The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 of 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 Judgment and Decree of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum- the Principal District Judge, Mahabubnagar, dated 29.11.2022, made in MVOP.No.73 of 2018, pending disposal of the main MACMA.

1. MA Moin Pasha @ M.A.Khaja Moinoodin, S/o. MA Sattar, Aged 49 Years, Occ. Self Employee,

2. Ziya, D/o. MA Moin Pasha @ M.A.Khaja Moinoodin, Aged about 15 years, Minor,

3. MA Ayazul Akh, S/o. MA Moin Pasha @ M.A.Khaja Moinoodin, Aged 11 years, Minor,

4. Nazhath, D/o MA Moin Pasha @ M.A.Khaja Moinoodin, Age (Respondents No. 2 to 4 are represented by Respondent No father) 10 1, years,'Minor, being their All are residents of H.No. 6-112, Veldanda Mandal, presently residing at New Town, Mahabubnagar. . .. Appellants/Claimants AND

1. The Managing Director, T.S.R.T.C., Rep., by its Regional Manager, TSRTC Complex, Mahabubnagar. ... RespondenUAppel lant

2. Bandari Venkataiah, S/o. Bala charidraiah (died) (The Respondent No.2 is impleaded as proforma party and no notice is necessary to him in this appeal) ... RespondenURespondent No,5 Petition under Section 151 of 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 by order Dated.O1-11-2023 in l.A.No.3 of 2023 in MACMA No. 1283 of 2023 enabling us to withdraw the amount deposited. Counsel for the Appellant : SRI M RAM MOHAN REDDY, SC Counsel for the Respondent Nos.{ to 4: SRI K VENKATESH GUPTA The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA M.A.C.M.A.Nos.564 AND 1283 OF 2O23 COMMON JUDGMENT:- Heard Sri K.Venkatesh Gupta, learned counsel for the claimants and Sri M.Ram Mohan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the TSRTC Perused the record.

2. Since the facts of the case, the issues involved, the parties and the order under challenge, in both these appeals are one and the same, both these appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. Challenging the Award, dated 29.Lt.2022, passed in O.p.No.73 of 2018 by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- cum-Principal District Judge, Mahabubnagar, the claimants preferred M.A.C.M.A.No.564 of 2023 seeking enhancement of compensation and the TSRTC preferred M.A.C.M.A.No.1283 of 2023 seeking to set aside the impugned Award.

4. The parties hereinafter referred as they are arrayed in MACMA No.564 of 2023.

5. The appellants/claimants filed o.P. seeking compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- following the death of the deceased, Thahera Begum in a road traffic accident which took place on 16.09.2017 at about \ ._---\-. l, l , j I : i I ! : i 2 4:30 P.M., near M.V.S. Degree College in the limits of Mahabubnagar Town. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of RTC bus bearing No.AP 222 0106. The appellants got examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to AB and Exs.X1 to XB. The respondent-TSRTC did not examine any witness and also did not mark any documents. Upon examining the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.41,40,6L6/-.

6. In grounds of appeal in M.A.C.M.A.No.564 of 2023, the appellants/claimants sought enhancement towards loss of income, loss of spousal consortium, loss of parental consortium, loss of future prospects and loss of estate.

7. While the claimants are seeking compensation, the respondent- TSRTC claims that the claimants are entitled to a maximum amount of Rs.50,000/- under Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act (For short, 'M.V.Act') for no fault liability and no more compensation. B. The respondent-TSRTC contends that the Tribunal committed irregularity in holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of TSRTC bus bearing No.AP 222 0106 and that there is no negligence on his part and that the claimants have not discharged their burden of proof under Section 166 of M.V.Act. Further, it is contended that there is an error in taking the future .*=- / 3 prospects dt 50o/c, instead of 4Oo/o and that awarding of interest @ 9olo is excess and contrary to judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Nationa,l Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethilr's case. Further, it is contended that the deceased herself tried to get down from the moving bus, she herself slipped. and felt down and sustained injuries on the back side of the head, without there being any negligence on the part of the driver. Therefore, according to the respondent, the Tribunal erred in awarding compensation on the basis of evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, whose names did not figure in the FIR or the charge sheet. On the basis of aforementioned grounds, the respondent-TSRTC prayed that the appeal filed by TSRTC be allowed and the Award passed by the Tribunal be set aside.

