The High Court · 2025

: SRI R.ANURAG (SC FOR TSRTC) Counsel for the ResPondents :None MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MI s APPE AL No.257 0 0F 2016; Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section '173 of the Motor V"ti"f". A"t, aggrieved OVlt" "frag;.ri"nt and Decree dt.'l 1.05.2015,passed in rr,r.v.o.p.N". Z 11-O oI 2o13"oi the fiti of the court of the Motor Accidents claims iiiorn"r -cum Xtll Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), city civil court at Hyderabad. Between: 1 Smt.Kistapuram @ Ramannagari Aruna, Wo -Sg!he3s.h, 6Uil;iiJr,' H;;;h;Id, R/". ft . No-3-5-246/ 1 0/2A, Rajmohalla Naravans uda' Hyderabad 500 029. agq! l0 years' 2 3 5'::1H',"#g.,sfsf, :ill'ffi ''ill3ltlH'ii&li1F$3fl?t"40Years' Narayanguda, HYderabad 500 029' Kistapuram @ Ramannagari Srishaildm, S-/o Late Narsaiah' aged 45 years' i;;il;ffi iu'r. nro. s.tio.t-s-z+ol 1oDA, Rajmohalla Naravansuda' Hydeiabad 500 029. ...APPELLANTSIPETITIONERS AND 1 The Andhra P.adesh state Road Transport corporation. Represented by its r-,i""rii"ii'oit"ioi ari Bnrrin, Musheeirabad, n'r'c' x Roads' Hvderabad 2 The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transpgr[--C9rp9 Deoot Manaqer. Husnabad Depot, MedaK ulsmct' Bui bearing No.AP 152 0031) ration, RePresented bY its (Owners of the APSRTC ...RESPONDENTS'RESPONDENTS Counsel for the APPellants : SRI KASIREDDY JAGATHPAL REDDY Counsel for the Respondents The Court made the following : SRI R.ANURAG (SC FOR TSRTC) : COMMON JUDGMENT AND OECREE THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRTYADARSII{I M.A.C.M.A.No.2854 or 20Is AND M.A.C .M.A.No .2570 0F 2016 COMMO N JUDGMENT: 1. These two appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment since M.A.C.M.A.No.2854 of 2015 filed by A.p.S.R.T.C. seeking to set-aside the order passed by the learned Tribunal and M.A.C.M.A.No .2SZO of 20 16 Iiled by claim petitioners seeking enhancement of compensation, both are directed against the very same order dated I l.OS,2O15 passed in M.V.O.p.No .2170 of 2013, on the hle of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal _cum_ XIII Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad 2 For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as they were arrayed before the learned Tribunal

3. The brief facts of the case are that the claim petitioners, who are the wife and parents of Late Kistapuram (Ramannagiri) Satheesh (hereinafter referred as .the deceased), Iiled a petirion under Section 166 of t]le Motor Vehicles Act, 19g8 and Rules 4S5 oi A.P.M.V. Rules, read with section 140 of M.V.Act, l9g9 against the respondents claiming compensation of Rs.10,OO,O0O/_ for the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident thar occurred on 25.O4 .2O 13 at the outskirts of Timmareddypalli Village on Raj iv I ) i z MGP) MACMA.rlot. 285/ o! m$ & 2570 ol m16 Rahadari, Medak District' It is stated by the petitioners that on 25.04.2013 at about a' 15 p'm' near Hotels at t1le outskirts of Timmareddypa-lli Village on Rajiv Rahadari' Medak District' when thedeceased-satheeshwasproceedingslowlytowardsVenkatapur (PT) Village of Toopran Mandal' Medak District on extreme left side of the road on Hero Honda Passion PIus Motorcycle Bearing No'AP- 23H-57l1 and when reached near Hotels at the outskirts of Timmareddyp,ally Village on Rajiv Rahadari' at that time' the driver of one APSRTC Bus bearing No'AP-152-0031 of Husnabad Depot' which came f:-om Hyderabad side and proceeding towards Siddipet side, drove the said bus in a rash and negligent malner at high speed and dashed the motorcycle of the deceased' As a result' the deceased fell down from his motorcycle and sustained fatal injuries and multiple fractures on head and other parts of the body and the motorcycle of the deceased was completely damaged' Immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital' Siddipet and after First Aid, he was referred to Gandhi Hospital' Secunderabad through Ambulance and . the Doctors of Gandhi Hospital' SecunderabtLd, upon examining the deceased' declared him as complaint, Police of Kukunoorpally Police 4. Based on a Station, Merlak District, registered a case in Crime No'94 of 2Ol3' : l under Sections 3O4-A IPC 3 MGP,I MACMA.No' 2AS4 oI 2OJ5 & 2570 ol 2076

