv, a"n ava n ip u ram, Vijavawad a' A P' J 2 ...RESPONDENTS (The Respondent No.3 not necessary party to the appeal) Counsel for the APPellants in MACMA No. 101 of2021 and for tn" n""pona"nts in MACMA No' 260 ot2021 : Sri Kallakuri Srinivasarao' SC for APSRTC Counsel for the ResPondents in MACMA No. 101 ot 2021 and for the Appellants in MACMA No' 260 of 2021 : Sri Pallati Chandramouli The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA M.A.C.M.A.NO.101 & 260 0F 2021 COMMON JUDGMENT: Both these appeals ari.se out of the Order and Decrec clated

08.05.2020 in M.V.O.P.NI.29O2 of 2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hydcrabad (for short "the Tribunal").

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referrcd to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the petitioners before the Tribunal is that on

27.05.2016 at about 12:00 p.m., while the deceased was going on TVS XL Moped bearing No.AP-298T-4335 from Malakpe t lo"vards Dilsukhnagar, and when he reached near Moosarambagh X-Roads, the driver of the RTC ISus bearing No-AP 292-946 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, dashed the motor bike of the deceased from behind, due to which the deceased lell down and sustained grievous injuries al1 over thc body and succumbed to injuries whiie being shifted to hospital. Thus, lhe peti[ioners claimed a compensation of Rs.25,00,0O0/-' The rcspondent No.1 and 2 have ltled counter denying the

4. occurrence of accident and also the averments with regard to the age, avocation and income of thc deceased. They further conLended l ETD,J MACMA No.101-&I-2021 2 that the driver of the RTC Bus was not negligent in causing the accident and that the deceased himself was negligent

5. Based on the above rival pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following isr;ues:- 1 2 W.ether the pleaded occident had occurued resulting in death of the deceosed Dharmaram Kumauath, due to rash and negligent dnuing of RTC Bus bearing Registration No.AP-292-946, by its driuer? W:ether the petitioners ore entitled to ana cornpensation, and, if so, at tt-that quantum and uhat is the liability of the respondents? 3- To uhat reliefr

6. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PW1 to 4 and gol marke<l Exs.Al to A10. On behalf of the respondents, RW1 was examined, but no documents were marked.

7. Based or thc evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs. 15,50,00O/- with an interest @,9ok per annum. Aggrieved by the said order and decree, the MACMA.No.1O1 of 2021 is hled by RTC and MACMA.No.26O of 2O2l rs filed by the claiman ts.

8. Heard Sli Kallakuri Srinivas Rao, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC, appearing for the RTC and Sri Pallati Chandra Mouli, learned counsel for the claimants ETD,] MACMA No.101 260_2021 3 g . The learned counsel for the RTC has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in awarding exorbitant amount under various heads without following any principles of assessment' He further argued that there was no negligence on part of the bus driver and that he was never rash and negligent. He further contended that the deceased himself contributed to the accident, while the Bus has stopped at red signal, the deceased has negligently started his vehicle and hit against the bus. He further argued that Lhe Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased to be Rs i0,000/ without their being any proof and further awarded huge amount under various heads. He therefore, prayed to reduce the compensalion granted by the Tribunal'

10. Learned counsel for the claimants on the other hand has submitted that the RTC Bus dashed the motor bike from behind at thc red signal and that the manner in which the accident has occurred itself proves the rash and negligence of the bus driver' He further submi[ted that lhe deceased used to run a Kirana and GeneralstoreandisalsoadistributorofaTeaCompany'andalso was a Real Estate Agent and thus, out of these multifarious business activities, he used to earn more than Rs'SO'OOO/ per mon[h and thus prayed to take the income of the deceased as atleast Rs.25,000/- per month and award more compensation' ETD,J MACMA No.101 260 2021 4 1 1) Based on the above rival submission, this Court frames the points for dct crrnina I ion:-

1. Whethzr the diuer of APSR'IC bus bearing No.AP-292-946 toc-s not rash and negligent in causing the accident on 27.05.2016 resulting in the death of the deceased- Dharm aram Kumouath?

