The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant(s):SRl. CHANDRA SEKHAR N (SC FOR TSRTC ZONE) Counsel for the Respondents Nos.1 to 3: N AMARNATH The Court made the following Judgment : THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA M.A.C.M.A.NO.736 0F 20.21 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by TSRTC, aggrieved by the Order and Decree datcd 07.06.2021 in M.V.O.p.No.794 of 201g passed by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-principal District Judge, Warangal (for short "the Tribunal") .

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

3. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that on

26.08.2018 at about 19:30 hours, while the deceased-Santhosh Singh was proceeding on road by walk and when he reached the road in fron[ of Sri Laxmi Stone Crusher, Kothagattu Village, Athmakur Mandal, Warangal, one TSRTC Bus bearing No.TS-25-Z 00 10 coming lrom Hyderabad towards Bhupalpally drivcn by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed has hit the deceased, as a result of which he fell down and sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. The family members of the deceased sought a compensation of Rs. 16,00,O00/-. 4 The respondent No.i remained ex-parte 5- The respondent No.2 has filed counter denying thc averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of lhe 2 ETD,J MACMA No.736 2021 accident, zrge, avocation and income of the decear;ed. It is further contended thal, the accident occurred due to the tregligence of the deceased himself and that there is no negligencr: on part of the RTC Driver.

6. Baserd on the above pleadings, trial Court has framed thc following issues lor t rial: WlTetller tlLe acciderlt occuned due to rash a 1d negligent diuing of the diuer oJ TSRTC Bus beaing N t 7'S 2 5Z OO 1O resulting ut the death of Sontosh Sing/ 2 2 Whether the petittoners ore entitled for coilp?nsa't.on. If so. af ultat rofe? 3- 'to tilrat reltef 7 . To prove their case, the petitioner got exam ined PWs 1 to 3 and got marked Exs.Al to A7. On behalf of the rcspondents RW1 was examined, but no cxhibits were marked.

8. Based on the evidcnce on record, the Triburral has awarded Rs.21,70,000/- of compensation. Aggricved by the said award, the present appeal is filed by TSRTC

9. Heard Sri N. Chandra Shekar, learned Stanrling Counsel for TSRTC and Sri N. Amarnath, learned counsel lor rcspondent Nos. 1 to 3.

10. Learned r:ounsel for the RTC has submitted tear the Tribunal has failed to observe that in the PME Report it is mentioned that there is alcohol content in the stomach and that it proves their /,/ l,/ 3 ETD,J MACMA No.736 2021 conten[ion thaL the deceased was walking negligently across the road and met with the accident and that his contributory negligence has to be taken into consideration, but the Tribunal has lailed to consider the same. He further argued that the Tribunal has granted excess compensation of Rs.21,0O,00O/- against the claim ol Rs. i6,00,00O I mad,e by the claimant. He iurther argued that the income of the deceased is assessed to be high and the Tribunal has granted huge amounts under various heads and therefore prayed to reduce the quantum of compensation.

11. Lcarned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that it is only mentioned in the PME Report that there is alcohol smell in the contents of the stomach, but the quantit5r of alcohol is not mentioned and it is also not mentioned that alcohol is present in the stomach. Therefore, the contention of the appellants is not true and that the deceased was going by u.alk on the left side of the road and thus, no contributory neghgence can be attributed to hirn. Hc further submitted that in proof of income of the deceased, they have hled Salary Certificate under Ex.A6 based on ',\,hich the Tribunal has assessed the income to be Rs.15,000/- per month which is just and reasonable. He further submitted that they also examined PW3 who is the partner of deceased in the business to prove the earnings of the deceased and they have also filed trx.A7 to prove the earnings of the cleceased. He --- \.--.1 ETD,J MACMA No.736 2021 further argued that in fact they are entitled to mcre compensation and he therefore, prayed to award just compensa[ion to the claimants.

12. in view of the above rival contentions, the points that arise for determination in this Appeal are as follows:- 1 2

3. Whether there was anlj cotLtributory rLegLigence on part of lhe deceased tn the occurrence of the acadent, n:strlting in hts death ? Whether the compensotion gronted bg the Tnbunal is just artd reasonabLe? Whether the Order qnd Decree of the Tribu rut need ang interkrence ?

