The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circunrr tances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may t: pleased to vacate the interim stay order passed in MACMA MP No. 1179 of 2l 6, cjated 10-3-2016 in MACtt/A SR No. 21004/2015 to enable the petitioner h 3 ein to withdraw the amount of compensation awarded to hirm inthe OP No. 7 I 12012 on the file of the Ill Addl. District Judge (MACT) at Karimnagar in the in r.est of Justice and equity. Counsel for the Appellant : Sri. N. Chandra Sekhar Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: Sri Ramachandar Raor emuganti The Court delivered the following: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA M.A.C.M.A.NO.579 0F 2021 JUDGMENT: This appeal is liled by the RTC, aggrieved by thc Order and Decrec dated O 1.10.20 14 in M.V.O.P.No.74I of 2OI2 passed by the Chairman. Motor Vchicle Accidcnt Claims Tribunal-cum-[[l Adclitional District Judge, Karimnagar (for short "the Tribunal")

2. For convenicncc and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as illiry ',,r,c re arraycd before the Tribunal.

3. 'fhe case of the petitioner before the Tribunal is that on

07.O5.2O 11 thc petitioner along with his family went to Sulthanabad in an auto and got down in the bus stand at about l8:30 hours to go io Godavarikhani and that while the petitioner \rras going to the bus stand, one RTC bus bearing No.AP-11-2-217 coming from Godavarikhani being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manncr at a higl-r speed, dashed the petitioner lrom behind, as a result the petitioner sustained crush injury to his tefL lcg ancl other bleeding injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Aditya OrLhocare Hospital and incurred huge medical expenses. Thus, he claimed a compensation of Rs.3,O0,000/-. 4 l The respondent No. 1 remained ex-parte. ) \q-- 2 ETD,] IACMA N0.579-2021

5. 'll-re respondent No.2 has filed countcr- denying the avcrments of thc l)etition witl-r rcgard to [hc oc: r.rence of the accident aqe, ai,ocation and income of thc pctitior-rc' It is further cLrnlcnded lhat therc is no nr:qliqcnce of the bus dr r L - and that Lhe accident occunc<i cluc to thc ncgligence of the fetiri ,ner and thus submitled that the! arc not liablc to pay any comll,rrr ,irti()n-

6. Bascd on thc abovc pleadings, trial Court 1r s framecl the lollowing issucs I,,r I rial: Llll?l) t)i l)rc (u:.i(k'111 ha(l ott;trr<:<7 dtLe k) ro-sh i,, I nettlilletLt dtitit,.t ol the off<ttdiq uehick' t.e.. n P-SRIC Bu-s bctt t r No..\P 11 Z 2l7 rlntnrt brl tls dnuer? 2 Wllellrcr lle lreLiltoter rs c/rlil/e(./ lo corrpcns(rtiorr, ti ;o, Io wlui entout tl ()rd fronl tlrlloiL?

3. 'l','t u t xt r( licf.)

7. To provc his casc, petitioner gol examined PU' 1 & 2 ancl got marked Exs.A1 to A13. On bchalf of the rcsponrl nts, RWl was cxamined.

8. Based on rhe evidence on record, the Tribun; has granted a compensation of Rs.2,74,00O/-. Aggrieved by thr-' : aid award, the present appeal is preferred by thc RTC.

9. Heard the submissions of Sri N. Chandrzr i hekar, learned Standing Counscl for TSRTC and Sri Rarr achander Rao Vemuganti, learncd counsel for respondent No.1. I 3 ETD,J MACMA No.579 2021

10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submilted that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner when he tried to cross the runnrng bus to reserve his seat, and thal there is no negligcnce of RTC driver. He further argued that without there bcing any income proof the tribunal has assessed Lhe monthly income to be Rs.5,000/ and has also granted huge amounts undcr various heads. He thercfore, prayed to reduce the compensation.

11. Learned counscl for the respondents on the other hand has submitted rha[ the R'lC driver has admitted his guilt in his cross cxamination before the tribunal and sLated that he has paid fine. Hc lurther submitted that the accident occurred only due to the rash and ncgligence of the bus driver and therefore, prayed to uphold Lhc orders passed by the tribunal. i1. In vieu' of the above rival contcntions, the points that arise for consideration in this Appeal are as follows:- whether there uas ang contibutory negligence on part of the petitioner in tlrc occurrence of accident? Whetlrcr lhe conlpensat[on granted bg the tibunaL ts just ttnd reasotrcrble? Whether tfLe order and decree of the tribunal need. anA interfe rence? To wlnt relief ? I 2 3 4 ) \ ETD,J No.579 2021 ^CMA 4 12 . Point No. 1: a) The contention of the appellant counsel is thr r the act ict,.nt - occurred due to the sole negligcr-rce of the petitioner b) Thc conLenrs of tl-re charJ3c shc.c-t revcal that r, r :ilecl ag:u;tst lhc drivcr of RTt bus and lhc recir;rls of thc charg. ,l..eeL are lltat thc accident occurrcd due to the rash and negligcnr lriving of r l-re l?TC bus bearing No.AP- I l-Z-217 by its driver urs dzrshed the petilioner r,vho rvas going to the Godavarikhani bus r, tr.rd resulting in <:rush injury to thc leit leg. RWl/the drivcr ol ,t1-C Bus rvas examined bcforc the tribunal ar-rci it is clicited clr r ng l.ris cross cxamination that. hc admittccl his gr-rilt in thc crirri rirl court and paid fine. The contention of the appcllant counsel is that the said admission cannot be taken into consideration 11l :hc- crinrinal proceeding shall not have any binding on this c;t ; pW 1 is the injured witness. His evidencc also is of utm,r, importzutce. Corrsidering facts and circumsLances of the case, ) t. cvidenr:e of PWI and based on the recitals of charge sheet, it is held thar the accident occurred due to thc rash and negligence of he RTC driver and that there is no negligcnce of the petitioner het-ri r Point No.1 is answered accordingly. I 5 ETD,,I MACMA No.579 2021