2. Wlrcther there utas any contributory negligence of the decea:;ed in the occurrence of the occident ?

3. Whether the compensation anuarded by the Tibunal is just and reasonable?

4. Whether the Order and Decree passed bg the Tibunal need ctng interference?

5. To tth relief

12. Point Nos.1 & 2: a) PW3 is an eye witncss to the accident' His evidence reveals that while hc lras standing at Moosarambagh X-Roads, he noticed that a TVS X L Moped bearing No.AP-29 BT-4335 u'hich was proceeding frorn Malakpel towards Dilsukhnagar, w-as hit by the RTC Bus bearing No.AP-292-946 which was proceeding in the same direction, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at a high spcd and that the said bus hit the bike of the deceased from behind, as a result of which the deceased sustained grievous injuries. b) A perusal of FIR undcr trx.Al and charge sheet under Ex.A2 also reveals thzrt the Police after investigation have filed the charge 5 ETD,J MACMA No.1o1_260_2021 sheet against the driver of the RTC Bus. Thus, based on the evidence of pW3 coupled with Ex.A 1 and A2, it is held rhat rhe accident occurred due to the rash and negligence of the driver of the RTC Bus bearing No.Ap-292-946 and that there is no contributory negligence on part of the deceased. Hence Point No. 1 and 2 are answered accordingly.

13. Poiat No.3:- c) PW1 has asserted that her husband used to run Kirana Shop and that he was also Distributor of Tea. Ex.Ag to AIO are filed in support of her contention. .Ex.A9 is a set of Tea purchasing Bills from M / s Eagle and Trading Company by the deceased which reveals that he used to purchase Tea powder in bulk from M/s tragle and Trading Company and then, used to sell the same. Thus, it is elicited that he was an agent to the said company. Ex.A10 is the VAT Certificate issued by the Commercial Tax Department in lavour of M/s Eagle and Tracling Company in which the name of the cleceased is also shown as purchaser. Thus, it is revealed [hat he used to purchase a bulk quantity of Tea from M/s tragle and Trading Company. photographs are filed under trx.Ag showing the Kirana and General Stores and also the Office of his Real Estate Business. The photographs under Ex.Ag do not aid the petitioner ro pTVe tre rncome of the deceased. Ex.A7 is the pan Card of the ) ETD,] \4ACMA No.101 260 2021 6 deceased. By going through Ex.A9 and A1O, it is revealed that he was a Tea t)istributor and through the above said evidence, it is held that the deceased was a Businessman' The petitioners have stated thal r-he deceased used [o earn Rs.5O,O00/ - per month, and the Tribunal has assessed the income as Rs 10,0O0/ pcr month' Based on the evidence on record, Lhe income assessed by the Tribunal as Rs.10,OO0/- per month appears to be quite reasonable' d) As per the dicta laid down in National Insurance Compang Limited Vs. Pranag Sethi & Othersl , 25%o of the income nce ds to be added towards future pr()spects As the deceased is aged 42 years, adding 257o towards future prospects '.e., 10,O0Cr+2,500 would give Rs. 12,5OO l- per month, which comes to Rs.12,500/- x 12 = Rs. 1,50,000/- per annum' e) The number of claimants herein are three and therefore, 1 / 3rd deduction need to bc made to his income towards personal expenses and this would come up to Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs 1,50,000/- (-) Rs.s0,o0o/-). f) The Post Mortem Examination report filed under Ex'A4 reveals the age of the deceased as 42 years. No other proof is hled in this regard. Therefore, the age as revealed un<ier Ex A4 is taken ' eR zo'tt soc 5157 l ETD,J MACMA No.1O1_260 2021 rnto consideration. The multiplier should be chosen with regard to the age of the deceased, as per column No.4 of the table given in Sarla Verma u. Delhi Transport Corporationz. The deceased being aged 42 years, the appropriate multiplier to be applied is ,14,. Therefore , the ioss of dependency comes to Rs.l4,O0,0OO/_. h) In the light of pranag Sethi,s case, Rs.15000/_ towards loss of estate and Rs.15,0OO/ towards funeral expenses and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium have to be awarded and the said amounts should be enhanced by lO%oevery three years. h) In Magma General Insurq.nce Company Limited u. Nanu Ra,m @)Chuhnt Ram and others3, the Apex Court has elaborately discussed the principles laid down in pranag Sethi,s case and has further held that no[ only the spouse but the parents and children of the deceased are also entitled to loss of consortium. Therefore, in the present case, the claimants would get Rs.4B,4OO/_ each towards loss of consortium, hence, the compensation amount under this head would be Rs. 1,45,200/_ instead of Rs.4O,OOO/_. Further an amount of Rs.1g,150/_ towards funeral expenses and Rs. 18,150/- towards Loss of Estate have to be awarded. i) Therefore, the compensaLion to which the petitioners are entitled is calculated as Rs. 15,g 1,500/_ while the Tribunal has 'zooe 1o; scc rzr '(20 r8) l8 scc 110 l I I l i ETD,] MACMA No.101 260_2021 8 awarded Rs.15,r0,00O/-. Therefore, it is opined that the petitioners are entitled lor r:nhancement of compe nsation. Hence, point No.3 is ansu,ered accordingly

