The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondents : ANNAPURNA SREERAM The Court delivered the following ; JUDGMENT HONO URABLE SMT.JUS TICE M.G.PRTY M.A.C.M. A.No.235O oF 2016 ADARSINI JUDGMENT: Aggrieved by the order and decree dated l4'O7 '2015 (hereinafterwillbereferredas.impugnedorder,)passedbythe Iearned Judge, Family Court-cum-Vl Additional District and Sessions Judge, at Nalgonda (hereinafter will be referred as Tribunat,)ino.P.No.666of2o13,therespondent/Corporation has frled the present Appeal to set aside the impugned order'

2. For the sake of convenience' the parties hereinafter are referrecl as [hey were arrayed before the Tribunal' The bricf facts of the case as can be seen from the record 3 are as under a) The petitioner filed claim petition under Section 166 of tlre Motor Vchiclc Act claiming compensation of Rs' l 'O0'0OO/ on account of thc inlurtes against the resPondent/ APSTRC trafhc accident occurred on sustained bY him in the road 27.06.2013 As per the petitioner' on 27 '06 '2O 13 he lcft house toselllcecreamonTVSxLbearingNo.AP35Cg4Taandw,as returning at about 06'00 PM' when he reached near Rajiv Chowk, Miryataguda town, one APSRTC bus bearing No'AP 28 Z 384 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed .- against his TVS XL from rear side' as a result' the petitioner 2 recerved grievous injuries. Immediatery, he \\,irs shifted to sri Sat5raparameswary Orthopedic Hospital, Miryalaguda and took treatment as in-patient trom 22.06.2O13 to 15.07.2013. 4. Based on the complaint, Mirylaguda II Town police registered a case in Crime No. 156 of 20 13 unde _ Section 33g of IPC against the driver of ApSTRC. It is further n)ntended that the accident occurred only due to the rash and ncgligent driving of the APSTRC bus driver, as such, respondenrs are liable to pay compensation.

5. Respondent filed counter dcnied the aver-ments of the claim petition, age, avocation, income and further contended that the claim o[ compensation is excessive and exorbitant and that there is no rash ancl negligencc on the part o ttre RTC bus driver. Hence, respondcnts arc not liable to pay r:ompensation aIld prayed to dismiss lhe pctrtion. 6' Based on the above plcadings, the Tribunai rramed the following issues: i) Whether the accident occurred on 27.O6.2,O13 utas due to the rash end negligent driuing of the diuer of ApSfRC bus bearing No.Ap 28 Z 3g4 ttnd whether the cla nant T. pandu Naik sustained injuie:;? i0 Wltether the cloimant is entitled for compen.;ation, if so, to tDhat amount and from uhom? 3 MCP.J iii) To uthat reliej?

7. In order to establish his claim before the learned Tribunal, PWs. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.Al to AS were exhibited on behalf ol the petitioner. On behalf of respondent, no oral and documentary are adduced.

8. The learned Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, passed the impugned order awarding an amounr of Rs.98,7OO/- with interest @g% per annum from the date of petition till date of deposit. Aggrieved by the same, the Appe[[ant/APSRTC filed the present Appeal to set a side the impugned order.

9. Heard Sri Nrlampuri Chandrashekar, learned Standing Counsel for the Appellant/APSRTC, Smt S.Annapurna, learned counsel for the Respondcnt/Claimant and perused the uater-ial available on record including the grounds of Appeal.

10. It is to be sccn that injured claimant has not preferred any appeal sceking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learncd Tribunal. I 1. First and loremost contention of the learned Standing 't ,Counsel for the appellant/APSTRC, there is no rash and t negligence on the part of the RTC bus driver ; in fact the accident occurred due to the negligence of the petititrner.

12. A perusal of Ex.A-1/FIR and trx.A 2 /Chargc Sheet clearly discloses that crime vehicle was driven at high speed and in rash and negligent manner due to which the le titioner has suffered grievous inj u rics.

