1. The Manager v. 1. Smt Ch.Sandhya Sunder

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI MADHUSUDHAN REDDY BHUREDDY The Court made the following: JUDGMENT THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRT TADARSINI M.A.C.M.A.N o.2g7O OF 2OL2 JUDGMENT: 1. Aggrieved by the Award passed by the Corr t of I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-XV Additionz t Chief Judge, Hyderabad, in O.P.No.501 of 2OtO, dated i5.O6.2OL2, the respondents in the said O.P. preferred the preserrr Appeal seeking to set-aside the order of the Trial Court.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred as they were arrayed before the Trial Court

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petir ioners, who are the parents of the deceased-B. K. Pallavi frled zL petition under Section 163-A read rvith Secl-ion 166 of M. /.Act, claiming compensation of Rs.3O,00,OO0/ - for the death of I reir daughter in a motor vehicle accide nL that occurred on 10.O4.i1 )O7. It is stated by the petitioners that on 1O.O4.20O7 at about 8. 1S p.m., when the deceased was going to her residence at Malkajgir on motorcycle along with her cousin by name Saradhi and wt< n they reached DIET, Neredmet, one RTC bus bearing No.Ap-92-59 II Depot, which was driven by its driver in a rar; manner, came in opposite direclion and dash, 32 of Ranigunj- r and negligent 'd against the motorcycle of the deceased. As a result, the decr:, Lsed along with \ \ 2 MGP) MACMA.tto.2970 ol2012 her cousin fell down and the said RTC bus ran over the deceased and she sustained grievous injuries on her head, stomach and other vital parts of the body and died on the spot.

4. Based on a complaint, Police of Neredmet police Station registered a case in Crime No. 139 of 2OO7 under Sections 3O4A and 337 IPC.

5. It is stated by the petitioners that the deceased was studying B.Tech 2ad year in Aeronautical Engineering Branch in MLR lnstitute of Technolory, Hyderabad. Due to sudden demise of the deceased, the petitioners were put to severe mental agony and hardship which cannot be compensated t-hrough a.ry means. Hence, hled petition claiming compensation of Rs.3O,00,0OO/ - against the respondents.

6. Respondent No.1/Manager of APSRTC, Ranigunj depor remained exparte

7. Respondent No.2/Managing Director of ApSRTC hled his counter denying the averments made in the claim petition including, age, income, occupation of the deceased and contended that the claim of compensation is excess and exorbitant and hence prayed to dismiss the claim agdnst him. 3 MGP,I MACMA.No.2970 ol2012

8. Based on the pleadings made by both 1ee parties, the learned Trial Ccurt had framed the following issue; for conducting trial:- 1 2 J WhetlLer the pleaded accid-ent had. ocann < negligent driuing of the diuer of RTC No.AP-92-5932 of the respondents? Whether the petitioners are entitlet compensation against the respondents for the deceased-Ch. B. K. Pallaui? If so, at u.tht To uhat reliefr 7 due to tLrc 3us beaing ' fo, ang the death of rate?

9. Before the Trial Court, on behalf of the petil ioners, PWs 1 & 2 were examined and Exs.Al to A20 were mark,l [. On behalf of Respondents/RTc no oral or documentary evident:, was adduced.

10. The Trial Court, after considering the evid,: rce available on record, had partly-allowed the claim petitic r by awarding compensation of Rs. I I ,OO,O0O/ - along with inte r annum from the date of petition till the datc of rt:r =sL @ 7 .5o/o per .lization payable by Respondent Nos.l & 2 jointly and severally. , ,ggrieved by the said Frnding, the present Appeal came to l : Iiled by the respondents/RTC in the said O.P. I 1. Heard arguments submitted by Sri S.l lanish, learned counsel representing on behalf o[ Sri R.Anurag, I :arned Standing Counsel for TSRTC and Sri Madhusudhan [l ddy Bhureddy, \ \ 4 \- MGP,I MACMA.No.297O d 2012 Iearned counsel for the respondents/claimants. Perused the record.

12. The contentions of the learned Stalding Counsel for the appellant/ RTC as stated in the grounds of Appeal are that the learned Trial Court failed to consider contributory negligence on part of the rider of the motorcycle and erred in frxing ttle income of the deceased @ Rs. 12,000i - per month though she was pursuing II year B.Tech course at the time of accident. In fact, she is dependent on the petitioners and hence requested to set-aside the order of the learned Tribunal.

13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants contended that the learned Trial Court after considering all the aspects, had awarded reasonable compensation and interference of this Court is unwarranted.

