The High Court · 2025

Judgment

This appeal is fiIed by the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation (now Telangana State Road Transport Corporation) challenging the Order dated 01 . 10.20 I 5 passed by the I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy, at L.B. Nagar. By the Order impugned, the learned District Judge partly- allowed the petition filed by the claimant/injured by awarding a compensation of Rs .9 ,49 ,061 with proportionate costs and intere st at'|oh per annum, and directed the Road Transport Corporation to pay the said compensation within two months. For the sake of clarity of reference, the parties will be referred as claimant, and Corporation, respectively.

2. Heard Mr. Srushman Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TGSRIC; and Mr. V. Satyam Reddy, learned counsel for the claimant. Perused the record.

3. Brief facts of the case are that on 25.03.2007 , at around 7:20 AM, an accident occurred on the outskirts of Puttapaka village, near Shivalayam, due to collision of Car bearingNo.AP-29Q-7978, belonging to the claimant, and an oncoming Bus bearing No.AP-102-2965 belonging to the Corporation. It is alteged that the claimant and his wife were proceeding from Hyderabad to Kompalty in their CaE and at around 7:20 AM, the oncoming Corporation Bus driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed the Car of the claimant, resulting in grievous injuries to the Claimant and his wife, culminating in the alleged expenditure of Rs. I 5,00,000 towards medical treatment. 2 macma_1880_2015 NBK, J (--i

3.1 While the claimant was undergoing treatment, a complaint was filed by the Driver of the Corporation Bus involved in the accident alleging that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the Claimant. Pursuant to the complaint, a case was registered in Crime No.9 of 2007 ofNarayanpur Police Station, for the offence punishable under Section 338 IPC. After investigation, the Police filed charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile Court) (for short, Nalgonda (for short, 'the trial Court'), and the same was taken on file as C.C.No.509 of 2007, and the Court, after due enquiry by examining the witnesses including the claimant, acquitted the claimant of the alleged charges.

3.2 After discharge from the hospital, the claimant filed a filed a Private Complaint before the trial Court, under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against the driver of the Corporation Bus alleging that the accident occurred due to rash and negligence on the part of driver of the Bus. The complaint was forwarded to the SHO, Narayanpur Police, and a case in Crime No.40 of 2008 for the offence under Section 338 IPC was registered against the driver of the Corporation Bus. The Police, after investigation, filed charge sheet stating the complaint filed by the Claimant is false.

3.3 The Claimant filed a claim petition, M.VO.P. No. I 1 18 of 2010. The learned Judge, considering the evidence of PWs.l to 6 and Exs.Al to Al3 adduced on behalf of the Claimant; and the evidence of RWI and Exs.Bl to 84 adduced on behalf of the Corporation, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the Driver of the Corporation Bus, and awarded the compensation of Rs.9,4g,061 with proportionate costs and interest at |yo per annum, and directed the Corporation to pay the compensation within two months. Aggrieved by the \same, the Corporation filed this appeal. \ a 3 macma_1880_2016 NBK, J Learned Standing Counsel would contend that the Tribunal wrongly

4. held the Bus driver negligent despite lack of credible evidence, and that the accident was actually caused by the rash and negligent driving by the Claimant; that the claim petition filed under both Sections 140 and 163-4 of the Motor Vehicles Act is not maintainable as per Section 163-8, which requires election of one remedy only; that since the injured car driver was solely negligent, the Corporation has no liability; that the insurer of the car is the appropriate party liable to pay compensation; that the claimant failed to implead the insurer of the car, a necessary party, rendering the petition defective and liable to be dismissed; that the claimant was driving the car at the time of the accident, so the claim cannot be treated as a third-party clairn against the Corporation; that the evidence relied upon by the Tribunal came from interested witnesses (claimant and his wife) and lacked independent eyewitnesses and therefore unreliable; that the charge sheet and final report filed by the Police indicate rash driving by the Ctaimant, and the private complaint by the claimant was dismissed as a false case; that the Medical bills lack proper authorization and supporting documents, and the income of claimant was assumed without proof, leading to an inflated compensation award; that the quantum of compensation, including amounts for injuries and pain and suffering, and interest, is excessive; that the Tribunal failed to frame and consider the issue of contributory or sole negligence by the Claimant despite it being specifically pleaded.

5. Learned counsel for the Claimant opposed the appeal and contends that the impugned Order was passed after due consideration of evidence before the learned District Judge, and the same does not suffer from any infirmity and therefore the appeal is liable to be dismissed. I , a, 4 macma_1880_2016 NBK, J ()

6. Having considered the respeclive contentions and perused the record, the essentialcontention ofthe Corporation in this appeat is that there was no evidentiary basis for fixing the liability of rash and negligence on the bus driver of Corporation Bus, and further there was no eye witnesses to the incident and the evidence of Claimant and his wife cannot be relied as they are interested witnesses, and the claim petition can be filed either under Section 140 or 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act but not both; and the medical bills are inflated without proper supporting documents.

