High Court · 2025

: Sri Jagathpal Reddy Kasi Reddy Counsel for the Respondents in MACMA No. Z72S of 20,t6 and for the Appellants in MACMA No. 75g oI 20,17 : Sri R. Anurag (SC for TSRTC) The Court delivered the following COMMON JUDGMENT: , t I ,14 THE HONOURABLE SMT' JUSTICE M.G.PRTYADARSINI M.A.c.M .A.No.2725 of 20L6 AND M.A.c.M.A.No. 758 of2077 coMMON JUDG 1 Aggrieved bY the order Passed bY the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal --cum- XIII Additional Chief Judge (Fast Hyderabad, (for short' 'the Track Court), CitY Civil Court at Tribunal) in M'V'O'P'No '2048 ot 2Ol2' d'aLed' 27 04'2076' the petitioner/injured filed M'A C M'A No '27 25 of 2O 16 seeking to allow the Appeal by enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and the respondents/ RTC in the said M'VOPhled M.A.C.M'A.No.758of2ol7seekingtoset'asidetheorderpassedby the learned Tribunal' Since bottr the appeals arise out of the common order passed in M V O P No 2048 of 2O12' they have been dealt with together and being disposed of bv way ol this common judgment.

2. For the sake of convenience' the parties hereinafter be referred as they were arrayed before Lhc learned Tribunal' 3. The brief facts of the case zrre thal- the petitioner hled a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act' 1988 and Rule 455 of A.P'M'V'Rules' 1989 claiming compcnsation of Rs. IO,O0,OOO/- for the injuries sustaincd by him in a motor vehiclc . i I ! I I I I I i L l 2 MC P,J Macna Nos.2?25 of20t6 a758 of20t7 accident that occurred on !1.06.2012. As stated by the petitioner, on ll.06.2012, when ttre petitioner was proceeding slowly on his Hero Honda Passion Pro Motorcycle bearing No.AP-24AL-9760 from Alair to\vards Jangaon on the extreme left side of the road and when rr'ached near Kandigadda Thanda Bus stage on National Highwal No. 163, Alair Mandal, Nalgonda District, at about 8. 10 P.M., the driver of APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP-292-2I21 of Jangaon depot came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner at high speed by overtaking another vehicle and dashed to the mot,lrcycle of the petitioner, due to which, the petitioner fell dou,n lrom his motorcycle and sustained Grade I[[ compound segmental fracture of both bones of right Ieg with PTRA, Exposed Tibia in middle 1/3r4, forehead injury and other injuries all over the body. Immediately, he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Sccunderabad for treatment and aJter medical examrnations, he urrderu,ent surgery on 19.O7.2012 for both bones fracture of right femur soft skin grafting of PTRA under GA with plate and screu.s cftrne, u,ound closed is layers, ASD done, knee bracc npplied and incr.rrrcd Rs.3O,OOO/- towards medical expenses and medicine charges.

4. It is stated by the petitioner that he is aged 20 rears and is u-orking as a private employee and used Lo earn as sum of t : I : l i l I I I I I I I I l i i I i I I t I I 1 t t I 1 MGP'J o!20t6 &758 ol2o17 t'tacflo Nos: '72s Rs.89oo/- per month' Due to *t t'U-*':-,:jl"re became unfit and r.rnable to rnove from bed and is still undergoing gtt't" fif"a claim petition seeking compensatlon treaunent 'as outpatient' against Lhe respondents/ RTC'

5. Based on a complarnt' Police of Alair- Police Statlon' Nalgonda District' t"*t"*;"; a case in Crirne No 67 of 2o12 under section 337 of IPc' 6. Respondents / Rfl; frled its counter denyln made in the claim petrtron including' rnanner of accident' age' avocadon' earning capacity' medical expenditure incurred' bus and contended that the claim of and exorbiEnt and therefore prayed to . rg the averrnents of driver of "'it" involvernent compensation " "*"t"" dismiss the claim against it' 7. Based on the above pleadings ' the learned Tribunal had framed the following issrlss:- ' W,W,rM*'hr[r:,# i;i{* 2' "'l"l;#'*'['etitioner'::::::::i':;::^' ond from comPensatbi? If so' to what L) rahom? 3 To uhnt relieJ? I \ I 4 Macna Nos.272s o/20t6 a?s8 y;:l 8. Befbre the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioner, pWs 1 & 2 were examined and Exs.AI to Ag were marked. On behalf of responden ts / RTC, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 9. After considering the evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal had partly_allowed the claim petition by awarding compensa:ion of Rs.7,25,OOO/_ along with interest @ 9o/o per annum from thc date of petition till the date of realization payable by the respondent Nos. I & 2 jointly and severally. AgSrieved bv the samc, M.A.C.M.A.2Z2S of 2016 is filed by thc petitioner/ njured seeking enhancement of compensation and M.A.C.M.A.No.758 of 2OtZ is filed by Respondents/RTC seeking ro set-aside tl- e order of the learned Tribunal.

