The High Court · 2025

Mr. Jaya Prakash, S/o. Srikrtshna Prasad, Ag€d about 32 years, Ooc. Painter, R/o. H. t{o. 35-211, Bourenpally, Secunderabad. Petitioner/Respondent l.lo. 1 AND

1. The Tela Manager, ngnna State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Regional GH Region, Personal Department, JBS, Picket, Secunderabad.

2. Dhandu Pandu, S,/o. Narasimha, Aged about 32 years, Occ. RTC Ddver, Employeel{o. ?38522 (Ranigunj), Depot- ll, Bl/o. MadapurMllage), lGndukur (Mandal), RR. Dist. Telangana. Respondent No.l/Appellant RESPONDENT No.2 /Respondent-2 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances Statbd in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders passed on 1Ol11l2O2O in the I.A.NO 4l2O2O in MAGMA. No 536/2020. lA NO: '0 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of execution of the Judgrnent and Decree the Motor AccidentS Claims Tribunal.,-Cum- I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad, dt. 31/05/2019. made in MVOP. No. 506 of 2016. Counsel for the Appe!!an(s) : SRl. R ANURAG (SC FOR TSRTC) Counse! for the Respondents : Smt. VLADItIEER KtlATOOfil The Court dellvercd the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSII{G n This MACMA is filed under Section 173 of M'V'Act, 1988 by the Appellant/The Telangana State Road Transport /respondent No.2 against the Award and decree passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional Chief Judge,CityCivilCourtatSecunderabad,(hereinafterreferredto ilearned TribunalJ in M.V.O.P.No.5O6 of 2016, dated 31'05'2019' wherein claimant frled the claim petition under Section 166 of M'V'Act seeking compensation of Rs. 15,0O,OOO/- for the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a motor vehicle accident that took place on L7 'LO'2OL6' 2 For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before ttre Tribunal.

3. The brief fact of the case is that the claimant filed M'V'O'P'No'5O6 of 2OL6 under Section 166(1)(a) of ttre M'V'Act, 1988 seeking compensation for the injuries received in a motor vehicle accident alleged to have ocCtEed on 17.LO.2O16 when, the petitioner was 2 JUm,J fr.A.c. u- A- Iib. 536 of 2o2o travelling in RTC bus bearing No.Ap lL z 64ss at about 3:30 p.D., while the petitioner was getting down from RTC bus at Madinaguda Bus stop, on National Highway-9 Raod, Mad.inaguda, serilingampallay, cyberabad, the driver of the said bus drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed without taking precautions about leaving the passengers due to which, the petitioner fell down from the bus and sustained grievous injuries all over body including that the right leg of the petitioner was crushed and due to which his leg was amputed. Besides that he has also sustained injuries all o!'er the body and became perrnanentiy cisabied person and lost his job and as strch the petitioner has fiied the M.v.o.p claiming compensation of Rs'15,OO,OOO/-. The police have registered a case against the driver of tlre said bus vide crime No.642 of 2016 in this regard. 4' The contention of the petitioner is that due to rash and negligent driving of the TSRTC bus driver i.e., respondent No.l, as such respondent No.2 being the employer of the respondent No.l, both are made liable jointly and severally to pay the compensation which is awarded 3 rtnc'J x.,-C.r.LIt.5:16 cl: zoiP

5. Before the learned Tribunal, respondent Nos.l & 2 filed their counters denying their liability and also denying all the averments made in the claim petition, including the manner in which the accident took pliace, age, avocation and income of the petitioner and further contended that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

6. Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the counsels, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues which read as under: 'i) Whether the pleaded. accident oeuned resulting in injuries to the uictim viz', Sii Jaga nakash" S/ o.sikrishna Prasad, due to rush and negligent diuing of tle dr Er of the TSRTC bus bearing No.AP 1 1 Z 6455? 2. Wlather tle petitioner is entitled to anV @mPensation and. if so, at uhat qudntum?

3. To uhat relieJ?' 7, After perusing the oral and documentary evidence and going into the entire record and the evidence placed by both tJre parties, the learned Tribunal came to conclusion that the said accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the TSRTC bus bearing No.AP 112 6455 and hence answered the same in favour of the / 4 rvTN,J u.Lc, x.Lt{o. 536 oI Zarrp petitioner so also considering the age, occupation and income of the petitioner allowed the claim petition and granted compensation of Rs.19,38r2(X)l- aTong with interest @ 7.5o/o per annum making the respondents jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

8. Being aggrieved by the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal, the present appeal is filed on the ground among other grounds that tl,e learned Tribunal has awarded excess amount of of Rs. 19,38,200/- as against tJle claim of Rs. 15,00,O0O/- made by ttre petitioner without there being any acceptable evidence on record. Further, the learned Tribunal erred in coming to the conclusion that there was negligence on the part of the TSRTC bus driver ignoring the fact that there was also a contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner who got down from the running bus on the opposite side at the time of accident. Furttrer, it is contended that there is no eye witness was examined to prove, that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of ttrre driver of the TSRTC bus. Lastly, the leamed Tribunal erred in awarding huge amount of compensation without any basis. I 5 IO'!.,J .Lca.a.,b.s36 ol, XrP g. Heard Srl R.Anurog, learned Standing Counsel for TSRTC appearing for the appellant and Smt Vldndr Khatoon, leamed counsel for the respondents. Perused the material on record.