7. At the outset, it is to be noted that the learned District Judge, at paragraph 1l of the impugned Orde1, while answering the lssue regarding the rash and negligent driving, observed as follows: "11. ..... Apart from the petitioner his wife is also examined and both of them have deposed that the driver of the crime vehicle i.e. RTC Bus was rash and negligent. Though the Respondent examined the driver of the crime vehicle, none of the passengels were examined. The ciiminal aspect in this case whetherthe carof the petitionerwas coming from a wrong side as alleged in the complaint and charge sheet. The Trial Court has not given ' any finding in C.C.No.509r2007 as to whether the car was coming in opposite direction from wrong side. lt is the evidence of PWs I and 2 in this case that they were proceeding on a right side and whereas the driver of the RTC bus was rash and negligent and on account of that accident has happened. Rough sketch is not filed before the Gourt. lf at all the sketch map is filed in the Court, the position of the crime vehicle at the scene of offence coutd have been properly explained to this court. As seen from Exs.Bl and 82 photographs, it is clear that the car bearing No.AP 29 Q 7978 went extreme right on the road, whereas RTG bus was on the left side of the road. Through these images it cannot concluded as to which vehicle has hit which vehicle. Ex.B4 is the final report to show that the complaint registered on the complaint fited by the Petitioner herein was closed as "Fatse". 'I )

12. Therefore, basing on the evidence of PWs I and 2 and DWI and basing on Exs.Al to A4 on the fact that the Trial Court has found the petitioner not guilty, this Court is of the opinion that so far as limited purpose of enquiry .3 5 macma_1880_2016 NBK, J of this petition is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that the RespondenUDriver of the crime vehicle was rash and negligent in driving the crime vehicle which resulted in receiving of iniuries by the Petitioner." It may be noted that though the Corporation alleged rash and

8. negligence on the part of the Claimant, there is no cogent evidence adduced in support of the allegation; further, no sketch of the scene of offence was filed before the District Court. The learned District Judge observed that the Car was on extreme right and the bus was on the left side of the road and the images do not show which vehicle has hit by which one. However, it is the specific recording of the learned District Judge, after due enquiry that the Claimant and his wife were examined, but the respondent-Corporation has not examined any of the passengers. It cannot be said that no passenger came forward to depose with regard to the accident, and the Corporation cannot undermine the evidence of the Claimant and his wife, who have suffered injuries in the accident, merely stating that they are interested witnesses. , 8.1 In the instant case, the accident occurred at the early hours of the day i.e., at around 7:20 ANI, at the outskirts of a village, and the Claimant and his wife suffered injuries and their car apparently drifted to the extreme right of the road; and curiously there was no other motorist passing through that road to depose about the manner in which the accident took place, let alone any pedestrian or someone who witnessed it happening. In such a situation, the better persons to depose about the manner of occurrence of the accident was the passengers of the bus, or the inmates of the Claimants car. When the Corporation has not secured the deposition of the passengers of the Bus, it cannot merely deny, for the sake of denial, the evidence of the Claimant and his wife. Further, the Police too, upon coming to know of the : i : ! t I i I i I I I i I I i i i I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I ,l L !l I l! t! l! !l I t.: i 6 macma_1880_2016 NBK, J incident, apparently could not secure any person who has witnessed the incident at the time of occuffence.

8.2 When there are glaring lapses on the part of the Corporation in the first place, and even a sketch map of the scene of offence was not filed by the Police, the Corporation cannot take refuge in the argument that the Claimants are interested witnesses, when in fact the claimants have suffered injuries in a collision occurred with the oncoming Corporation Bus. Further, merely the accident occurred between the Car and an oncoming Bus, it does not necessarily imply there is a contributory negligence, as negligence of one vehicle could lead to accident. In the instant case, the learned District Judge has rightly held the Corporation Bus as responsible for the accident, and this Court does not see any infirmity in the finding recorded by the leamed Judge fixing the liability on the Driver of the Corporation bus.

