The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellants: Sri R. Anurag (SC for TSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent: Chandrasekhar Reddy Gopireddy The Court delivered the following JUDGMENT: THE H()NOURABLE SMT. J(,STICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI M.A.C.M.A. No.2 116 0F 2018 JUDGMENT': 1. Aggrir vert by the order passed by the iearned Motol Accident Clarms Tribunrrl-cum- The Court of Chief Judge' ()ity Cii'il Court' Hyderabatl (for short, "the Tribunal") in M'V O P NT>'2O6I of 2015' dated 31.0 ..2() 18, the respondents/TSRTC in tht: said M'V'O P' preferred tte present Appeal seeking to allow the Appeal ry setting aside the crder cf the learned Tribunal'

2. For he sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred as [hey '"\rere arrayed before the learned Tri rltnal

3. The brir:f facts of the case are tl'at tile claim petitioner/ I nj u red filed a petition under Section 156 of lhe Motor Vehicles,\tt,Lg8sclaimingcompensationofRs8'L)0'OtOTalong q.ith intere 3t 1t,r the injuries sustained to him in a nlo or vehicle accident lnat occurred on 1O'04'2015' It is statcil by the petitioner/ njtrled that on 1O.04 2015, when the p'-'titio n':r / inj ured was proce rdirlg on motorcycie bearing No AP 2()-'A'G ('877 frorn Chowderlte ll1' \rillage towards Kotra Village and when rearched near Polkampzrl y \ itlage of Vangoor Mandal, at that tinre' on':: RTC Bus bearing No.AP-28-Z 9527 came at a high speed in a rash and negligen t r ran rler and dashed the motor cycle of the petl tioner' As a result, t1.e gx:titioner fe11 down on the road and I eceivc d bleeding I I 2 MGP.] MACMA No.2116 ol2018 to Century was shifted to rnJunes and fractures and immediately he Government Hospital, Kalwakurthy and later shifted Hospitai, Baljara Hilrs, Hyderabad for better treatment. 4. Based on a complaint, police of Vangoor police Station registered a case in Crime No.S3 of 2O15 under Section 337 IpC. It is stated by the petitioner/ injured that he is an agricultural labour and used to earn Rs. 15,00 O/ _ per month. Due to the said accident and on account of the injuries sustained to him, he is unable to attend his agricultural work and therefore filed ilaim petition seeking compensation of Rs.8,00,OOO/_ against the respondents/TSRTC .J Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed a common counter denying the averments made in the claim petition including, manner accident, involvement of crime vehicle, rash and negligent of the driver of RTC, age, occupation and income of the petitioner. They also contended that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of motorcycle and that the claim of compensation is excess and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the claim against it.

6. Based on the pleadings made by both the parties, the learned Tribunal had framed the following rssues for conducting trial:- t I 3 MGP,I MACM,\.No.2116 ol2O18 (t) (tl Wluiher the pleaded accident had occwed. tesultinq in1,tri"" ,o the petitioner, P.Krishnaiah. due to he rasit ctnd negligent driving of RTC Bus beaing No' \I'-26 Z- 9527 bg its diuer? WluttLLer the petitioner is entitled to ang conrp arlsatloit una i"[ so at what quantum and u)hot is the l tbilitg cf tlu respondents? (iii) To ruhat retief Be Ib e the Tribunal, the petitioner/ injul ed apart from 7 . examining hirr,self as PW 1 , got examined PWs 2 to + and got to A9 on his behalf. On rehalf of marked I )xs lL l responden /TSRTC no oral or documentary evidercr: u'as adduced in support of ttreir contention.

8. Havi -tg lonsidered the oral and docum rntary evidence available ( n I'(icord, the learned Tribunal had ptLrtll'- a' lowed the claim pe:it ion by awarding compensation of Rs.6 ,72,loo I along with interest (,7.5o/o payable by both the responde nts 1 & 2 jointly and severzll-v. Aggrieved by the same, the respondr:nts 'TSRTC in the said .\4 V.().P. preferred the present Appeal seeking t'r allow the Appeal b'7 ;ettrng aside the order of the learned Tri runal g. Hear d Sri R.Anurag, learned Standinli Co :nsel for appellant.s /'I'.ll.R.T.C and Sri Chandrasekhar Re<tdy Gopi Reddy, learned c:o l'rst:l for the respondents. Perused the recorC including thc groul'1( s ol Appeal. 4 MGP.I MACMA No.2116 of 2018

10. The contentions of the learned Shnding Counsel for appellants/TsRTC are that the learned Tribunal erred in holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of RTC Bus bearing No.Ap_2g_Z_9522; erred in not making the owner and insurer of Motorcycle bearing No.p_29-AG_ 0877; erred in fixing the income of the petitioner @ Rs.4,OOO/_ instead of Rs.3,O0O/- and also contended that the Tribunal awarded excess amounts under the heads of parn and suffering, transportation and extra nourishment and therefore, prayed to allow the Appeal by setting aside the order of the learned Tribunal.