13. It is pertinent to state that cxcept taking thc plerr of rash and negligence on the part of the petit-roner, the appellant/APsRTC has nor adduced either oral or clocumentary evidence to prove the same nor giveu complatnt b<: bre the police authorities that investigation was not properly dorre and a false case has been foisted against the RTC bus driver Llnder these circumstances, this Court is of the considered oprnlon that the Iearned Tribunal has rightly ansrvcred the f-rrst isslrc of rash and negligence on the part of thc RTC bus drivcr, for which interference o[ this Court is unwarranted.

74. Now coming to the compensation amount. the learned counsel for the appell.rnt argued that u,ithout any kind of documentar5r proof, Lhc learned 'lribunal has a.r'ardt:d huge arnount towards compensation. Hence, prayed t,r reduce the 5

15. This Court has perused the calculation made by the learned Tribunal for awarding compensalion. As per the petitioner, he is selling ice-cream and claimed compensation of Rs. 1,OO,OOO/-. The learned Tribunal considering the nature of injuries has granted Rs.2O,OOO/- for each of the grievous injury, totaling Rs.4O,OOO/ - for two injuries, for the medical bill Rs.28,4OO/-, for pharmacy bill Rs.6,360/-, for transportation Rs.4,000/-, for extra nourishment Rs. 1O,0O0/- and for loss of income Rs. 15,000/-, which appears to be just and reasonable. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the hnding of the learned Tribunal which are in proper perspective. Hence, in view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appeal is devoid of merit or substance ald liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. To, 1' D . SD/. MOHD.ISMAIL EpurY REGISTRAR I.._ I'becnot oFFtcER /TTRUE COPY// 1 2 The Judge, Family Court- Cum-Vl Additional District and Sessions Judge' At Nalgonda. One CC to SRI CHANDRA SEKHAR N (SC FOR TSRTC ZONE 2) Advocate IoPUCI 3 One CC to SRI ANNAPURNA SREERAM Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies svs/PSL lflr HIGH COURT DATED:2710212A25 JUDGMENT + DECREE MACMA.No.2350 of 2016 ,. r\ ::l ,.:^ . 1 ,. : i[ DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS 6 Gf"I "e-" _ --11'-_ -:.:::-.- ..: :-t. -ii,:.{:if\ , .i3 ,/. ; ..t\ 'i'^i. i,' <r l. c .' irip zoz5 ll ii ..,: i) . *:' ,',' t ',.1 -,. ' . :-j ",.1.,'.,rli ...-,t .,{tF IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD I HURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF I,-LLIITUI\IIY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MI SCELLANEOUS APP AL NO: 2350 OF 2016 Between: The Managing Director, APSRTC, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. AND F' ---TEf Thelavath Pandu Nark, s/o Laxma, Age 40 years, occ. lce cream Business frr. llapuram Village of Miryatguda Mandal of Nalgonda District. ... A ppella nUR es pon d e n t ...RespondenUPetttt on e r Appear tired Under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act agarnst the Judgmerr and decree in M v o P No 666/2013, dated. 14-07-2015 on the file of the Judgc Family Court- Cum Vl Additional Drstrrct and Sessions Judge, At Nalgonda. This appeal coming on for hearrng and upon perusing the grounds of a Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the mat,erial pipers in the upon hearing the arguments of Sri Chandra Sekhar N (SC FOR APSRTC) for'the Appellant and Annapurna Sreeram, Advocate for the respondents ppeal, the Case a rrd Advocate This Court doth Order and Decree as follows :

1. That the Motor Accrdent Crvrl Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby IS Dismissed

2. That There sttall be no orcler as to costs. SD/. MOHD.ISMAIL OEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/' .,I' SECTION OFFICER To, 1 Ilrir .rudqe I arrrtly Cr-rtrrl Culn-Vl Adtjitiortzrl t)tstrict arrd Sesstorrs JLr(l(Jc, l\t N al!lor rd a -' I rrvr r (i[) Coptt", \r r il'S I Y3 HIGH COURT DATED:27l02tZLZ| DECREE MACMA.No.2350 of 2016 DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS qcoj(o\ h. raatas