13. Point No.2:- a) The petitioncr is stated to have sustained grievous injures i.e., crush injury to his left leg and was admitted into hospital for treaLment ol his i11nry i.c., Gradc lll cornpound lracture The medical certificate / Ex.A3 revcals thc said injury sustained by thc petitioner. Ex.A5 is the disabitity certificate issued by the medical board showing that hc sustained 15% of disability in the accident and he has also filed a bunch of medical prescriptions under trx.A6 eliciting that he underwent conlinuous treatment and had to purchase several mcdicines. The bilts filed under Ex.A7 are supported by' thc prescriptions under Dx.A6. The discharge summaries of Aditya Ortho Care Hospital are filed under Ex.A8 and A9 u,hich revcal that l[-re pe Litioner was admitted on O7.05.2O 1 1 and was discharged on 22.05.2011 and on the second occasion hc was again admitted on 28.1 l.2Ol2 and discharged on

29.11.2012 and thereafter, he went for follow up treatment many a b) PW2lDr. V. Chandra Shekar, is an Orthopedic Surgeon in Aditya Hospital, his evidence reveals that the petitioner was treated for fracture of his left leg. The above evidence reveals the details of the treatment underwent by the petitioner, which also shows that .- 6 L,TD,J r ACM^ No.579 2021 he must havc suffercd acute pain and suffering rl I .ing the said period. c) The Tribunal has au,arcled roasonable amor-t r- s r-tndcr t.[-rc he:Lds of pain ancl suffcring to an cxtcnt o1 IIs.2S,OOO/ , Rs.3O,O00/- tou,ards transportation and cxtra norL ishment :tncl Rs.84,539/ - Lowards the medical bills submitted ltr. .rc pctitioner. Further, his ezrrnings were asscssecl as Rs.5,000/ _ I r m<>nth :Lnd functional disability is asscssed as 15% and ],ts au.:ri.rlcd Rs. 1,35,000/ tor.r'ards loss of fulurc earnings .ccL. r :.1 c]uc tc- thc disability an<l I'rcncc has arr.ivcd at a corr ),t.saLtolt of Rs.2,74,OOOl- r,vhich is found to be just and reasonal rr. Point No.2 is answered accordingly. 14 . Point No.3:- ln vieu, of the finding arrived at point No.1, tlt re is no necd to intcrfcre wiLh the order and decrce passed by thc -riltunal and therefore, the sante is uphcld. Poinr No.3 is answered accordingly.

15. Point No.4:- In the result, the appeal is dismissed uphol: ng the Order and Decree dated 01.1O.2014 in M.V.O.p.No.741 of .), )12 passecl by (a 7 EID,I MACMA NO,579 2021 the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal_cum_lll Additional District Judge , Karimnagar. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall s tan cl closed Sd/. M. OSMAN ALI B A SISTANT RE AR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

2. J- 4. AS/D \(, -\( TheChairman,MotorAccidentCIaimsTribunal-CUm-Chairman,tvlotorVehicle Accidents Tribunal, Karimnagar. (With records) One CC to Sri. N. Chandra Sekhar, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri Ramachandar Rao Vemuganti, Advocate IOPUCI Two CD Copies L ': '; 'l EO / t I lllrfl zut HIGH COURT DATED:15/09/2025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.579 of 2021 DISMISSING THE APPEAL G .k. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 579 OF 2021 Between: The APSRTC, rep. by its MD-cum-Vice President, lt4usheerabad, Hyderabad ...AppellanURespondent No. 2 AND

1. Posani Madhuraiah @ tt4adhunaiah, S/o. Raiaiah, Age 40 years, Occ. Agriculture and [,'lilk Vendor, R/o. Perkapalli H/o lt/iyapur (V), Sulthanabad (l\,4 ), Karimnagar District. ...Respondent/Petitioner 2 Ashoda t\,'lallesh, Sio. Pedda Narsaiah, Age 50 years, Occ. Driver of RTC bus bearing No.AP-11 Z-217, Godavarikhani Depot, Fl/o. lMallapur (V), Dharmavaram (M), Karimnagar District ...RespondenURespondent - 1 Appeal filed under Section 173 of lvl.V.Act, against Order and Decree dated 01-10-2014 passed in MVOP No.74112012 on the file of the court of the Charrman, Motor Accident Claims Tribu nal-cum-Chairman, lr,4otor Vehicle Accrdents Tribunal, Karrmnagar. 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 N. Chandra Sekhar, Advocate for the Appellant and Sri Ramachandar Rao Vemuganti, Advocate for Respondent No.

1. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and is dismissed upholding the order and decree dated 01.'10.2014 in M.V.O.P. No. 741 of 201 passed by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Cl; irns Tribunal-cum_lll Additional District Judge, Karimnagar; and

2. That there sharl be no order as to costs in this aooeal ..Q^P"'r^: Gr, f ft..{ L.te o.A c,!c,e&^fc, -r*,r J ec'' ce o{;";rt"il[ .a+-,r , ,.r'lt ror'{i r"' eC f,n oJr olra, igillr?iYHAiJrP#8 't l\ \-.-- //TRUE COPY// To, 2 AS/DL \? The chairman, Motor Accident claims Tribunal-"rr-:: '' , Karimnagar. t Two CD Cop es sEcrroru OFFICER \w''r'l r:fil*"ll"rcc HIGH COURT DATED:15/09/2025 DECREE MACMA.No.579 of 202'1 DISMISSING THE APPEAL \8,.Ad' t\-ff