14. Point No.4:- In view of the hnding arrived at Point No.3, it is held that the Order and Decree of the Tribunal needs to be modif-red, enhancing the compensatrrn from Rs.15,50,000/- to 15,81,500/-. Point No..1 is answered accordingly

15. Poiut No.5:- In the result, MACMA.No. 1Ol ot 2O2l filcd by RTC is dismissed, while MACMA.No.260 ol 2O2l filed by the claimanls is partly allowed, modifying the Order and Decree dated 08.05.2020 passed in M.V.rl.P.No.2902 of 2016 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-C)hief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad enhancing the compensal.ion from 15,50,000/- to 15,81,5O0/- and the enhanced amolrnt of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.Sok per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. Hor.t'ever, the interest for the period of delay if any, is forfeited. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 are directed to deposit the compensation amount u'ith accrued interest within a period of two months frorn the date of rcceipt of a co1>y of this Judgment after deducting the amount if 9 ETD,J MACMA No.101 2(O 2O2t any already deposited. On such deposit, the appellant is entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any securit5r. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed. I //TRUE COPY// To, 1 The tt/otor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-The Court Cirif C"ltti. Hvderabad. (with records' if any) SD/- MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR S TION OFFICER e Chief Judge, CitY

2. One CC to Sri Kallakuri Srinivasarao' Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Pallati Chandramouli' Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies ,FVPSL f4 n ''a:! 't, ".i. .- .'. i::.i 51t 11

1..).- .', --!: , ,.., ")-. I a HIGH COURT DATED: 1610412025 COMMON JUDGMENT+ DECREE MACMA.No.101 ot 2021 MACMA.No.260 ot 2021 DISMISSING THE MACMA.No.101 ot 2021 AND PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA.No.260 of 2021 WITHOUT COSTS ,7='" (6) ?+ \s c. L) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGAN A AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA MACMA NO:'t0l AND 260 0F 2021 MACMA NO: 101 0F 2021 Between:

1. The APSRTC. Reo. by, its. Managing.Director, Bu9 Bhavan, RTC X roads, Musheerabad. Hvderabad tpreierittv ii' pandit Nehru Bus station, Vijayawada, Krishria District) 2. The APSRTC, Reo. by thq Depot Manager, Vijayawada Depot, Krishna District. ...APPELLANTS AND '1. Sohavani Devi Wo. Late Dharm aram Kumawat, Aged about 3g years, Occ Household,

