The High Court · 2025

petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fited in suppori'"iir,L"pliti5.lih,i.i'sh court mav be pleased to stay all further proceedings i""f'Oi"g lx"cution of the.Order and decree passed in MVoP No.709 t2o14 ont#';il';i il;c;;itt;n' Motor Accidents claims Tribunal- Judge Famity-Cum- Addition;i;i.i;'"tlr;se, ai Karimnagar pending the disposal of the aPPeal. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI' N' CHANDRA SEKHAR' SC FOR TSRTC Counsel for the Respondents: SRI' A V K S PRASAD The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT - ;;Fq'.YF.qtr' .1..!...9r:..'..'. ....,, - THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA M.A.C.M.A.NO.L23 0F 2020 JUDGMENT: This appeal has been preferred by the appellant- TGSRTC aggrieved by the Award arrd decree, dated

24.O7.2019, in M.V.O.P.No.709 of 2Ol4 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge, Karimnagar (for short, 'the Tribunal'), wherein compensation of Rs.3,35,9OO/- was grarrted to the claimalts-petitioners with intere st @ Z.So/c, per annum.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to, as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 3, Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners filed claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short, the Act, 1988') for grant of compensation of Rs.5,0O,OOO/- from the respondent on account of death of Pallepu Mogili (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased) who died in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 19.08.2OO7 at about 5:30 PM at the outskirts of Aloor Village. On 2 NNR.J l{acma 12] 2020 lg.Oa.2OO7 at about 9.OO AM., the deceased along with one Asala Gangaram and Alakunta Papaiah went for doing cable laying work on daily wage basis being carried between Veerapur and Sararrgapur Villages. After. completion of work while returning to Saralgapur Viilage on Bajaj Scooter bearing No.AP-0-5306, belonging to his contractor Donnuri Chinna Venkati, being driven by Alakunta Papaiah, dashed to the offending RTC bus bearing No'AP-10-2-3247' which was coming in the opposite direction, as a result of which, the deceased and the rider of the scooter succumbed to injuries and d,ied on the spot and another pillion rider Asala Gangaraj am sustained serious injuries' Police Raikd registered a case in Crime No. 1O I of 2OO7 under Sections 3O4-A and 338 of IPC. Prior to the accident, the deceased was hale and healthy and doing physical labour work and used. to earn arl amount of Rs.4O,OOO /- pet annum and contribute the same for maintenalce of his family' Due to the accident, petitioner No.l lost her love and affection of the deceased at her age of 2O years and petitioner No.2, who is the minor son of the deceased lost love ald alfection, care and guidance of his father and petitioner Nos.3 ald 4 are pa-rents 3 NNR,J Macma l2l 2020 of the deceased lost their parental love and support of their son. Therefore, the petitioners are claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- under all heads and the respondent is liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.

4. Heard Sri N.Chandrasekhar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellalt_Corporation and Sri A.V.K.S.prasad, Iearned counsel appearing for the claimalts-respondents.

5. Though the appellalt_Corporation has raised several grounds in this appeal, admittedly, there is no cross appeal preferred by the claimalts_respondents. As seen from the record, the claim petition was preferred by the claimants under Section 163_A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 19gg (for short, the Act, 19gg), claiming compensation of Rs'5,00,00o/- from the respondent on account of death of the deceased, who died in a motor vehicle accident, which was occurred on 19.08.2007 at about 05:30 pM at the outskirts of Aloor village. Though said accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the ApSRTC Bus bearing No.AP-10-2-3247 owned by the respondent, the claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of the Act, 19gg. In view of the i 4 NNR,J Macma,t23 2020 same, this Court is of the opinion that there is no need to go into the aspect of negligence' The involvement of the bus bearing No.AP-10-Z-3 247 and subject accident is afso no in dispute. In view of involvement bus bearing No'AP-|O-Z-3247 with the said accident' which suffice for awarding the compensation under Section 163-A of the Act' 1988'