10. Admittedly, the claimants respondents herein have not filed cross- appeal against the Award passed by the learned Tribunal. The only point that arose before this Court in this appeal is that: i) Wwther the appellants haue made out ang case for interfering with tle finding of tle leamed Tfibunal? Polnt lfo.l 11. The main grievance of the appellant before this court is that the learned Tribunal without any basis has awarded Rs.19,38,2OO1- and taken the income of the petitioner at Rs.L2,OOO/- per month which is without any basis as there is no accepted evidence that PW-l was earning Rs. 15,OOO/-. The contention of the appellant is that the learned Tribunal ought not have taken the income of the petitioner at Rs.L2,OOO/- per month. The learned Tribunal has also awarded an amount of Rs.5O,00O/- towards pain and sulferance even though the petitioner sustained only two grievous injuries and Rs.2O,0O0/- towards 6 taR J x.A.c.X.L tto, 536 of 2ano medical medicines and investigations even though the billing manager was not examined to prove the same.

12. On perusal of material placed before the learned Tribunal it shows that tle learned Tribunal having gone into the entire oral and documentaq,' has rightly came to conclusion that the said accident occurred due to tlee rash and negligent driving of the driver of the TSRTC bus an<i in the absence of any evidence placed by the appellants herein that there is a contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner while un-boarding the bus. Hence, the said contention of the appellant cannot be accepted. Further, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Tribunal without considering the fact that there is no income proof frled by the petitioner to prove his income at Rs. 15,000 /- eutd the learned Tribunal has taken the monthly income of ttre petitioner @ Rs. 12,000/-, infact the contention of PW-l that he was a skilled painter and was earning Rs. 15,000/- and the leamed Tribunat has taken the income of the petitioner at Rs. 12,OOO/- which appears to be on the proper lines and even as per the minimum wages Act and the Rules governing during the year 2Ol7 the income of the skille{ labour was Rs.40O/- to Rs.5OO/- per 7 rln,J u.A-c,f.LIt&^536 ot2oN) day, if t}re said Rule is applied to the present facts of the case, the income which is taken by the learned Tribunal appears to be on proper

13.TheotheramountswhichareawardedbythelearnedTribunal consid.ering the fact that tlre petitioner sustained two grievous injuries all over the body and also the amputation of rigtrt leg above knee' this court is of the opinion that there is nothing to be interfered with the finding,thejudgmentandtheamountofcompensationawardedbythe learned Tribunal. Hence the point is answered accordingly in favour of the petitioner. 14. In the result appeat is dismissed affrrming the judgment and decreepassed'bythelearnedTribunal.Thereshallbenoorderasto To, shall stand closed' SD'. MOHD.ISMAIL oeFurv REGISTRAR e SECTION OFFICER I ,/TRUE COPY'/ 1 The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-l Addt' Chief Judge' City Civil Court, Secunderabad.

2. One CC to SRl. R ANURAG (SC FOR TSRTC) Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Smt. VLADIMEER KHATOON Advocate [oPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies $)' HIGH COURT DATED:31 l0712025 SHE o O s * JUDGMENT MACMA.No.536 ot 2O2O DISMISSING THE APPEAL U INTHEHIGHcoURTFoRTHESTATEoFTELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE NARSING RAO NANOIKONDA Between rhe Telans.qnS State Road rransport corPpFtlg.[*.t3;"Hn5rr[?'on"' rvii-n"b"i,'6H neg-i6ti, personat Depirtnrent' JBS' P APPELLANT/ResPondent AND .3. Mr. Java Prakash, S/o. Srikrishna Prasad'4g* about 32 years' Occ' Painter' e' iv;. il: N;. 35:rii, Bowenpallv, secunderabad' ResPondenUPetitioner

4. Dhandu Pandu, S/o' Narasimha' Aged about 32 years' Occ' RTC Driver' Emotovee r.ro.ii6Eziiffiil;ii,'il-"i"t-l[ n"to.'r'aaoipur (Villase)' Kandukur (utdnoil), RR. Dist. Telangana RESPONDENTIResPondent Appeal filed under section 173 of M.V. Act, aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dt.31/0512019, made in MVOP. No' 506 0f 2016 0n the file of the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal-cum- | Additional chief Judge, city civil court at Secunderabad, oRDER: This appeal coming on for trearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of tkre Lourer court and the material papers in the Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri R. Anurag, Advocate for the appellantandofSrnt.VladimeerKhatoonfortheRespondents. That this Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That this Court while dismissing the appeal confirmed the judgment and decree of the Tribunal.

2. That there shall be no order as to costs. // t r"' coty /l SD'. MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUW REGISTRAR ./' (_? S 6 c'[ t o,.l O l-(e(I t' To

1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-l Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.

2. Two CD Copies. PSL Sr t:fl [' \ \ HIGH COURT DATED i3110712025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.536 of 2020 DISMISSING THE APPEAL \ \ h