9. With regard to the medical bills and supporting evidence, it is bome out by the record that the Claimant availed treatment in Kamineni Hospital, and Global Hospital, and underwent surgeries to the intestine. The paragraph No.17 of the impugned Order would show that PW5- Dr. Verugheese Mathai Consultant Surgeon of Gtobal Hospital has deposed that the Claimant was admiued on 18.04.2007 and surgery was conducted on

19.04.2007, and the surgery was conducted for Laparotomy, periotineal lavage, caceal resection, end ileostomy, colonic mucks pitula to control leakage of stool inside the abdomen, and the Claimant was discharged on

12.05.2007 and he was re-admitted on 24.07.2007 for further surgery to join the intestine and he was discharged on 07.09.2007, and a part of his intestine was removed, and resultantly the Claimant could suffer increased number of stools and also nutritional deficiency. i 7 macma_1880_2016 NBK, J

9.1 The Claimant filed Ex.A6 to A13 in support of his admission, tests, surgery, discharge and medicines prescribed for the treatment availed at Global Hospital and Kamineni Hospital. These are alldocuments and facts that cannot be ignored. Though the Claimant claimed the medical expenditure as Rs.20 lakhs, the learned District Judge considered the documents (medical bills, etc., ) and awarded an arnount of Rs.8,40,061 based on the medical bilts. In that view of the matter, this Court does not see any impropriety in the awarding of Rs.8,40,061 towards medical expenditure.

10. With regard to income, the Claimant claimed that he used to eam Rs.20,000 per month by doing business, however, there was no evidence in regard to the nature of business. The accident occurred in the year 20O7. The leaned District Judge has assessed the daily income at Rs.200, and monthly income at Rs.6,000; and the same does not seem to be on the higher side, and therefore the assessment made by the learned District Judge, does not need any interference.

11. With regard to the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation that the claimant could not invoke both Sections 140 and 163- A is based on a misinterpretation of Section 163-8 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Section 140 provides interim compensation, whereas Section 163-4 provides final compensation based on a structured formula. These \ provisions are distinct in purpose and nature

11.1 Section 163-8 of the Act prohibits choosing both Section 166 (fault-based) and Section 163-4 (no-fault structured formula); however, it does not prohibit a claimant from seeking interim relief under Section 140, and then pursuing final compensation under Sectiol 163-4. This is .,n, I \ \ i, ,i ! I i. , : I : I : 8 macma_1880_?016 NBK, J r-) consistent with the legislative intent to provide immediate relief (Section 140) followed by full and final adjudication under Section 163-4.. ll.2 While the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified in many precedent judgments (like in Ningamma & Am v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.t) that Section 163-,4. is a Code in itself, it did not hold that interim relief under Section 140 is barred when a claim is made under Section 163-,4.. Therefore, the claim petition is legally maintainable and there is no illegality in considering both provisions while passing the award. However, the compensation granted under Section 140, if already paid, is adjustable against the final amount awarded under Section 163-,4'.

12. Further, the argument that the Claim petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties cannot be countenanced, for, there is no bar for the Claimant to file petition against the Corporation for compensation towards the injuries suffered in the accident, and mere non-joining of the insurer of the Car does not make the claim petition defective. In that view ofthe matter, this Court does not hnd any valid grounds for interference and the appeal is liable to be dismissed

13. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed. 'fzool) t\YLt-+w SD/- M JAWAHAR REDDY REGISTRAR /,TRUE COPY'/ SECTION OFFICER To, $>

1. The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar' 2. One CC to Sri N Srushman Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri V Satyam Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies ABK \ \ HIGH COURT DATED: Oll10l2025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.1880 of 2016 DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS (. ..1 ) [ 3300 I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1880 OF 2016 Between:

1. The Vice Chairman-cum-Managing Director, AP State Road Transport Corporation, Bus Bhavan, lt/usheerabad, Hyderabad.

2. The Depot Manager, AP State Road Transport Corporation, Nalgonda Depot, Nalgonda. (Policy No.100001614779 Covering from 1 1.12.2005 to 10.12.2006) ...Appellants/Respondents AND Athota. Shivaramakrishnaiah, S/o.Tirupathaiah, Occ N il R/o. C- 1 3C, H U DA Colony, Saroornagar, Hyderabad. ... RespondenUPetitioner Appeal Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Judgment and Decree in M.V.O.P.No. 1 1 18 of 2010 dated 01-10-2015 on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar. ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Tribunal and the material papers in the MVOP and upon hearing the arguments of Sri N Srushman Reddy, Advocate for the Appellants and of SriV Satyam Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the MACMA be and hereby is Dismissed. 2. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Tribunal shall stands confirmed in all other respects; and

3. That there shal! be no order as to costs in this appeal. SD/- M JAWAHAR REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /TRUE COPY// OFFICER To, $-

1. The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar. .

2. Two CD Copies ABK f3 HIGH COURT DATED: 07t1Ot2O25 DECREE MACMA.No.1880 of 2016 DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS \ % ': Wrr=