11. On the other hand, learned counsei for respondents contended that the amount awarded towards injuries is verv meager and hence requested to enhance the same.

12. Now the point that emerges for determination is , Wltether the order passed bg the learned Tibunal requires interference of this Court? POINTS:-

13. As seen from the record, the petitioner/injured, in order to establish his case, examined himself as pw 1 and reiterated the contents made in the claim petition and deposed about the manner of accident, fracture injuries sustained to him and treatment undergone by him. In order to prove the injuries sustained to him, I t 5 MGP,J MACt'1A No.2116 ol 2018 he got e>:arrirrr:d PWs.2 & 4, who are the Orthopcdic Surgeons in Century H rspit.al and Susmita Orthopedic Clinic.

14. PW1 -C,r nsuitant Orthopedic Surgeon in C:enturr Hospital deposed ir his evidence that the petitioner was E dmitt()d in their Hospital orr 1 | 04.2o15 with the following injuries: (1)crush injury to right let,, (11, fracture tibia, (3) fracture fibu1a of righl leg. It is also statc( b.., him that the petitioner underwent surgery in the form of Ct bnc ment and internal fixation of bone an<.| that the petitioner's righ t foot was viable and there was nc skin on the leg between k-ice and ankle, as such the petitioner was taken for reconstruc -iorL procedure in the form of flap revision tf rvound, debridemerrt plus cross leg flap + Slit Skin grafting and the petitioner-rras lischarged on 12.05.2015. He further deposed that the injurie r srrr;tained by the petitioner are grievolts in rature and thus, he i:s sesserl his disabitity @ 5Oo/o as per MC llride's scale.

15. PW4 u,no is also an Orthopedic Surgeon rnd u'ho issued disability r crtillcate deposed in his evidence tha t the petitioner came to th:ir hospital onlO.O2.2Ol7 with crush injury ot'right leg, fracture of rigJ'rt tibia and hbula and after examini;rg hin.L clinically and radic,k gicall1,, he found that the petitioner sus tained disability wrth rega rr I to malunion of right leg, and found hmping due to r,r,hich he c inrLot sit and squat and cannot walk for long distances I 6 MGP,] MACMA.No 2116 ol2O1g and cannot do his work and as such, he assessed his physical disabiiit5r @, 600/o and loss of earning capacity @ IOOVo as per the guideiines of Kessler and issued Ex.A5_Disability Certificate.

16. As far as documentary evidence is concerned, Ex.Al_ FIR shows that police of Vangoor police Station, Mahaboobnagar District, registered a case in Crime No.53 of 2015 under Section 337 of IPC, conducted investigation and filed charge sheet under Ex.A2 against the driver of RTC Bus bearing No.Ap_2g_Z_9527 - Ex.A3 is the copy of MLC which shows that the petitioner underwent laceration to his right 1eg , right foot and abrasiois on his right elbow. Ex.A4 is the Discharge Summary issued by Century Super Specialty Hospital. Ex.AS is the Disability Certil-rcate issued by Orthopedic Surgeon. E)<.A5 is the Hospital Final bill. Ex.A7 is the pharmacy bill. Ex.Ag are the bunch of lab reports. Ex.A9 is the X_ray film. ).7 . Therefore, from the evidence of pW 1 coupled with the documentary evidence marked under Exs.A1 & A2, it is made clear that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of RTC Bus bearing No.Ap_2gZ_95 27 . As the rider of the motorcycle is not held liable for the alleged accident, therefore, the owner and insurer of the said motorcycle are not made as necessary parties to the claim petition. Hence, the contention of \ t 7 MGP,] MACL4a.^).2116 al 2O1a the learned Stancling Counsel for appellants/TS ?TC that the Tribunal err ecl in not considering the owner atrd ins;urer of motorcycle a i i.'lccessary parties, is unsustainabie.

