J M/s. Sai Ram Enterprises, its represented by v. Yadaiah, R/o. H. No

Appear fired under Section 173 0f M.V.Act against the r rder and Decree dated 23-08-2024 in M.V.O.p. No 2463 ot 2O1B on the file of the Court of the lVrotor Accident craims Tribunar-cum-X Additionar chief Judge, city civir courts at Hyderabad. Between: 1 2 :Se?iir@"":i,:'[X'".11'o,Yr?,?:'a D/o Late Kethavath sa., va Navak, ased Kethavath Shireesh, D/o. ased,.,a bo u r 1 6 vea rs, siuo6 ni ;;;*;"o.3lir5;,11fl :?,8, il?fl tl il,313l:; i t: Y 3 Khethavath Ramanibai W/o. Late Kethavath Sukya Nayak, aged about . 65 Years, Household. All are R/o. H.No. 7-7, [Vlasan Pally Village, Kalther tMandal, Sanqa Reddv District, Telangana State, temporarily residing at plot No.24S, Vilayanagai Colony, HYderabad. ...APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS AND 1 2 3 M/s. Sai Ram Enterprises, , its represented by V.yadaiah, Rl/o. H.No.1-1-.187, Raghavendra Colony, Mohan Nagar, Kothap6t, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy ' District, Telangana. The New lndia Assurance Company Limited,, Represented bv its Manaoer. Flat No.104, 7th Floor, G-Block, Surya Towers, S.P.Road, Setunderabid - 500 003. (Vide Policy No.6128023117010000674'l , vatid from O3tO2t2O1Bto o2t02t2o19). Mohd. Ghouse, S/o.Mohd. Khaja, aged about. 39 Years, Driver, R/o. H.No. 2- 3-603/19 Patel Nagar, Amberpet, Hyderabad, Telangana ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellants: Sri C. Mohan Prakash Counsel for the Respondent No. 2: Sri S. Satyananda Rao The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEE]{ KUMAR M.A.C.M.A.No.15O9 1522 a,0.d 1534 oF : rO24 COMMON JUDGMENT: Heard Sri C. Mohan Prakash, learned co tnsel for the appellants and Sri S. Satyananda Rao, learned <:, unsel for the respondents

2. M.A.C.M.A 1509 of 2024 is hled by the clainr rnts aggrieved by the order dated 23.08.2024 in MVOP No.2465 : 2O18 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X ,a< ditional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts at Hyderabad (for shor 'the learned Tribunal') in dismissing the MVOP.

3. M.A.C.M.A No.1522 of 2024 is hled b1' he claimants aggrieved by lhe order dated 23.08.2024 rn MVI P No-2464 of 2O 18 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims "- ibunal-cum-X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts at {yderabad ln dismissing the MVOP

4. M.A.C.M.A No.1534 of 2024 filed by the clain rnts aggrieved by the order dated 23.O8.2025 in MVOP No.2463 c'2018 p:rssed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X l.r ditional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts at Hyderabad in dismissinl3 the MVOP

5. All the above claims arising out of an accident on

16.09.20 18, q,hile they were travelling on bike b1. c rlliding u.ith a 2 -r bus. Therefore, all the three Appeals are clubbed together alrd being disposed of by this common judgment'

6. The facts leading to file the O'P' before the learned Tribunal are that on 16.09.2018, when deceased Kethavath Anil (D2) along with his parents i.e., mother/ Kethavath Sathyali Bai (D3) and father/ Kethavath Sanrya Naik (D1) were returning to their house' situated at Masanpally Thanda from Bachapally Market on Hero HF Detux Bike No.TS 15 ET 0323 and when they reached near Kanapur (B) Junction, T Road, around 3:3O P'M ' one RTC Bus bearing No.TS 08 rJB 2452, coming from opposite direction from Masanpally to Hyderabad, the driver of the said bus drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motor cycle' As a result, deceased Dl and D2 fell down on the road and died on the spot while D3 died on the way while shifting to the hospital.