14. Now the point that emerges for determination is, Wlether the order passed bg the learned Tribunol requires interference of this Court? POINT:- 15. [t is pertinent to state that though the claim petition has been hled under Sections 163A and 166 of M.V.Act, since the learned Tribunal framed issues under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, this Court is inclined to consider the case under 5 MGP) MACMA.No.2970 o12012 Section 166 of M.V.Act but not under Section 1611, i of M.V.Act for calculating compensation.

16. It is pertinent to state that though the lea -ned Standing Counsel for appellant/RTC has urged as many as ? Appeal, but he has mainly focused his attention < viz., fixjng of income of the deceased on highe 3rounds in the n two aspects - side i.e., @ Rs. 12,00O/- per month though the deceased was ; udying II year B.Tech at the time of accident and application of r,' 'ong multiplier by considering the mother's age of the deceased.

17. A perusal of Ex.Al8-Identity Card issued by I( vIR Institute of Engineering & Technologr shows that the decease,l is pursuing II year B.Tech student. Though the learned Tribunal : e lied upon the decision of the Hontrle Apex Court in thtr B.Rg;mulalmma and others Vs.Venkatesh Bt.: anotlter , and took the monthly income of lL t Rs. 12,OOO/- per month, but it faited to consi lase between Union and petitioner @ ler the point mentioned in the aforesaid judgment that there sha I be deduction of lOo/o per year for students studying [l year or ll year. In the instant case, as the petitioner is pursuing B.Tech 2^a year, 2Oo/o has to be deducted from his ftxed monthly rrrt r me and after deducting the same, the net monthly income comer; to Rs.9,600/-. ' 2ot I ACJ l7o2 6 MGP) MACMA.No.2970 of N12 Since the deceased being bachelor, if S0% of her income is deducted towards personal expenses, then the total loss of income comes to Rs.57,60O/-. After applying relevant multiplier .1g, for the deceased being 19 years old, then the total loss of dependency would come to Rs.10,36,800/-. The petitioners were also awarded with a sum of Rs.S,OOO/- towards luneral charges and a sum of Rs.15,OO0/- towards loss of estate which this Court finds the same to be reasonable and is not inclined to interfere with the same. Hence, the total compensation to which the petiLioners are enLitled to comes to Rs. 1O,56,8O0/ -

18. In the result, the Appeat is partly-allowed by reducing the compensation amount arrived by the Trial Court from Rs. 11,00,OO0/- to Rs. tO,56,8oO/-. Excepr the said linding, the frndings rendered by the learned Tribunal with regard to rate of interest and liability shall remain same. There shall be no order as to costs

19. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. //TRUE COPYII SD/. MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER . The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribuna and Sessions Judge-cum-XV Additional Chief J . One CC to Sri C.Sunil Kumar Reddy, Advocate . One CC to Sri Madhusudhan Reddy Bhureddy, . Two CD Copies l-cum-l Additional Metropolitan udge, Hyderabad. toPUCl Advocate IOPUC] To, 1 2 3 4 N/ HIGH COURT DATED:12103t,2025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.297O ot 2012 :$TATE 1\1\ \ tr\ti 6) \+ * i I,ES PAT PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS $rn *\b [ 3253 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI MOTOR ACCIOENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2970 OF 2012 Between:

1. The Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C.,, Ranigunj-ll Depot, Secunderabad. Z Inq Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C.,, Bus Bhavan, R.T.C. X Roads, Hyderabad. AND 1 2 Smt Ch Sandhya. Sunder,, W/o. Somadunder Rao, aged about 50 years, Occ Household, Rr/o. H. No. 2-3$4lN 50, Jaiswal Garden,amberpet, Hfderabad, Soma Surder Rao,, S/o. Sanyasi Raju, aged about 57 years, Occ private Service, R/o. H.No. 2-3$/.1N50, Jaiswal Garden, Amberpet, Hyderabad. ...Appellants ...Respondents Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and decree in M.V.O.P. No. 501 of 2010 dated 15/06/2012 on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XV Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad. 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 argurnents of Sri C.Sunil Kumar Reddy, Advocate for the Appellant and of Madhusudhan Reddy Bhureddy, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1&2. This Court doth Order ard Decree as follows

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is Partly allowed by reducing the compensation arnount arrived by the Trial Court from Rs. 1 1,00,000/- to Rs. 10,56,800/-.

2. That except the said finding, the findings rendered by the Learned Tribunal with regard to rate of interest and liability shall remain same.

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

4. That there be no order as to costs in this appeal //TRUE COPY// SD/- MOHD.ISMAIL E)I iPUTY REGISTRAR i )- ---:: '\ecttott OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-l Adc tional Metropolitan and Sessions Judge-cum-XV Additional Chief Judge, H1r erabad

2. Two CD Copies ')N,, ABK HIGH COURT DATED: 1210312025 DECREE MACMA.No.297O ot 2012 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS )fr w