2. Sunil Kumawat S/o Student, Late Dharmaram Kumawat, aged about 20 years, Occ.

3. Dayalaki Wo. Tejaram Kumawat, Aged about 60 years, Occ. Household, All are R/o_ Plot No.93, Chandra nagar, Meerpet, Saroornagar, R.R.District. 4. Morna_Anji _Reddy S/o. poli Re_ddy_. Aged about 38 years, Occ. Driver of A'SRTC, Bus bearing No.np 2sz"bbeA--nto.olNo.ia-ti_tze,"'iiaii Priyadarsh ini Colony, Bh-avanipuram, Vi;"yr*riu,'4. e. (Respondent No.4 not necessary party to the appeal) ...RESPONDENTS MACMA NO: 260 0F 2021 Between:

1. Sohavani Devi Wo. Late Dharmaram Kumawat, Aged about 38 years, Occ Household,

2. sunil Kumawat S/o Late Dharmaram Kumawat, aged about 15 years, occ Student,

3. Dayalaki Wo. Tejaram Kumawat, Aged about 60 years, Occ. Household, =/ AND 1 2 a Petitioner no. 2 being minor rep Petitioner no. 1 All are R/o. Plot No.93, Chandra Nagar, Meerpet, Saroornagar' R,R.District by his natural guardian and mother ie ...PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS The APSRTC, Rep. by its Managing Director' Bus Bhavan' RTC X roads' Nir"rh;;il;J,' uva-"rrtjro, pie."niiv it pandit Neh ru bus station. Vijayawada district. The APSRTC Rep. by the Dep-o-t yq!1q"t' Viiayawada Depot' Krishna olltrict. (nfc Bus Searing No AP 29 Z 0946) Mora Anii Reddy S/o. Poli Reddy,-Aged^about,38 years' Occ D-river.of [pbRi'Cl bri-6ei,ing N;. AP-2'e Z oe4f' R/o 6No76-14-128' tnila ijiryli"i.t ini colony, B"havanipurbm. Vijavawada' A P' ...RESPONDENTS (The Respondent No.3 not necessary party to the appeal) Appeals filed under the Section '173 of M V Act against the Award and Decreedated08/05i2020inM.V.o.P.No.2902/20l6onthefileoftheCourtofthe Motor Accidents ctaims Tribunal-cum-chief Judge, city civil court, Hyderabad' These appeals coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Court and the material papers in the caseanduponhearingtheargumentsofSriKallakurisrinivasarao'SCfor APSRTC, for the Appellants in MACMA No 101 of 2021 and for the RespondentsinMACMANo.260ot2o2landofSriPallatiChandramouli, Advocate for the Respondents in MACMA No. 101 ot 2021 and for the Appellants in MACMA No. 260 ol 2021 . This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: l.ThattheMAC|MANo.l0loI2o2lltledbyRTCbeandherebyisdismissed; 2. rhat the MACMA No. 260 of 2021 filed by the claimants be and hereby is partly allowed, modifying the Order and Decree dated 08'05 2020 in M.V.O.P.No.2902 ol 2016 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum- Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad enhancing the compensation from 15,50,000/- to 15,81 '500/- and the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7 5o/" per annum from the date of claim Petition till realization; -;7

3. That the interest for the period of delay if any, is forfeited; 4 That the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 be and hereby 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 if any already deposited; 5' That on such deposit, the apperant be and hereby is entired to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security; and 6. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. SD/- MOHD.ISMAIL OE UTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER he Motor Accidents craims Tribunar-cum-The court of the chief Judge, city ivil Courts. Hyderabad. To,

1. r C

2. Two CD Copies VH/PSL t.Y HIGH COURT DATED: 1610412025 COMMON DECREE MACMA.No.101 ot 2021 AND MACMA.No.260 of 2021 DISMISSING THE MACMA.No.101 of 2021 AND PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA.No.260 of 2021 WITHOUT COSTS ?+ r7-\t' T{S"'