9. Firstly, the respondent-TSRTC's contention about maintainability of the claim petition is taken up. According to the respondent-TSRTC, the deceased herself is responsible for the accident as she got down from the moving bus without informing the driver. However, the police record does not support the version presented by the respondent-TSRTC. As per the complaint, the inquest report and the charge sheet marked under Exs.Al, A2 and A5, the deceased was travelling in RTC bus bearing No.AP 222 0106 to depart at MVS Degree College and when she was getting down from the bus, the driver had 'zotz eclztoo 4 moved the bus negligently causing her to fall down from the bus, resulting in head injury and her death. The version of the appellants is supported by evidence of eye witness P.W.2, who stated that he was standing in front of the college and witnessed the accident. According to P.W.2, the driver of the bus had moved the bus when the deceased was getting down from the bus. Before moving the bus, the driver did not observe that all the passengers had got down from the bus and therefore, the accident had occurred due to the negligence of driver of the RTC bus. The respondent-TsRTc having taken objection to the version presented by the appellants in the counter filed, did not deem it necessary to examine any witness much less the driver of the bus to prove negligence on the part of the deceased and no fault on driver's part. When there is no oral evidence to support the pleadings, the version presented by the respondent-TSRTC cannot be taken into consideration and the objection raised on this ground cannot be sustained. As such, there is no issue about the maintainability of the claim petition under Section 166 of M.V. Act, since the oral and documentary evidence sufficiently establishes negligence on the part of the driver of the TSRTC bus bearing No.AP 222 OtO6.

10. The second ground taken by the respondent-TSRTC is with regard to adding 5Oo/o to the income of the deceased towards future prdepects. According to the respondent-TSRTC, only 40o/o of the 5 salary can be taken towards future prospects. on this ground, it is to be seen that as per judgment in Pranay Sethi's case (supra 1) when the deceased is a Government employee and his age is below 40 years, 5Oo/o has to be added towards future prospects. In the instant case, the deceased was a Government employee aged about 32 years at the time of accident and therefore, the Tribunal taking the future prospects at 50o/o is proper, as such, cannot be interfered with.

11. The another objection taken about p.W.2 not being an eye witness to the incident also cannot be a ground for setting aside the award. The charge sheet marked under Ex.A5 shows that two eye witnesses were examined by the police before filing the charge sheet. The witness P.W.2 himself deposed that he was standing near the bus stop and he observed that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of TSRTC bus. As per the judgment of Hon'ble supreme court in sunita v. Rajasthan 9RTC2, a person who is an eye witness but not examined by the police and whose name does not figure in the charge sheet, can also be examined before the Tribunal to prove negligence on the part of driver of offending vehicle. Therefore, said objection raised by the respondent-TSRTC cannot be sustained ' 1zozo1 13 scc 486 6 L2. Lastly, the respondent-TSRTC took objection to the Tribunal considering the gross salary of the deceased while computing loss of income. Time and again, the Apex Court has reiterated the stand that gross salary has to be taken while computing the compensation and not the net salary from which deductions are reduced. As such, the ground of gross salary being taken for computation of compensation is also not sustainable.

13. The ground raised by the appellants/claimants about the Tribunal taking meager amount towards annual income is not sustainable for the simple reason that the Tribunal has taken the salary on the basis of evidence adduced by the claimants themselves under Ex.X2 that too the gross salary is taken. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.16,500/- towards loss of estate and Rs.44,000/- towards loss of consortium to claimant No.1 and the same is in tune with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aniali and others v. Lokendra Rathod,3 The Tribunal did not award Filial consortium to claimant Nos.2, 3 and 4. As such, they are entitled to payment of Rs.40,000/- each towards Filial consortium. t4. Lastly, when there are four dependents on the deceased, the arheunt to be deducted towards personal expenses would be 1/4th of '\ the total salary but not LB'd as has been taken into consideration by 'zozzScC ontine SC 1683 5i a E I 7 the Tribunal. To the said extent, the compensation awarded under Ioss of income has to be modified.

15. The annual income of the deceased taken by the Tribunal is Rs.3,80,964/-. If the said amount is multipried by the appropriate multiplier'16'as was rightly taken by the Tribunal relying on Sar/a varma v. Delhi Transport corporationa, the total compensation under the head of loss of dependency would be Rs.60 ,9s,424/-. since there are four dependents on the deceased, if U4rn of the income is deducted towards personal expenses (Rs. 1 5,23,856/ -), the annual contribution of the deceased to the family would be Rs.45,71 ,s6B/- (Rs.60,95,424/- - Rs.15,23,856/-). In addition, the appellants are entitled to payment of compensation of Rs.16,500/- towards loss of I I estate, Rs.16,500/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.44,000/- towards loss of consortium to claimant No.1 and Rs.1,20,000/- towards filial consortium to claimant Nos.2, 3 and 4. In all, the claimants are entitled to Rs.47,68,568/-.