10. Hearrl arguments submitted by Sri Jagathpal Reddy Kasi Reddy, lean'red counsel for the petitioners in M.A.C.M.A.N.2725 of 2016 and Sri S.Manish, learned counsel representing Sri R.Anurag, Standing Counsel Iearned respondents/ RTC/appellant in M.A.C.M.A.Z58 of 20tZ.

11. The contentions of the learned counsel for appellant/ inj u red in M.A.C- M..\. No.2725 of 2016 are that the learned Tribunal errerl in considering rhe income of the petitioner @ Rs.SOOO/- instead ol Rs.8,OOO/. as hc being Graduate; it also ought to have awardcd fua-pre prospecrs as the injuries sustained by the petitioncr arc t I 1 5 MCP 'J Mrc-a Nos 27 25 ol 20 1 6 &7 iE oI 2017 grievous in nature; it a-iso failed to award cornPensation under the heads of transportation' loss of marital alliance' physiotherapy charges and ought to have awarded more interest @ L2o/o per annum instead ol 9%o arrdtherefore prayed to allow the Appeal by enhancing the compensation amount' 12. On the other hand' the contentions of the learned counsel for Respondents/ RTC /appellants in MACMA' 75a of 2Ol7 are that the learned Tribunal ought to have seen that ttrere was contributory negligence on part of the injured motorcyclist who hit the rear side of RTC Bus coming in opposite direction ' as such' the owner and insurer of the rnotorcyctre should be made as necessary parti'es to the petition; it also failed to see that tlrere was no independent eye ,'r'itness to corroborate th€ contents of Ex'A2-charge shect' as such' the charge sheet cannot be relied upon to establish the negligence on parL of RTC driver; it also ought to have considered the income ol lhe petitioner @ Rs'3'OOO/- instead of Rs'S'OOO/- and' also erred in assessing the multiplier in the absence of age proof and also arr,r'arded excess interes t @ g% per annum and therefore requested to se[ aside the order of the learned Tribunal by altowing the Appcal Now the point that emerge for consideration ts' 13 \ 6 MGP J Macna Nos 2725 ol2016 &758 of20l7 0 (ii) Whether tle order pdssed bg the learned Tibunat requires interference of this Court? Whether the appellant/ injured in MACMA.2725 of 2016 is entitled for enhancement of compensation? Points:- 14. Since one of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for appellant/ RTC in M.A.C.M.A.758 of 2Ol7 is regarding contributory negligence on part of the injured motorcyclist, this Court is irrclined to look into the said aspect for arriving at a correct hncting.

15. A perusal of Ex.Al-FIR clearly discloses that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of RTC Bus bearing No.Ap-29-Z-212 I and the petitioner/injured sustained severe injurries to his Icgs and other parts. Police of Alair Police Station, NzLlgonda District, registered a case in Crime No.67 /2012, conducted investigatron and flled charge sheet against the driver of alleged RT{} Bus.