7. The police of Kalher Police Station, Sangareddy District registered a case in Crime No.37 of 2018 under section 3O4 A IPC against the bus driver i.e., the respondent No.3' a. The appellants/petitioners approached the learned Tribunal under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988' '';.t: .. -li;.:, - 9 It was contended before the learned Tribunal that the Kethavath Anil (D2) was aged 16 years and he used to deceased - , 3 sell vegetables and earn Rs. 10,OOO/- per month. I) I was aged about 45 years and he used to do Mastri work (C), ntring Mestri) and used to earn Rs.20,OO0/- per month and D3 u, as a vegetable vendor and used to earn Rs.15,OOO per month er cl all of them contributed the same to the entire family.

10. Respondent No.2 hled counter before the lea - red trial Court wherein Respondent No.2 contended that there js no rash and ncgligence or1 thc part of respondent No.3 ancl ; ate(l that the accident ocr:urred due to negligence of the irivt:r of the motorcycle- The rr:spondent No.2 also deniecl _. e zrppellants, relationship rvith rhc deceased DI, D2, and D3. 1 I . In MVOP No. 2465, the iearned tribun I framed the following issues for consideration: l)Wtether the deceased Kethauath Anil drcd in the , ccident th.tt occltned on 16.O9.2O18 at 3:3O pM near Basent '..lli, Kalhe,r llfandal, Sanqoreddy district due to the rash qnd. rte,gtr ent diuing of cnnrc ue.hicle i.e., RTC bus bearingNo.TSOgUB24S2 , 2)Whellrcr tlLe petitoners are entitled to claim contpe,n ;aton. If so, from uthotn and to wltat e^1ent? 3) To tuhat relel?

12. In MVC)P No.2464 of 201g, the learned tribur al framed the following issues lor consideration: 1) Whether tlrc deceosed Kethauath Sangya died i Lte ttccidertt tltat occl.trred orr l6 O9.2O1g at 3:30 pM near Masor,.l altA, Rother 4 - Mandal, Sanga ReddA District due to the rash and negtigentlg diuing of driuer of cime uehicle i.e., TS O8 UB 2452? 2) Whether lhe petitioners are entitled to clqim compensation. If so, from uhom and to uhat extent? 3) To what retieJ?

13. In MVOP No.2463 of 2018, the learned tribunal framed the following issues for consideration: I) Whether the d.eceased died in tlle qccident that ocqured on 16.09.2018 at 3:3O PM, near Mosanpallg, Kalher Manda| Sanga Reddg Distnct due to the rash and negLigent dnuing oJ driuer of crinre uehicle te., TS O8 UB 2452? 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation' If so, from whom and to what extent? 3) To uhat relieJ?

14. In all the O.Ps., on behalf of the claimants, PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 were examined and Ex.Al to A6 were marked Whereas on behalf of the respondent-Insurance Company, RW- 1 was cxamined and Ex.Bl was marked.

15. The learned Tribunal, after considering the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties, held that though the appellants hled copy of protest petition under Ex.A-7, but failed to file the final result of protest petition and also failed to hle the proof of stage of protest petition. The learned Tribunal further held that the appeilants failed to examine the Investigation Ofhcer, who filed final report under Ex.A-2, and that in the absence of evidence to 5 the effect that the RTC bus is the crime vehicl respondent No.3 therein, the learned Tribunal carL: driven by Lot consider that the crime vehicle i-e. RTC bus bearing No'TS-15'l ;T-2452 was driven by respondent No.3 in a rash and negligent aanner with high speed on 16.O9.2018 at the scene of offence atr I caused the death of the deceased.

16. The learned Tribunal further held that there i; no necessit5r of appreciation of witnesses including the evidence F ' the determination of issue with respect of th t V.3 and that appellants' enl itlemen I lor comPensation L7 . Assailing the said findings recorded by the 1ea - Led Tribunal, the present ApPeals are fi1ed.

18. l,earned counsel for the appellants contend: I before this Court that the learned Tribunal without taking into :onsideration the real facts and did not properly appreciate the material on record including the evidence of PW-2, the eye clearly identifiecl that the driver of the RTC vitness, who bus bearing No.TSO8UB-2452, driving the bus in a rash and nell .gent manner and dashed the motorcycle from the opposite dire ;tion, due to which, the rider of the motor cycle and the pillion ri lers fell down on the road, sustained grievous injuries and died. 6 -

19. Learned counsel for the appellants further contended that the learned Tribunal failed to observe the Final Report Ex.A-2, wherein it was mentioned that when deceased reached Khanapur- B village T Junction at about 13:30 hours, the RTC bus bearing No.TS08UB-2452 came from the opposite direction from Masanpally to Hyderabad and the bus driver drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner.

20. This Court has given earnest considerations to the contentions raised by either parties and perused the record.

21. Considering the various averments made in the pleadings, this Court observes that the learned Tribunal did not properly appreciate [he evidence on record and also material placed before it including the evidence of PW-2 who is crucial eye-witness to the accident. Thereby, learned Tribunal held that there is no necessi$r of appreciation of evidence of witnesses, including the evidence of witness of PW-3 and determination of issue with respect to appellants' entitlement for compensation. However, the fact of the accident itself is not in dispute.

22. [-earned counsel for the respondents did not dispute the factum of non-consideration of the evidence of eye witness by the learned Tribunal. On the other hand, upon considering the record, this Court is of the view that the orders passed by the learned F Tribunal are unreasoned, \ 'ithout providing ()l 'l ortLrnrty to examrne the eYe u'itness, thereby causing injtrs -ice to [he claimants, resulting in violation of principles of natrtli I justice'

23. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate c remit the matters to the learned Tribunal for fresh considerati' 'r

24. Accordingly, the orders passed by the learn<:c Tribunal in M.V.O.P.No.2465 of 2018, M.V.O.P.No.2464 o 2018 and M.V.O.P.No.2643 of 2Ol8 are set aside, and the matt r is remitted back to the learned Tribunal for fresh disposal altc - providing an opportunity to [he parties to put forth their r:orl entions and documents on record. [t is made clcar that the letrt-red Tribunal shall endeavour to dispose of thc O. P's as c-x I :ditrously as possibte, preferabty within a period of six (06) rnor lhs from the date of receipt of this order.

25. With the above observations and directir r , M.A.C M.A No.1509, 1522 and 1534 of 2024 are allowed. Thr r -' shall be no order as to costs.

26. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pendin: shall stand closed SdI. ll,I JAWAHAR REDDY /'i \affiecrsrnan '-7- //TRUE COPY// I I ,l StcTIoN oFFICER

1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-X Additional ( hief Judge, City Civil Courts at Hyderabad.

2. One CC to Sri C. Mohan Prakash, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri S. Satyananda Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies To, N} E HIGH COURT GPK, J DATED: 0611112025 COMMON JUDGMENT+ DECREE MACMA.Nos.1509, 1522 AND 1534 of 2024 _--- *r I Ai- t- q c,J . /-. \', ( ) s1 +.- ALLOWING THE MACMA.Nos.1509, 1522 AND 1534 of 2024 WITHOUT COSTS (" ")" IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR MACMA NO: 1509 1522 AND 15340F 2024 MACMA NO: 1509 OF 2024 Between: '1 . Lambadi @ Khethavath Manjula, D/o. Late Kethavath Sangya Nayak, aged about 22 Years, Unemployee,

2. Kethavath Shireesh, D/o. Late Kethavath Sangya Nayak aged about 16 Years, Student, represented by Petitioner P1lnatural guard ian/S ister, All are Rl/o. H. No. 7- 7, Masan Pally Village, Kalther [/andal, Sanga Reddy District, Telangana State - 502371, temporarily residing at Plot No. 245, Vijayanagar Colony, Hyderabad. ...APPE LLANTS/CLAIMANTS AND 1 M/s. Sai Ram Enterprises, its represented b 187 Raghavendra Colony, Mohan Nagar, Reddy District, Telangana State. y V. Yadaiah, Rl/o. H. No. 1- 'l- Kothapet, Saroornagar, Ranga

2. The New lndia Assurance Company Limited, Represented by its Manager Flat No. 104, 7th Floor, G- Block, Surya Towers, Sardar Patel Road, Opposite Gymkhana Groud, Secunderabad - 500 003. (Vide Policy No. 61280231170100006741 , valid from 03. 02.2018 to 02.02.2019)

3. Mohd. Ghouse, S/o. Ivlohd. Khaja, aged about 39 Years, Driver, R:/o. H. No. 2- 3- 603/19, Patel Nagar, Amberpet, Hyderabad, Telangana State. ..RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS MACMA NO: 1522 OF 2024 Between:

1. Lambadi @ Khethavath lvlanjula, D/o. Late Kethavath Sangya Nayak, aged about 22 Years, Unemployee,

2. Kethavath Shireesh, D/o. Late Kethavath Sangya Nayak, aged about 16 Years, Student, represented by Petitioner P'llnatural guardian/sister,

3. Khethavath Ramanibai, Wio. Late Kethavath Sukya Nayak, aged about 65 Years, Household. All are Rl/o. H.No. 7-7, Masan Pally Village, Kalther Mandal, Sanga Reddy District, Telangana State - 502371, temporarily residing at Plot No.245, Vijayanagar Colony, Hyderabad. ...APPEL -ANTS/CLAIMANTS AND 1 2 J M/s. Sai Ram Enterprises, its represented by V.Yadaiil Raghavendra Colony, Mohan Nagar, Kothapet, Sarocr District, Telangana. r, R/o. H.No.1-1-187, ragar, Ranga Reddy The New lndia Assurance Company Limited, Repres: Flat No.104, 7th Floor, G-Block, Surya Towers, Sardar Gymkhnaa Groud, Secunderabad-S00 003. ( 61280231'1 7010000674'1 , valid from 03.02.2018 to 02 C2 tted by its f\,4anager, )atel Road, Opposite '/ide Policy No. 2019). Mohd Ghouse, S/o.tMohd. Khaja, aged about 39 Years, I 603/19, Patel Nagar, Amberpet, Hyderabad, Telangana I river, RYo. H.No- 2-3- tate- 500002 ...RESPONDE I TS/RESPONDENTS MACMA NO: 1534 OF 2024 Between:

1. Lambadi @ Khethavath Manjula D/o. Late Kethavath aboul .22 Years, Unemployee,

2. Kethavath Shireesh, D/o. Late Kethavath Sangya Nir Years, Student, represented by Petitioner P1lnatlial gua 3. Khethavath Ramanibai W/o. Late Kethavath Sukya Nir Years, Household. All are Rl/o, H.No. 7-7, Masan Pally Village, Kalther l/ District, Telangana State, temporarily residing at Plo Colony, Hyderabad. )angya Nayak, aged 'ak, aged about. 16 dian/sister, ak, aged about . 65 lndal, Sanga Reddy No.245, Vijayanagar ...APPEI- -ANTS/CLAIMANTS AND 1 z 3 M/s. Sai Ram Enterprises, , its represented by V.Yadaial Raghavendra Colony, Mohan Nagar, Kothapet, Saroorna District, Telangana. R/o. H.No.1-1-187, yar, Ranga Reddy The New lndia Assurance Company Limited,, Representr Flat No.104, 7th Floor, G-Block, Surya Towers, S.P.Roac 500 003. (Vide Policy No.61280231170100006741 , vatirl 02102t2019) d by its Manager, Secunderabad - 'rom 03/0212018 to Mohd. Ghouse, S/o.tVlohd. Khaja, aged about. 39 Years 3-603/19 Patel Nagar, Amberpet, Hyderabad, Telanganrr )river, Rl/o. H.No. 2- ...RESPONDEI\ TS/RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act again0st tr ; Order and Decree dated 23-08-2024 in M.V.O.P. No 2465 of 20't8 on the fit I of the Court of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-X Additional Chief Jurl, e, City Civil Courts 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 C. lrrlohan Prakash, Advocate for the appellants and Sri S. Satyananda RAo, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 and none appeared for Respondent Nos_ 'l & 3 either in person or by Advocate in all above mentioned 3 MACMAs. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the MACMA Nos. 1509, 1522 and'1534 of 2024 be and hereby is allowed;

2. That the above three MACMAS be and hereby are remitted back to the learned Tribunal for fresh disposal after providing an opportunity to the parties to put forth their contentions and documents on record;

3. That the learned Tribunal shall dispose of the O.P's as expeditiously as possible within a period of six(6) months from the date of receipt of this order 4. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Tribunal shall stand confirmed in all other aspects; and

5. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. sd/ f,fir HAR REDDY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To,

1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts at Hyderabad.

2. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT GPK, J DATED: 0611112025 COMMON DECREE MACMA.Nos.1509, 1522 AND 1534 of 2024 ALLOWING THE MACMA.Nos.1509, 1522 AND 1534 of 2024 WITHOUT COSTS