6. The only ground raised by learned Standing Counsel for appellant-Corporation before this Court is that the Tribunal applied multiplier '17'without there being any documentar5r evidence in respect of age of the deceased' As per 2nd Schedule to Section 163-A of the Act' 1988 and considering the age of the deceas ed' as 22 years and basing on .17,as per Exs.A.2 to A.4, the Tribunal has applied multiplier Column4oftheTableprescribedbytheHon,loleSupreme Court in Sarla Verma and others v' Delhi Transport Corporationr and assessed the compensation' which the claimants are entitled to' Therefore' this Court does not see any ground to interfere with the said hnding' 7 . Coming to the aspect of deduction for personal expenses of the deceased, learned counsel for the appellartt- ' (2009) 6 scc 121 / '...1;{ei: l i 5 NNR,J Macma l2i 2020 Corporation contended that the Tribunal has wrongly deducted 1/5tt' towards personal and living expenses of the deceased from the total income of the deceased. But, as per Sarla Verma's case (supraf since the petitioners are four (4) in number, the Tribuna-l ought to have deducted | /4th towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. The said ground taken by the appellant-Corporation appears to be reasonable and acceptable. Admittedly on the face of record, there a-re four petitioners, who are claiming compensation, as such the Tribunal ought to have taken at ll4tt towards personal and living expenses while calculating the compensation which the petitioners are entitled to.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation argued that the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.3,26,400/- towards loss of dependency, besides Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.25OO/- towards loss of estate, which are on higher side. But, considering the submission of learned counsel for the claimants, on perusal of the entire material on record and considering the ora-i ald documentar5r evidence on record and also considering the : i l I : 6 NNR.] Macma 123 2020 ground realities, the Tribunal has rightly awarded the said amount and there are no grounds to interfere with the same'

9. Coming to the aspect of income of the deceased' the Tribunal, having considered the case of the claimants under Section 163-A of the Act, 1988 and considering the facts ald circumstances of the case, has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.24,000 l- pe' annum ' which needs no interference by this Court. Under these circumstances' this Court ventured to re-assess the income of the deceased and calculate the compensation which the petitioners are entitled to.ThereforethisCourtisoftheviewthatinterestofjustice would be met if 1/4m is deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. After such deduction' the contribution to the family (dependants) is determined as Rs.18OO0/- per annum. The multiplier will be '17' having regard to the age of the deceased at the time of death (22 years). Therefore the total loss of dependency would be Rs. 180O0 x 17 : Rs.3,O6,000/-

10. The Tribunal awarded an amount to Rs'SOOO/- under the head of 'loss of consortium', Rs'2OOO/- towards funeral expenses' and Rs.2,5OO/- towards loss of estate', . 7 NNR,J Macma I2l 2020 which needs no interference by this Court. Thus, in all the claimants are entitled to the total compensation of Rs.3,15,500/ The amount awarded by the Tribunal under other heads needs no interference by thig Court as the ciaimalts have not preferred arry cross appeal aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, in all the petitioners are entitled for tota_l compensation of Rs.3, 15,50O/-.

11. At this stage, learned Standing Counsel for appellant Corporation contended that the Tribunal directed the Corporation to pay compensation to the claimants within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of said order, in default the said amount carries interest @l2o/o per annurn. The said iinding of the Tribunal is on higher side.

12. As seen from the finding of the Tribunal, the Tribunal has directed the respondent to deposit the compensation within a period of 6O days from the date of the said order, in default, the compensation amount carries interest @12%o per arrnum after expiry of 60 days. Hence, this Court does not Iind any grounds to interference with the interest portion granted by the Tribunal. \ 8 NNR,J Macma 123-2020