16. Thor-rgh learned Standing Counsel representing appellant/ RTC in M.A.C.M.A.758 of 2017 contended that the charge she:et cernnot bc taken into consideration as there was no independcrrt eye u'itncss Lo corroborate its contents, however it failed to adduce any.cvidence chailenging the said charge sheet. gince charge sheet/final report can be a significant factor in 7 MGP,J i4@tio Nos.2725 of20l6 &75E of20l7 determining negligence in a claim for compensation' the learned Tribunal found negligence on part of the driver of subject RTC bus based on the said charge sheet' As there was contributory negligence on part of the driver of crime RTC bus' the question of making the owner and insurer of the motorcycle as necessary parties to the claim petition' does not arise' Hence the contention ofthelearnedStandingCounselforappellant/RTCint}risregard remains unsustainable' 17. The other contendon of the learrred Standing Counsel for appellant/RTC in MACMA'758 of 2Ol7 is with regard to quantum of compensalion l'earned counsel contended that the Tribunal erredintakingtheincomeofthepetitioneronhighersidewithout any docume ntary Proof' 18- On the other hand' the contentions of t]le l'earned counsel lor appell.rn ts / clzrimants in MACMA'27 25 of 2OL6 are that the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the income of the petitioner (r' Rs-8,00O/- as the petitioner being a pursing Graduate and ought [o havc arvarded luture prospects on the established income and ought to have a'"varded more compensation' 19. A perusal of the quantum of compensation in the impugned judgment shou's that the learned Tribunal, in the absence o[ documcntan, proof showing the income of ttre petitioner, hxed his 8 MOP,J Macma No'.2725 oJ20l6 &758 ol20t 7 income @) Rs.5,00O/- per month, considered the percentage of disability sustained by the petitioner under Ex.A7, applied multiplier 18 by considering the age of the petitioner as mentioned in Ex.A7-Disability Certihcate and calculated loss of future earnings on account of disability as under:- [,oss of furure earnings on account of disability = monthly income x 12 x percentage of disability x multiplier. : Rs.5,00O/- x 12 x44%ox 18 = Rs.4,75,2OOl- 20. A perusal of the above calculation shows that the leamed Tribunal, ,lonsidering the date o[ accident, percentage of disability and educational qualification of the petitioner, has rightly calculated loss of futurc earninqs on account of disability and there is no error crept in to clelve lnto lhc samc. Hence, this Court do not find any reason to inrcrlerc rvith the hnding given by the Tribunal as it is in propcr pcrsp(..lrvc.

21. As far as future prospccts are concerned, since the petitioner sustained disability (ti 44oA to his right lower limb and not the whole bodl', this Court is not rnclined to award future prospects to the income of the petitioncr. Moreover, the Hon,ble Apex Court has emphasizerl that compensatlon for future prospects should be considered in cases o[ permancnl disablement or diminished I l 1 I 1 I I t I 1 I 1 i 9 MCP,J ituna Nos 2725 oI2O t 6 &7 5E oI 2017 petitloner earning capacity due to injuries' In the instant case' as the i5 ns msnual work is working as supervisor and ther€ him, he can continue his work by giving necessary done bY instructions to the concerned without any obstructlon' 22. Apart from awarding loss of earnings on account of disability, the learned Tribunal also granted a sum of Rs'3O'OOO/- towards loss of amenities' Rs 5O'0OO/- towards pain and suff€ring and mental agony, Rs 5O'00O/- towards extra nourishment' travelling and attendant charges' Rs' 1'00'O0O/- for loss of earnlngs and Rs.20,O0O/ - tor'r'ards future medical expenses' This Court finds the said amounts to be reasonable and is not inclined to interfere with the same' 23. As far as interest is concerned' t]re learned Tribunal awarded excess interes t (ti' 9o/'t per annum on the compensation amount' This Court, by relying upon lhe decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajesh arrd ottrers v' Rajbir Singh and othersl' reduces the rate of interesl auarclccl by the Tribunal from 9Yo Lo 7 '5o/o pet

24. In the rcsult, M-A.c M.A No'2725 of 2016 frled by the appellant/ ctaimant is dismissed and M A'C'M'A'No'758 of 2Ol7 r 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 ('l) AL1'35 I l1 I t I I I I l I IO rtocha ,\os )725 of 20t6 *rtt y9;1, filed by RTC is partly-allowed by reducing the rate of interest awarded cy the Tribunal from 9o/o to 7 .5o/o p.a. Except the said frnding, the frndings arrived by the Tribunal in all other aspects shall remain same. There shall be no order as to costs.

25. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed SD/.A.SREENIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITRUE COPY// , sEcflPf.l'oFFtcER I The Motor Accidents craims Tribunar-cum-Xfl r Additionar chief Judge, (Fast Track Court), City Civit court, uyoeiauroi*itn'r""i,ij!]'n ""vf One CC to Sri Jagathpal Reddy Kasi Reddy, Advocate [OpUC] One CC to Sri R. Anurag (SC for TSRTC) tOpUCl To, 1 2 2 VTYPSL Y"

4. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED: Z4tO3t2O2S C.OMMON JUDGMENT+DECRE MACMA.No.2t2| of 2016 AND MACMA.No.7S8 ot Z01t .5 'Ji .i:l '. t.: l;. 2 l st? ?s6 :i 'i '-i.. 1":... / . DISMISSING THE MACMA.No.2ZZS of 2016 AND PARTLY ALLOWING THE fi/fACMA.No. 7S8 of Z01t WTHOUT COSTS ^I t; co((ud kr* I t ! ) I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THETWENW FOURTH DAY OF MARCH ."- .-.T\^iO TI-IOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE ilI.G.PRIYADARSINI MACM A NO: 27 zsoF 2016 ANO MACM A NO: 75goFmfi MAC MAN :2725O 2016 F Between: J.RaiuS/o.J.Parvathalu,occPvtEmployeeR/oHNo3-Tl.RamshivaNagar' "oiitii"1 P;;;hfl t R/o H No' 1 -2-2 45t25D' Achaiah Alair'Madnal, Nalso#"; l.iigar, Tilatnagar,HYderabad' APPELLANT'PETITIONER AND 1 The APSRTC, represented by its Managing Direclor' Musheerabad' RTC X Roads, HYderabad. 2 The APSRTC, represenled by its Depot Manager' Jangaon depot' Jangaon' Warangal District ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS MACMA NO: 758 0F 2017 Betvveen:

1. The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation' (Prir:r to bifurcation known as The Andhra pradesh'dtit"'n",Ij''i'rra'ri.-port c*potrtion),.represented by il il;;{iffi ilt""t-, r'ruInlJ"o"o' n i c X Road!' Hvderabad 2. The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation' (Prior to bifurcation knonrt as The Andhra p raoesn ttate''nJJi' r"ti'i#"tt. c oiporalion)' represented by ii ol$"t'r,4"ris.,, J'ng'i;d"pot' Langaoh' warangal District' (Owner of the T S.R T C (prior to known as APSRTC) Bus bearing No'AP 292 )121 of Jangaon DePot) ...APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS J Raiu S/o. J Parvathalu' Aged 28 years' O^cc Private Emolovee' H No'3-71' AND Ramshiva N'agar, Alair M{d;i'iG;;;i' 6itt'iti Prsenflv reskleht 6f H No' 1-2- i;i/#ij, A;diri' N,g", rilaknagai Hvderabad Appeats fited under section 173 of Motor ri:::::::::[r* order and Decree dated 27.04.2016 passed in op No.204g ot 2012 on the file of the court of the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal-cum-Xil l Additional chief Judge, (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad. - These appeals 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 MVOP and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Jagathpat Reddy Kasi Reddy, Advocate for the appellant in MACMA No.272i of 2016 and of Sri R Anurag (SC for TSRTC, counsel for the Respondents in MACMA No. zz2s of 2016 and for the appellants in MACMA No. 758 of 2017. This Court doth Order and Decrce as follows:

1. That the MACMA NO hereby is dismissed; 2725 ol 2016 filed by the appeilanUctaimant be and

2. That the MACMA No. 7S8 of 2017 filed by RTC be and hereby is parfly_ allowed by reducing the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunar from g% to 7 .5o/o p-a..,

3. That the findings arrived by the Tribunal in all other aspects shalr remain same i

4. That there shall be no order as to costs in these appeals. SD/.A.SREENIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR To, /ITRUE COPY// sEcnb&d 1 The Motor AcckJents Claims Tribunal-cum-Xlil Additionat Cf.'riei Jrag 2 Iwo CD Copies Track Courtl, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. FFICER e, (Fast vH \q- HIGH COURT DATED: 24t03t2025 DECREE MACMA.N o.2725 of 2016 AND MACMA.No.7S8 of 2012 DISMISSING THE MACMA.N o.2T2S ot 2016 AND PARTLY ALLOWNG THE MACMA.No. 758 ot Z01t WITHOUT COSTS r-l ,dd X-,