16. In the result, the M.A.c.M.A.No.564 of 2023 filed by the claimants is allowed in part, enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs. 41,40,6L61- to Rs.47,68,568/-, which shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5o/o per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The enhanced compensation amount shall be o (zoos)o scc 121 I \ 8 deposited by respondent No.2 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with interest accrued thereon in proportion to their shares awarded by the Tribunal, without furnishing any security. Consequently, M.A.C.M.A.No.1283 of 2023 filed by the TSRTC is dismissed. Miscellaneous Petitions, if diY, pending in these appeals, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. SD/- M. OSMAN ALI BAIG STANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/ OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge at Mahabubnagar(With records, if any)

2. One CC to SRI M RAM MOHAN REDDY,SC [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI K VENKATESH GUPTA Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies ADK HIGH COURT DATED:30/06/2025 I /l n '-j o LL lL. .s s $. \, x- H cr!1 :'{- .t t: COM MON J UDGMENT+DECREE 2 DRAFTS MACMA.Nos.564 and 1283 of 2023 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA.No.564 of 20Zg AND DISMISSING THE MACMA.No.1283 ot 2023 WITHOUT COSTS rl ?,( \ IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA MACMA.Nos.564 and 1283 OF 2023 MACMA.No.564 OF 2023 Between:

1. MA Moin Pasha , MA Khaja Mainoodin, S/o. MA Sattar, Age S0 years, Occ. Self Employee,

2. Ziya, Slo. MA Moin Pasha or MA Khaja Mainoodin, Age. 16 years, Minor, 3. MA Ayazul Akh, S/o. MA Moin Pasha @ MA Khaja Mainoodin, Age. 13 Years, Minor,

4. Nazhath, D/o. MA Moin Pasha @ MA Khaja Mainoodin, Age 11 Years, Minor, Petitioner 2 \o 4 -bqing minors are under guardianship of natural father MA Moin Pasha (it MA Khaja Mainoodin, i.e., Petitioner No.1 herein) All are R/o.H.No.6-1t2, Veldanda Mandal, Presently residing at New Town, Mahabubnagar. ...Appel lants/Clai mants AND 1 2 Bandari Venkataiah (Died), S/o.Balachandraiah, Age About 63 years, Occ. Driver of RTC bus bearing No.AP-22-Z-O106, C/o. WanaparthyDepot, R/o. Pangal Road, Thirumala Colony, Wanaparthy. Phone . 9491822285. IlLegqnqging Directg1, T.S.R.T.C., Represented by its Regional manager, T.S.R.T.C. complex, Mahabub nagar. (The Respondent No.l is impleaded as proforma party and no Notice is necessary to him in this appeal) ...Respondents MACMA.NO.1283 0F 2023 Between: ]glgqg_ary State Road Transport Corporation, Rep., by its Regional Manager, TSRTC Complex, Mahabubnagar. ...Appel lanURespondent AND

1. MA Moin Pasha @ M.A.Khaja Moinoodin, S/o. MA Sattar, Aged 49 Years, Occ. Self Employee,

2. Ziya,Dlo. MA Moin Pasha @ M.A.Khaja Moinoodin, Aged about 15 years, Minor,

3. MA Ayazul Akh, S/o. MA Moin Pasha @ M.A.Khaja Moinoodin, Aged 11 years, Minor,

4. Nazhath, D/o MA Moin Pasha @ M.A.Khaja Moinoodin, Age 10 years, Minor, (Respondents No. 2 to 4 are represented by Respondent No.1, being their father) All are residents of H.No. 6-112, Veldanda Mandal, presently residing at New Town, Mahabubnagar.

5. Bandari Venkataiah, S/o. Bala charidraiah (died) (as such not necessary party) . .. Respondents/Petitioners ...RespondenUl "t Respondent Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,1988 aggrieved by the Award and decree in O.P.No.73 of 2018 dated. 29-11-2022 qn the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge at Mahabubnagar. 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 Case and upon hearing the arguments of SRI K VENKATESH GUPTA, Advocate for the Appellants in MACMA.No.564 of 2023 and for Respondent Nos.l to 4 in MACMA.No.1283 of 2023 and SRI M RAM MOHAN REDDY, SC for the Respondent No.2 in MACMA.No.564 of 2023 and for Appellant in MACMA.No.1283 of 2023. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. Thatthe MACMA.No.1283 of 2O23 be and hereby is dismissed; 2. That the MACMA.No.564 of 2023 be and hereby is Partly allowed enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs. 41,4A,6161- to Rs.47,68,568,/-, which shall cary interest at the rate of 7.5o/o per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization;

3. That the enhanced compensation amount shall be deposited by respondent No.2 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment;

4. That on such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with interest accrued thereon in proportion to their shares awarded by the Tribunal, without furnishing any security ;

5. That save as aforesaid, the Judgment and decree of the Tribunal shall stands confirmed in all other respects; and

6. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. M. OSMAN ALI BAIG ANT REGISTRAR /,TRUE COPY/ OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge at Mahabubnagar(With records, if any)

2. Two CD Copies ADK HIGH COURT DATED:30/06/2A25 f t "f /r t1 o u- COMMON JUDGMENT MACMA.Nos.564 and 1283 of 2 1 .s: x- "ts->) \ ffe iH t t. j PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA.No.564 ot 2 23 AND DISMISSING THE MACMA.No.1283 of 2023 WITHOUT COSTS 0 el,tl*