18. As far as (luanlum of compensation is conct:rnecl, learned Standing Corrnscl for the appellants/TSRTC during the course of his submis's ons contended that the learned Trib rnal ,.)rred in awarding an ar-rount of Rs.24,000/- under the ht:ad ol loss of earnings anc also erred in hxing the income of th,: petitioner @ Rs.4,OOO/- z nd :llso errcd in awarding excess amounts urrder the heads of pair anc[ suffering, transportation and extra nouri:;hment.

19. It is r,rlevenL to mention that though the petitioner filed trx.A5-Disabi it). Certificate showing that he sr stained 60% physical disr biljtv and lOO%o loss of earning captLcitS,', out the learned TriSr Lnal clid not consider the same as the doct-or who issued the sa d cisability certificate had never treated the pt:titioner and is not a m<:rnber of medical board. Moreover, there is also variation in -he assessment of disability assessed by P!y'2 who treated the rer tioner. Hence, lhe learned Tribrrnal lras not consrdered llre s,aid Disabitity Certihcate, howeve - grar.ted an amount of R ;.1,C0.000/- towards the injuries sus,ained by the petitioner. F lrther, considering the treatment undtrnv6nl Sy 11-r. petitioner anc the documents marked under Exs.A6 to A9 showing I 8 MCP,) MACMA No-2116 of 2O1g the amount incurred by the petitioner, the learned Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.4,9g, 167/_ towards Hospital charges and pharmacy bills which this Court hnds the same to be true and correct upon verification. Apart from this, the learned Tribunal had awarded an amount of Rs.2O,00O/- towards pain and suffering, Rs-2O,OOO/- towards loss of amenities and Rs. 10,000/_ for transportation and extra nourishment.

20. It is also pertinent to mention that due to the injuries and fractures sustained by the petitioner/ injured, he was unable to perform his agricultural operations for a period of 6 months. Hence, the learned Tribunal, by considering his income @ Rs.4,OOO/- per month awarded an amount of Rs.24,OOO/_ under the head of loss of earnings for a period of 6 months. This Court finds the above compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable and do not find any reason to interfere with the same.

21. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court do not find any reason to interfere with the Award passed by the learned Tribunal which is in proper perspective. Hence, the Appeal is devoid of merits and substance and is liable to be dismissed.

22. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ) ) 9 MGP,I MA:MA-No 21t6 ol 2018

23. Miscellar: eortr; applications, if any, pending shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// %$,"iilit?l},EFRlx l/sq flou orrtceR The Motor Accic enl llarms Tribunal-Cum-The Court of the lhief Judge' City cilir 6Jrii ri"iif :L"o'o lwith records' if anv) One CC to Sri B Anurag t>C for TSRTC) IOPUCI ^ ^ one CC to S ri C hanrlras"-'i'in"alv'itiiiieoay' ndvocate [')P U C] Two CD CoPies To, 2 J 4 VH/gh w 1 I \ l-.t 4..,. i3 -ra / ,z- - - /,, ,-.t. r-4 14: P 0,. APB il6 ,' ;! (-1 \ \.\ , -a' HIGH COURT DATED: 2710112025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No,2116 of 2018 DISMISSING MACMA WITHOUT COSTS b \ b e6 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI MOTOR ACCID ENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 21'16OF 2018 Between:

1. The Manging Director, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, RTC ,X' Roads, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Depot Kalwakurthy Depot, Kalwakurthr, Mahaboobnagar District. ^Manager, Telanga-n-a State Road Transport Corporation, AND ...APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS P. Krishniah S/o P. lvlogulaiah, aged 30 years, Occ. Agriculture L'abour, R/o. H.No. 1-28, Kotra Village, Vetdanda Mancjal, Mahaboobiragar District Appear r,ed under section i73 or MV ,il:.t",:]X=J:"rT'i""::: dated 31.01.2018, made in MVoP.No. 2061 of 2015 on the file of the court of the Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum-The court of the chief Judge, city civil court at Hyderabad. ^", This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the court below and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of sri R. Anurag (sc for TSRrc) for the appellants and Sri Chandrasekhar Reddy Gopireddy, Advocate for the Respondent.-. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil lvliscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is dismissed, and

2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. Sd/- A, SRINIVASA REDDY T REGISTRAR ASSIST //TRUE COPY// To, CTION OFFICER 1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-The Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad.

2. Two CD Copiesv HIGH COURT DATED: 271A112025 DECREE MACMA.N o.2'116 of 2018 DISMISSINCi MACMA WITHOUT COSTS 26 ?