4. To what relief ?

13. Point No.l: a) The contention of the appellant counsel is t-rat the deceased was crossing the road in a clrunken condition anrl that he walked across the road in a zigzag manner and met with the accident. The counsel re:lied upon the PME report under Dx.A4 to prove their contention . A perusal of Ex.A4 rcveals thal, thc str;mach contained semi dige:sted food particles wrth alcoholic sme1l, mucosa congested. b) Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand has submitted that it is just mentioned that the food is with alcoholic smell, but it did not mention that alcohol is present 1n the stomach and that the content of the alcohol is not mentioned and that it cannot provc the conlention of the appellant col nsel. The PME /./ .,/ 5 ETD,] MACMA No.736 2021 report reveals that the contents in the stomach of the deceased were semi digested food with alcoholic srnell. The report fi.rrther reveals that the peritoneal cavity in the abdomen has blood and blood clots and there are a list of anti-mortem injuries and the cause of the death is shown as "died due to blunt injuries in the abdomen". Thus, it cannot conclusively be held that the deceased was in a drunken condition and contributed to the accident. c) PW2 / Gandu Surender who is examined as eye witness is listed in the charge sheet as LW4. His evidence reveals that he was sitting in front of his house situated at Sri Lakshmi Stone Crusher, main road, Kothagattu Village arld at that time the deceased/ Santosh Singh was proceeding on the main road in front of the crusher. In the mean time, the RTC Bus driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, coming from Hyderabad towards Bhupalpally at a high speed, dashed the deceased, as a result of which the deceased fell down, sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot and that he has informed to the employees of the said crusher. d) In his cross examination, it is elicited that his house is located at a distance of 50 feet from the scene of accident. Nothing material could be elicited in his cross examination and the witness stood firm in his cross examination. Therefore, considering the evidence of PW2 coupled with the contents mentioned in '\l ETD,] MACMA No.736 2021 6 Ex.A5/Charge sheet and also trx.A4, it is held that there was no contributory negligence on part of the deceased irL the occurrence - of the accirlent. Point No.1 is answered accordingly

14. Point No.2:- a) The contention of the appellant counsel is trat. the Tribunal has awarded huge compensation by assessing thr: income of the deceased t,t be too high. b) It is asserted by PW 1 , the wife of the de::eased that the deceased was working as Crusher Operator in Sri l,akshmi Stone Crusher and he used to earn Rs.15,000/- per mon _h. In support of their assertion, they have filed Ex.A6 and A7. trx. \6 is the Salary Certilrcate issued by the Sri Lakshmi Stonc Crushcr <:n 12.06.2019 by K. Prabhakar Reddy. It reveals that the deceas,:d used to work as Crusher Operator and that he was pdid Rs.15,C00/- per month towards Salary. c) A .Prabhakar is examined as PW3. His eviden<:e reveals that he is the Managing Partner of Sri Lakshmi Stone Crusher and that the deceased used to work as Operator in their Crusher and was paid Rs. 15,,OOO I - per month and that he has is sued trx.A6. To prove that he is a partner of the said Sri Lakshmi Stone Crusher, / ,/ l he has filed Ex.A7, which discloses that pW3 is the partner of Sri ETD,' MACMA No.736 2021 Lakshmi Stone Crusher Therefore, the petitioners could prove that the deceased used to work as Crusher Operator in Sri Lakshmi Stone Crusher and was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. Therefore, the Tribunal was right in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs. 15,O0O/- per month. d) Considering the guidelines laid down by the Nationo.l Insurance Compang Linited Vs. pranag Sethi & Othersl, the Tribunal has rightly computed the compensation by adding 21ok towards future prospects, since he is self-employed person and has also deducted 1/3ra as the claimants are three in number. Further, the age of the deceased as elicited from the pME report is .,43,, years, therefore, the multiplier applicable is ,, 14,, and the same is taken by the Tribunal. e) The Tribunal has also considered the aspects of loss of consortium, loss of estate, luneral expenses and has arrived at a total compensation of Rs.21,7O,O0O/-. Therefore, it is found that the compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. Point No.2 is answered accordingly ,| AIR 2017 SCC 5157 r rrr r MACMA No 736_2021 " '1 8

15. Point No.3:- - In view of lhe hnding arrived at Point No.1 ar-rd 2, there is no need to inlerfere with the Order and Decree passetl by the Tribunal and the same is upheld. Poin t No.3 is answered accordingly.

16. POINT NO.4: In the result, the appeal rs dismissed uph,rlrling the Order and Decree dated 07 .06.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.794 o' 20 18 passed by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- )rincipal District Judge, Warangal. No costs" Misc:ellaneous petitions, pending if any, in thrs appeal, shail stand closed. SD/- MOHD.ISMAIL t)EPUTY REGISTRAR \ \ \ I \ SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, loPUCl

1. The Chairman, Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Warangal. 2. One CC to SRl. CHANDRA SEKHAR N (SC FOR TSR lC ZONE 2) Advocate 3. One CC to SRl. N AMARNATH Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies GE/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:2710612025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.736 ot 2021 :H : tl TA itl (,^l ,I -15 Si:P 2ffi ( J t { ',r f * OISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS. 1 b b