13. In the result of the aPPeal 1S partly allowed reducing the compensation from Rs'3'35'9OO/- to In respect of interest potion, this Court is not Rs.3, r5,50o/-. inclined to interfere with the same and the appellant- Corporation is d-irected' to deposit the said amount along with interest @ 7 .SVo per annum within a period of two (2) months from date of receipt of copy this order if not already deposited, failing which the appellant will be liable to pay interest @12% per annum as awarded by the Tribuna'l' On such deposit' the claimants are entitled to withdraw the same as per the apportionment made by the Tribunal' L4, With the above directions' the appeal is party i allowed. There shali be no order as to costs' Miscellaneouspetitions,ifany,pendingshallstand closed. /TTRUE COPY// Sd/- N. SRIHARI pEpu#HEe-rbinm ,/ Alr, SECNdil OFFICER To, 1 The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - Judge' Family ' c",i-",.-not't!e"11 Plillfit Ei"lfl,tffflrs Rrc rop u c] 2. OneCCto SRI'N CHAI ;. 5n! 66 il sni. A v K s pnesno Advocate [oPUCl 4. Two CD CoPies PM/Psl I i t I : , i I t I I HIGH COURT DATED,24ft3EO2S JUDGMENT S1ATE MACMA.N o.123 of 2020 o t t PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA /z 7 /,(, / ,a l I I t ; t i ! 1 i , , , I I ! ; i , I i i : t i rN rHE HrGH ""r*l{i$"tJlt^t"t^TE oF TELANGANA nloNDAY ,rHE rwENrY FoURTH Dly.9.|.I'IARCH '''"''"'T,N6tHouSAND AND TWENTY FlvE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDTKONDA MOTOR ACCI DENT CIVIL MISC ELLAN EO US APP EAL NO:123 F 2020 o Between: A.P.S.R.T.C (Now TSRTC)' Rep by its Managing Director' owner of offending R.r.c, Bvs bearins no A?:l'o-i;;;;"6-"" en'u'n' R r'c X Roads' Hyderabad, Telangana State' ...A''ELLANT/RESPONDENT AND represented tnr.ougn'i]t

1. Pallepu Chinna Gangawa.' Gangu and 3 others' W/o Late Pallepu Mogili' , ffi##,?if; tiJT"[iEurr"p]lr"roEri Age 13 vrs (rrfinor)student tItn"t'no n& f riend' i' e'' Petitioner a H3;,10, Lachaiah, s/o Buchi Narsu' Ase; 6?Jo' occ Labour 4. Pallapu c,ngu'*I'"wt];;16' Lcnliatr',ase 60 vrs' occ coolie' All are Fl/o. s"'ng?#i'illiJl"Jrtitu"o'l oi Karimnagar' But presentlv H ftro' L-6-r +' Ka"puwada' Karimnagar city proper' -n?i-r*i Residing "t ...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS Appeal Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Judsment and Decree,. dt'z?loiizji ti'putt"o in MVOP No 709 12014 on the file of ir"i"it i-''u'"al- Judge Family-cum- Additional the chairman, rvroto, ^""'ili'tt District Judge, at Karimnagar' This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of u pp"ur,'i;"" :;[il";-,.^Tq f :# ;l_m*::l"rll-1"31::#*:1f, ":'33iI f3*?t"r;"1.1'",lrJ'5,?jlllt,'H i;i"ili:n'x*s i'u'"0' Advocate ror the Respond ents. This Court doth Judgment and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Aooeal be and hereby is partly allowed reducins tn""Il'i1p'"ili"iionitotn-nt a's's'soo/- to Rs' 3'15'5001' -7 2 J 4 " I?ll:?"|.trffi:i:rJ:H::iq.tion, this court be and hereby is not incrined to ;;, ; i, ;;; ;;,iLil:-"ii6 r: H.;ji:fffi ;_m"*: j:. rml th e s a d (2) months from date- of receipt Ep/ir,iJlr# .# not atready deposited. :fl# #T"iI:"r,1B3ix? " wir I'oe rialiJio ;; r"ffi:iJ:, @1 2o/o per a n n um as That on such deposit' the craimants be and are entired to withdraw and same as per the apportionment made by thlHiorrri ""'"'"' ir'l'i"*"i 61rn sh a rr sta nds co nrirmed i n a, J,XXI'H:ffi :3'f; That there be no order as to costs in this appeal. tn" 0"""" "i "1 //TRUE COPYII sd/- N. SRIHAR| DEPUry REGISTRAi F,.::r: SECIION OFFICER IlifiS[T,i.i;Hgni"1:?rs craims rribunar- cum - Judge, Two cD copies. ll District Judge' Karimnagar' To, PM/psl 1 2 / i I HIGH COURT DATED:24|O3t2O2S DECREE MACMA.N o.123 of 2020 4 ,/ z- /7 1Ad/ PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA