The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellants : SRI T.VISWARUPA CHARY, Advocate in MACMA.No.2881 of 2018 and Respondents in MACMA .No.3450 of 2018 Counsel for the Respondents: SRI R.ANURAG (SC FOR TSRTC) in Respondents in MACMA No.2881 of 2018 and Appettants in MACMA.No.34S0 of 20,t8. The Court made the following: COMMON JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2881 and 3450 OF 2018 COMMON JUDGMENT: M.A.C.M.A.No.2881 cf 2018 is liled b.r' tlre Claimants and M.A.C.M.A.No.345O of 2018 is filccl bv thc RTC Corporation against order passcd b.r. Lhir N,lotor Ar:cidcnts Ci.rinrs Tribunal cum - Chicl Judgc, City Civil Courts, II1'clerabad (hercinaltcr. u'il] be rclerred as "lriburral") in M.V.O. [). No.(r28 of 20]4, order ci:rlcrl 0().O4.2018. The claimants before thc 'lribun:rl had filcd Lhr: clztim pctition under Section 166 <;f \4.V.Ar:t. l98E sccliin.q compensation of Rs.30,0O,000/- on account ol deaLIr of Sri 'l'.Nar-csh. (hercin after rcferrcd as'deceascd') u,ho cliccl in i\'loLor Vchiclc accident occurrcd on 02. I l.2O13

2. For lhe sakc ol corrvc'nicnct'. tlre y>artics hcreinalter are referrcd as thc1, rverc arrayed bcforc the Tribunal

3. 'l'he brief facts of lhe casc are tLrat on 02.11.2013, the deceased along wiLh his collcaguc \\,crc proccedrng on Motorcycle bearing No.AP-O9-WB-TR-0232 frr-rrr NallaliunteL and when they reached Hyderabad Public School, Ramanthapur, the driver of RTC Bus bearing registrillion No.AI)- 29-Z 1572 drove thc bus in rash i" '- N]\R,.' MAcMA-Nos za81 a. 34so of 2O1a and ncgligclrL nr.lnncl- at high spccd and clashed tlte deceased - motorc\ c1c l-ronr ircluncl, dlrr: [o r.r,hicl-, thc dcr:cased lcll dorvn and sustalncd qrir:r,rr lr; irr.jtrries ancl the dlccased rlied or-i t['re spot. The Pol ir:,:. r-egistr'r'r r ('t1s( ag:rins1 the clrir cr ol thc Birs, r,iclc Cnrnc No.707,'20I.l. rrrrr cr Si'r'tion 301 A ol ll,(l

4. Thc c'ornt.nLion ol the claintants before the 'l'ribu r-ral u,as Lhat as on llre rl:r1c, r,i' itcciclc:nt llte clcccerscd r,as ;rgcd arllrtr-rt 25 r.cars and ,rrrs €,llnin. ils.l5.00O1 pcl' ntonth lt-r rlorl<.rnq irs '('lt.slo/)ler SttSrp tr,,in.c1 ir' (.\'1 C.. Limilcd, Gacl-ribouli il-rcl clue ro Lutrilneh death ol llrc' riclc:asccl. lhe petitioncrs hatve br:comc dcstitutc zrnd Iost tlrcir cl('l)( lt(l(,,n( \ ftrr trhicl'r clairtrants clzrimed Rs.3O,OO 00O/,, :ts collt l)C1l siiLr )rl

5. []cforr. rlrt, It'irrrrr.cl l'nbur-ral. respondt:nts lilcd courller allid:r. it. cir n,, t:tr1 t irc ar c'rmcr-rts madc tr-r thc pr:trtion ir-rcluding the mann.r of rir:,rirlct'Lt, involvcmcnt of thc crim<t vchiclc, rash and negligent dt'iving o1't[-re driver of the br-rs and also agc. occupation and rncomc c,l thc dcceascd and submitted that clue to seif- negligt,nce ol titc cleccasr:d, the accid<:nt occurrcd and the respondents are llol liable to pay arry compensation amount to the u A?VR,J MACMA.NoS 2aal & 34sO of 2OlA petitioners and further contcrldcd that the compensation claimed is excessive ancl praycd to dismiss thc claim petition

6.Durirrgtl-rccourscoftrlirl.ottllcl-rzrlfofpetitioners,PWsNos.l and 3 u'crc cxarmincd and got markcd trxs.A 1 to A6()n behalf of respondents, no oral evidence or documentarv evidence was adduced.

7. Basing on the pleadilrgs a:ld avermctlLs nlzrdc by both the coLrnscls, Lhc lcarllcd Tribunal lrzrmed the lollou'ing issutes: l)WhettrzrtLrcpLeack:dttr:cicletrllLttcloccLtrredti''stllltnqitcleathof clieceaserl 'l'. Nare,sh to the rrtslt utrcl trcqLiqent driu,tg of RTC bus becLnrtg No.AP 29 7. 1 572 ltrl its riiuer? 2) Whethe.r the petitioners are erLtitled' to attA cottlpensation and' if so, at Lultot quantutn and tuLLat ts the lio'bitity of the respondents? 3) To u,,lrut reliel?. B. Alter pcr-ltsing thc oral and clor:umentarl' eviclenccs and going into the entirc record and the evidence placed bv both the parties' thc lcarned Tribunal allou'cd lhe clairn and granled compensation of Rs.22,28,60O/- along r.t'ith intcrcst (t) 7 S'fo per annum' Being aggrieved by the corrtpensation awarded the claimants 9 prefer M.A.C.M.A.No.2881 of 2O18 seeking enhancement of the coml),rnsation ancl thc resllot-tdcut R'lC Clorpor-ation prefer - M.A.C.M.A.No.3450 of 2018 1o sot asidc the tribunal order. Nn/8,J MACMA.Nos-2AA7 & 3450 of 201a 1o. Ihr l(rarn( il Clourscl [or tht: R.l'.C. Corltoration corltettded that l irc lclrnri'rl .fr-ilrutn:tl crr<'cl ut t:rkitrq incomt: of tltc dcceasccl a1 Rs.1.t.-172/ pcr rnonth cveu though P\l'.3 Managcr (IlR) did not file his arrrthorizatron lotter and service rt:cord or banl( sLatement to prolc t['r<: irrconr,' of Lhc rIcct'rtscd arnd a]so furLhcr (totlLct-rdcd Lhat Icarnr ri 'i'r'ibL,rri,l crr i'rl in rtot cortsidcring tlte facr that thc r:l:.rinrrrnts rlicl rr,i rr:rI<r'lltc o,.tncr ernc.l lnsurcr r)l litc motorcrt:lc as partrt's Lo tlr('( liiinl l)ctrlion :rnd ltraycct 111i5 Qourl 1o set asidc lhe 'lribr-rnal or-dcr rl,etcrcl 0(.r.O l -2018 i-r.n d allor.v lhe I)rescl][ appcal liled lr-r. tlri' RT(l cor Porzttiott 1 L 'l irc clainlr.tts itr c'r'r'c:d l ltat prior to thc ac(tident, the: deceased \\ AS irqe(l ,rllor.lL 125 r r'rtrs .Ir1cl \\'als I'ralc ancl hc:tlthY and \ as u'ork ir r g itsi p: ir i-itl cln plor cc C.N4.C., Lrm ited, hou'cver, the Tribrrtral hzn'inq ac(:clli('(l tht: contentiort of the pctitioners that the accidcnt occLlrr-cd cluc to Lhc rasl-r and llegligenl driving ol the RTC bus and also hirvinl{ acccpted the fact that decezrsed u'as worktng in C.M.C., Limited as 'Customcr Supporting', but the learned Tribunal has taken the notional income of the deceased Rs. 14,4751 - per month instead of Rs. i5,OOO/- per month MAcMA.Nos.2Sal & 3450 ol2ola ]VI\IR,J

12. The claimants further contended that deceased was aged 25 years and thc learned Tribunal ought to have considered future prospects 509o instead of 4Oo/o to the income of deceased and further contended that the rate of interest at 7.Sok p.a. awarded on the compensation amount is on meager side and ought have granted 9ol: p.a. on the compensatioll amount and prays this Court to enhanced the compensation amount granted by the learned Tribunal and pass appropriate orders.

13. Heard Srt T. Viswarupa Chtry, learned counsel for the claimants, Sri R. Anurag, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and perused the materia-l on record

14. Admittedly, the parties have filed appeal artd cross appeai against the Au,ard passed by the learned Tribunal. As such, there is dispute regarding liability of the respondents, age and income of the deceased. Therefore, the points which arose before this Court in the present appeal arrd cross appeal are that: "i) Whether the respondents haue mode out anA co-se to exoneroted the respondents from liabilitg? ,IVNN,J MACMA.No'.2aAT O. 3450 oJ 2OtA ii) Wlrcthe:r the 'l ibunal hc.s ightlg asse.s.sed the tncome ciecettsei of the - ut) ll4te tlu,r ('Onll)t,u S1liotl lhe petitloners are t,ntitled if' sct. lct tuhat exlent?" for the enhanced Point No. 1 I5 Adnrrttcclh'. thc clcccased dicd drre to accide.t occurred on 02.l1.2o1ll arcl trrere is r-ro dispure *'rrh regard to the rnvoryement of the crimc 'ehic:le The onl-r.contentron of the learned Standing Counsel for the RTC Corporation was that the accident occurred due r. self r-rergligc.ce of the deceased and the deceasecl died and the ir:arn<rcl l rilr..al ou:lht to ha'e .xoneratecr the rcsponderts from the li.bilrtr'. I lo* r.r.er, on kecn purusal ol evidencc of pWs i and 2 Lhr p('titio ners relied upon doc,mentary evidence uncler Exs.A I (PIR), A2 (rncluest report), A3 (PME report), 44 (charge sheet) zrn cl AS (\,lVI Rr,porr) exccpt oral contention that there u,as self negligerrce on r he pzrrl of the deceased in causing accident, the respondents f:riled to adduce any eviclence in support of their I[ at a]l thcre u,as any self or contributory neghgence con ten tion on pal't of the rlecr:asccl in causing the accident, certainly there would ltave been att avr:rment in Ex.A4 r:herrge sheet to that But there is no such instance in the case on hand, as the concerned Policc af ter thorough investigation llled trx.A4 charge sheet holding thq-dr.ivcr of the RTC Bus alone responsible for the extent 7 TYNR,J MACMA-Nos.2aa, &. 34sO o! 201A accident. Thus, the lcarnec.l Tribunal after considering the above oral and documentary evidence has rightly arrived to a conclusion that thc accir.lcnt oc<:urrcc.l clltc [o rash at-rd negligcl-rt driving of the crirnc Vcfricle. accor<linglt', rhc l-csl)onclcnts cannot be exonerated lrom Iiabilitl Lo pav colnpcllsatiorl Lo Lhc claimants Hence, point No. 1 is ansu'crcd in lavour o[ <:lairnanLs and agairrsL respondents' Point No.2 and 3.

16. As far as com l)cttsaLio|r of lhe claimants are concerned, the claimants clait-ncd lhiit thc deccased $,as drerrvittg gross salarl- of Rs.15.000/ p('r morrth. 'l'hc pctitiorre rs got cxamincd PW 3, ri'h<r issuecl Llx.A6 salar-r' <:crLific.ltc alld PW 3 categoric:Lllr deposed that thc dcccased joinccl thcir cotnpany and q'orkec[ till the date of accident. tle lLrrrher clt-1lost:d tharL deccased $as contract emplo]'ce ar-rd his tenu|c $'as t-ctlc$ ccl cVCt-\. -\re ar and Ex'A6 $'as issued b1' him.

17. On a kcen pe rttsal of the IIx.A6 Salary Certilicate for the month of October, 2013, it is noticcd that deceased r'r'as dralving a gross income of Rs. t 5,586/ including ttte 'one time bonus per gear' for an amount ol Rs.5,224 /, evcntually, thc deceased u'ili be getting an gross income ol I?s.l O,3621 - (Rs.15,586/ Rs'5,224 l-l per month rvithout bonus. Ilou'ever, the learnecl Tribunal having \ nI t,J MAcMA-Nos.2887 & 3450 of 20la accr:pted the l:rct rlrnr clr'<:casccl u'as canting Rs.10,362/ per - mo1llh in t lrc pir r:-gra ph )'Jo. 1 0 of t1-re or-rlcr blrt crroneou s15, Lake n the lret incoml of tlte dcceasc'cl its Rs.1.+.475/ instead ol Rs.10,362/ pc'r' nrlntlr

18. In this conr]lc[]on. iL is re lcvat'rr to lool( into thc jr-rdgme nt passcd b\ IIor-r'lrlc SrrpLcrrc CourL irr Yerramma u. G.I{rishna Murthgl , u lrcri'rs it lrclcl tlrat (jross Strlan,' ought to have br:en torrar-rls lrri'r,u'rc 'l'lrr :rnd 'ritc rclerlrnt takclr aftcl- dr,rlrri rinq lO parergraph Nos. 1 I ,\ I ,-, u hit'h leucis as lrr'lot ft-.r cirsv refercncc l-1 '| |tr, 'I'tii,:,',,i ' .),. I ,.ii,)tirlr,,i/ :lr,, srrld/ii :.. 1) ol'll,? cleceusetl .lOr the -rl)j ) rlt'lt,nrtt',r'rl lhc. ::rtlrtrg ol lhe clt:certsed at nrotlllt ol .illi l), t t)t:,i!t llLtt <.iitltrr:it,,/ i()1r.,(r,-(.s' l).'1 . clttl other Rs.2/,l(r8 t c'.lvc, lltr: 'l'nitrtttrtl arrit't:tl uL Rs.2l,l68/ slatLtlorLl rll,r/ttr'rrorrs 'l'ite per rrtotill ri.r iir, ..:r; l'rl ol ;irt., r1r:r:c'ri;r'ri. lltc lliqlt Cloud in i/s inpuclrtecl !1t(l(l rtctil rttcl orrlcr ufllrntcc.l tlt( santc. Wr: ara of the uieu.t, lh1t on lh( :rir-l- tt,:ti , , ( , / / ) I :r- 1 r / r r ( ' r ,s 1)/ l1.rs ( rt-sC. ll,r: net Salanl Of the tlet:e:o:;t:cl !ul'.i t' bL! l lt' 'l tiItrutctl ctltl tltt' I{iryh Octurt for r.l eterntination o/ lo.ss oJ'clc,'r,'rr,lcl( l/ rs er-7()nrous (ls tt ,\ rr,)r in u:corclance utith the oinciples lttitl tlou'rt lttt this ()outl rn th.is reqarc-I. 'l Lterefore the same i.s liabIc Io h(, s. r rrsrr/c a-s It llos l() l:e properly deiermitrcd by takirtg qross incornc of'thc, rle,c:ease-cl. It is clear lhrrt the. gross income of the tlece:rtsed (tl tlrct lnt)c o.f ltis t{ccrlLr o:j /)er lti.s sctlctry slip utcts Rs.2(t,OOO,/ l)e.r rnenlll 'lLtcrelorc:. ue. ert' ()l tlp uietu that a just and reasonoblt rr()r?1lrelrs.rriorl uncler tl-Lc heaC r>! loss of dependencg has not bcr:r'r clc,lcr:nint,tl by th.e cottrls l:clottt. 'l'hts, the impugned .jLtdgrnt:nt tltri o'clt't ,t.1'the, I liqh (irra1 is uilialed both on account of ' (2o ta) scc r,: rvrvR,J MACMA.NoS.2AAl & 3450 o! 207a erroneous Jinding and error Ln latu. The gross saLarg drctu.tn by the dt:ceaserl (tL Lhe tint? o[ l'tis tlettth rttus Rs.26,000/ per nutnth The Hiqh Court ortd ilw I'nbutntl itcLut' tctken the net sQlarA at Rs 21,1619l per rnot ll. Ihrttlt, Ll'tt' (.'ourts beLotu hauc erred in ,nul;tnlJ de:tl.ucLtotts lrorn l/re r,rr o-ss stLlclg of lhe cleceased totuards P.'1 o/ 11.s 2OO/ urtcl otlrpr .sl(lar? lolr | (leductiotls ctnd lhereJbrc, (rrnL)ut!.l rri ll-s.l/.165.' per rrr)r1ll r/.s nel salQry oJ Lhe decectsed r.s crrolzcor.s in Lou,. 'l'1rc!rc]t)t('. Loa: ttra ttJ tlte uietu tltctl l)ottl 1|rc 'l'rLltunul tirrcl Llt.e I lqlt Coun lti',' errt:cl uL rtttt Jbllotuirtg Llrc rules laicl (lourL bLt Llus CourL iL lnd.ira.si iuaslaur.r's (supro) in not taking gross "lt( m(nite oJ' the decettsecl [o delt'ntluLe lirc loss of depenclency Li 7lr<, rrirt.r.ss .saloni rlrrtrt,tl !. t :lt,t tlt tlrt.sc'tl rtl ilLe LittLe oi hts dcttlh rLs 1tt;r sulr.trtl sltlt lrodrtL:L:Li t)tr te(\)tLi [,(,t-s li-s 26,OOO/ pcr ttLotltlL ottLl ali<'r' tl?cltttttttg lO',, !t,i. rtr(i.; i/i.c/rrrL] l(1,\. llcI ittcont L:<tntes to Rs.)3,400i pe,r tttL:ntllt -i lttr:;. Llrc utLtt.udL uTcotLe oJ Lhe ck:ceasacl Lt'ou[ci be Rs.2,8O.800i Dt'c1L,r'titt/ 1 /'ltl'L of this anlount LcttucLruls his personal crlrerzs(7.s bt1 rtppl4itrc1 lhe 1tt uLciple as laid doturr bt1 thts ( ourt il Strln lir'r,r(l c(l-sr ']\r,,'I-rr-d/. f.i\" bQL(tnce anloLltll .otnes lo Rs.2,10.(>()0/.\p,80,8()o/ iis./o,2t)()/ (l/ath of Rs.2,8{.),80O/.)1. T'ltcreJbrt thc k).ss o.l'clepc'tttl,'rc'y ol'tlrc appeLktnts bg ttltulying tlrc appropricttc ntultty;Lier oJ' I 1, crt:cordhtq to the rules laid doun bg this Courl in llre Sarlc l/er-rrl( cottrc.s to Rs.23,16,600/ (Rs.2,1O,6OO/- X

19. In r.ieu, of juclgmcnt, pas:i('cl b-r thc I Ion'ble Supreme Court in Yerramma u. G.Krishna MurthU @ited. supra/, this Court is inclined to modifv thc mon[hlr incomt: of the deceased as granted by the Tribunal lrom Rs. 14,4-i5l Lo 11s.9,326l (l<s.10,362l- 10%) per month and thc annual income of the deceased would come to Rs. 1,11,912l- (Rs.9,326l- x 12) and Rs.5,2241- would be added to NIR.J MACMA.Nos.2aal an 3450 of 201A the annr-ral of thc clcccas.rt. as thr: d<:ccascd u,ould gct vearly bor-rus ol Its.5,22.1/ , thc'n thc annuarl incornc oi thc dt:ceasccl ri.ould come to Iis.1.17.13tr (R,s l.11.()121 , Rs.5,22-tl )

20. A1;er1 from tltirL. as ltcr tJtc clc:c.isror-r of IIon l;lc Suprcme Court in National Insura.rtce Compang Limited Vs. pra.nag Sethi and. others2 :rnd laking t he aqc of r hc clcccasccl as 25 r.cars as on the dat. of thc- accicle.t, :rcicliti.nal -10,',, .l tlr. ir-rcrrrle hzrs to be added tou'alds ftttLtr c or-rsPCCls ro tlrc ir.ntral inc.rrrt' oI thc cleceased. Thercforc. Lhc annrr:tl :ncorrtc ol tl-rc rlt:ceasc.cl u.ou1d come to Rs.1,63.9c)1/ (l?s l.l r- 1),(tl Its.16.8r15/ ). our of s.l.rich, 5Ool, has to br: cleductec tor.r,arrls thc pcrsonal ('xpellscs of thc deceased, as deceasecl uas b,rchelor- :rs cl:rimccl bv rl'rc ltc,titioners at the time of tl'rc accidcnt. l'll('11 ilt(' acluitl irnr-iu:rl it-r<.onrc u ould come to Rs.S1 ,995.5/ (Rs. L6.Jc,lc) I ,/ ( ) Ils.3I .()95 5/ ) 21 . As per tlrr: column No.4 oi sclrcd'.rlc fixed ir-r thc judgment of the Apex Corrrt. in Sa.rla Verma u. Delhi Transport Corporation3, and collsidering thc agc of thc dcccascd as 25 ycru-s, tl-rc appropriate multiplier applicable for tl're deccascd's agc is'lB'. Thus, the total ' zott ad zloo ' 2oo9 nc.l 1298 (sc) loss of dcpendencl, $,ould come to Iis. t4,75>,919/- (Rs.81995.5/- x ,V]\R,J MACMA-Nos.2Aa1 & 3450 oJ 2O1a 18)

22. 1'lrc appcllantsi ( li1int.rlrrs nr-r: lLrlther- cntitlcd to Rs. 18,15O/ (Rs.15,000/ I l0')i, - l0"i) [uu:l'ds loss oi' cstate and Rs. 18,150/ (Rs.15,000/ r l0%, r 10'lr,) to\\'ards luneral expenses, as per Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs.Na.nu Ram q.lis Chuhru Rama.

23. TI'rc pctitioncr Nos.1 tl. 2 [tc:in.g thc i]itr.'nLs ol the deccased, the_t, arc cntitlccl Iirr corrrprtrrstrLiorr to il surrn of Rs.96,8O0 / uncler the hcad of 'loss ol lilial corrsor-liurm'. as pcr Magma's Judgment (cited supra)

24. Thc pctilioncr .r"o. 3 bcing t hc unmarried sister of the deceascd, sl'rc is cntitlcd lor comPcr-rsurion Lo a sum ol Rs.48,.10O/- under the hcad o[ loss ol' siblirrg ct.rrrsortium' as per Magma's Judgment (cited supra)

25. On overall rc-appre ciatiorr ol thc pleadings, materidl on record and the law laid dori,n bl thc tlon'ble Suprcme Court in the aforesaid cited decisions. I am of thc opinion that the claimants are 4 20t8 (t8) scc I j0 rv 1a,J l,tiCMA-Nos.2aal & 34sO oJ 201a entitle(l to r:tth itt i l'cu cnt r>f (rol11l)clrsation as modilicd and recalct-rl.rrcd :ts alror.c.rnci giVCl-r in thc t:t1liC lor cas.r' r'cferc tl ce

26. ()onstrlt'r'ittg r1'rc abovC .isscsslll('11t ma(lc bV Lhis Court' appelltrr-rts u oulrl llr' cLltitlc(l 1o ils lollori s i) r) Ar-rnual In<:ome lrlf thc rlccc:lsl'ri) Rs ()32i:r / X 12=las.l.l1.S1-2/-+IlsJ.22li lllortr-ts) Tol:rl Anurt:tl incornc = Its.l.l7,136i Totltl .\nt,rt:tl ]nr.oit'tc =,\ltnllirl In( r)lI( r IirlLLlI(' l)r,rspccts (AttttLritl Itlt otnc \ 1O" ) Rs.l I71.3{r,r lis, lfr.i!51i lls ltrl<'ttl' itt ) Arl,rll:rl Dr'l)cll(ll.rlcr' = 'l tltal .\tllltL;rl ltr.rrtlti clt:clrtctiott [ot,"atrls pct stlllitl ( \PL]lls's ')l-lll(' (lt ( (l:lsc(l rO " ir ) r') Rs 1 ,63,(lr) l / { ) l':s.Sl .rl9l.rir'- ;l'ot al Dc'p,:r.tdctri:\' -,\trt.tuaL l )cpcrlrlclr c r x \llirl it:cl IVtritrpltcr' - Ils ,3 I,995..1 x lfj Ils 31 Q()5'5/ Cltrrmalts' cntit lcrlrellt to$'itrcls cotl\ ('lr Li()llill lr('a(ls Loss oI Ilstate + FrLncral Dxllt:uscs r Ioss oi [ilr:rl c(,tlSrrIlilrnl, sll,ltttg,,rll\ullillt'll Rs 18.150/ r lis. 18. 1.50, ' Ils ()().s()O ' Rs.48.40() ! Tot :tl Rs.14,75,919/' Rs. 1,8 7,5OOl Rs.16,57,419/'

27. Accorclingll'. thc M.A.C.M.A.No'288 I of 2018 filcd by the claimants is dismissed and M.A.C.M.A'No'345O of 2018 filed by the rcspondents/RTC CorPoration is allorved in part, b1, reducing AavIt,J LIACMA.NoS-2A81 & 3450 oJ 20 rA the compensation from l?s22,28,600l to Rs. L6,57,4L9/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakh Fifty Seven Thousand and Four Hundred and Nineteen Rupees only) rlith interest aai 9% p.a. on the compensatiorl arnount lronr Llr, datc oi pctilion ttll the date of realizatiorr. The rc:spu:rclcnls iLrc dircr:Lccl Lci deposir the said amount togc[hcr rvitli C0sts :rrcl ir-rLcrcsI zrftcr givir-rg due credit to the amount alread,v dcpositccl. il'trrn,, ',r'ithin a pcriod of tll'o months lrom the receipt oI a r:op,v ol tl]is judgmertt. 1'he compensation amount shall be :Ippor-tion('.i rlrl)ottg tltc claimants tn the same manner and rar[io as or clclcrr i;r t]rc lcarrtccl 'l'r'iburtal. On such deposit, thc clarmants iLrc p('rrntttt:(l Irr u itlr<irarr the samc rvithout furnishing an.\' surct\ .

28. [-{ou,cver. it is rnarlc clr'irl llta1. ll Lhc claintarnts had already withdrarn,n thc cxccss (()rtrl,i r1-iltiotr itln()Ltt)t. il' attl-\'. the RTC Corporation is not cr-rttIlcd to tt'covcr tltc satne from the claimants. There shall be no ordcr- ers to ( osLs

29. Misceliancous pctitions. il ilnt arc ltencling, shall stand clo sed EBtrfl""IP6l3Hh //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To, 1 u", I tirufl #si"J il'?:*?j s I a i m s r ri b u n a I -c u m - c h ief J u d g e' c itv c iv i I -r--, 2 One CC to SRI T'/ISWARUPA CHARY, Advocate [OPUC] 3 One CC to SRI R ANURAG (SC FOR TSRTC) Advocate tOpUCl 4 Two CD Copies KVII'nr h Yr- HIGH COURT DATED:22 t0912025 COMMON JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.Nos.2881 and 3450 of rzotai{i, 1L s l4 r(: zi'->t .-) * 4 :'^! /,1/l v rc'l' DISMISSING THE MACMA.No.2881 OF 2018 AND PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA.No.3450 OF 2018 ^ ). .<(<" ' L\- \, ,Ataa I s4431 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA M.A.C.M.A.Nos: 2881 and 3450 OF 2018 M.A.C.M.A.No: 2881 of 2018 Between:

1. T Parvathamma, W/o Household. Pedda Nagabhushanam, Aged about 44 years, Occ-

2. T. Pedda Nagabhushanam, S/o T. Venkata Ramana, Aged about 47 years, Occ- Nill. T.M. Mahitha, D/o. T. Pedda Nagabhushanam, Aged about 17 years, Occ - Student, All are Rlio. Plot No. '19 and 20, Parvathi Nagar, Peerzadiguda, Ghatkesar Mandal, Rangareddy District (Appellant No.3 Declared as Major and discharged from here guardian vide court order dated: 05.07.2019 in l.A.No.2 of 2018 ...AppellanUClaimants 3 AND

1. A P S R T C, rep. by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, R.T.C. X Roads; Mushirabad, Hyderabad.

2. Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, HCU Depot, HCU, Hyderabad. (Owners of the RTC Bus bearing No.AP-29-Z-1572) ...Respondents/Respondents M.A.C.M.A.No: 3450 of 2018 Between: 1 Telangana State Road Transport Corporation,(Prior to bifurcation known as APSRTC), represented by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, RTC X Roads, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

2. Depot Manager, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (Prior to bifurcation known as APSRTC), HCU Bus Depot, HCU, Hyderabad. (Owners of RTC bus bearing No.AP 29 Z 1572\ AppellanURespondents. 7 AND 2 3 1 T. Parvathamma, \,^//o. Pedda Nagabhushnam, Aged about 44 years, Occ. Household, R/o. Plot No'19 and 2b, Parvathi Nagir, peergidiguda, Ghatkesar It4andal. T Peddalllagabhushnam, S/o. T. Venkata Ramana, Aged about 47 years, Occ. Nil, R/o Plot No.19 and 20, parvathi Nagar, peer[idiguda, Gha[kesai Ir/la ndal. T Ir/1. Mahitha, D/o. i. pedda Student, R/o Plot No.19 and 20. Parvathi Nagai peergidigudi, Ghatkesar Ma ndal. lagabhushnam, Aged about 17 years, Occ. (RespondentNo.3 being minor, represented by her mother and natural guardian i.e. Resporrdent No 3, namely T. parvathamma herein) ...Respondents/petitioners Appeal under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in M V o P.No 628 of 2014 in both Appeals dated 09.04.201 8 on the file of the court of the chairman Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum-chief Judge, city civil court, Hyderabad in both Appeals. 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 argument of sri r.vrshwarupa charry, Advocate for the Appellants in Macma No.2BB l of 2018 and Respondents in MACMA.No.3450 of 2018 and Sri R.Anurag (SC for RTC0 for Respondents in MACMA.No.2B8.1 of 2018 and Appellants in MACMA.No.3450 of 2018. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1 . that the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.28g.t of 2018 be and hereby dismissed.

2. that the MACMA.No.3450 of 2018 be and hereby parfly Allowed. 3. That the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunar be and hereby reducing the compensation from Rs.22,28,600/_ to Rs..l 6, 57,41 9/_(Rupees Sixteen Lakh Fifty seven Thousand and Four Hundred and Nineteen Rupees only) with interest @ 9o/o p.a on the compensation amount from the date of petition with the date of realization.

4. That the respondent be and hereby directed to deposit the said amount together with costs and rnterest after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of two months from the receipt of a copy of this judgment

5. That the compensation amount shall be apportioned among the claimants in the same manner and ratio as ordered by the learned Tribunal.

6. On such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the same without furnishing any surety.

7. However, it is made clear that, if the claimants had already wrthdrawn the excess compensation amount, if any, the RTC Corporation is not entitled to recover the same from the claimants

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

9. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPY// SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (with records) 2 Two CD Copies KVR/nvb Y{ HIGH COURT DATED:2210912025 DECREE MACMA.Nos.2881 and 3450 a{ 2018 ..,rrt1.iii , i1 l: //,, < //t*' ,t/ c) ilc, * t,qI4 2 4 l{l,i 1q26 Z * eF DISMISSING THE MACMA.No,2881 OF 2018 AND PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA.No.34S0 OF 2O1B "). I-\teY fts-