5. It is stated by the petitioners that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged 25 years and was hale, healthy, young, energetic and was not having any bad habits and also used to earn a sum of Rs. I0,OOO/- per rnonth by working as Tractor Driver and contribute all his earnings for maintenance of his family. Due to untimely death of the deceased, the petitioners lost their bread winner and were put to dark. It is also stated by the petitioners that they have incurred huge amounts towards transportation of [he deceased from place of accident to Hospital and also spent amounts for cremation and obsequies expenses and etc. Hence, hled claim petition seeking compensation against the respondents/ RTC.

6. Respondent No.2/Depot Manager of APSRTC hted his counter denying the averments made in the claim petition including, manner of accident, age, avocation, earning capacity, medical expenditure incurred, involvement of RTC Bus, negligence of driver of crime bus and further contended that the claim of compensation is excess and exorbitant and hence, prayed to dismiss the claim against it. 7- Based on the above pleadings, the learned Tribunat had lramed the following issues for conducting trial:_ I I I I t I I 4 MGP'! MACMA.t'tos 2854 oJ 2Or5 & 2570 ol Nt6 O Whether the pteaded accident lud occuted resulting in death of de,-ased.-K.Sotheesh due to the rash and tegligent diuing of RTC bearing No.AP-152OO31 bg its driwr? (i, Whether the petitioners are entitled to the compensation and if so. qt utat quantum and. tuhot is the liabilitg of the respctndents? To wlrat relieJ? Before the Tribunal, in order to substantiate their claim'

8. petitioner No.1 examined herself as PWl, got examined PW2 and gt marked Exs.A I to A7 on their behalf' On behalf of respondents/ RTC, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced' g. The Tribunal, after considering the entire evidence and documents arrailable on record, partly-allowed the claim petition along with interest @ 7 .5% per annum from tJ:e date of petition till the date of rt:alization payable by both the Respondent Nos' 1 & 2 jointly and severally. Challenging the same, the present appeals came to be filed by the APSRTC and the claim pelitioners respecLively.

10. Heard arguments submitted by Sri R'Anurag, learned Standing Counsel for appellants/ RTC in M'A'C'M'A'No '2854 of 2O15 and Sri Jagathpall Reddy Kasi Reddy, Iearned counsel for the respondenLs/'claim pe titioners / appellants in M.A.C M'A'No'2570 of 2O16. Perust d lhe record. 5 MGP'I MAOqA.^tos. 2aS4 ol 2O7S & 2570 oI &15

11. The contentions of the learned counsel for Appellant/RTC in M.A.C.M.A.No .2854 of 2015 are ttrat the Tribunal erred in not considering the fact that the owner and insurer of motorcycle were not made as parties to the claim petition; it also failed to consider the fact that the name of PW2, who is an eye witness to the incident, was not mentioned in the charge sheet, as such, charge sheet cannot be relied upon to establish the negligence on part of RTC driver; it also erred in taking the income of the deceased @ Rs.72,O00/- per annum and erred in applying multiplier 18 and also erred in awarding excess arRounts under non-conventional head and therefore requested to allow the Appeal by setting-aside the order of the learned Tribunal.

12. On the other hand, the contention of the learned Counsel for respondents/ appellants in M.A.C.M'A.2570 of 2016 is that the learned Tribunal failed to award future prospects to the income of the deceased by loltowing the judgments of the Honble Apex Court in the case between Santoshi deui Vs'National Insuraruce Co'l and Rajan Soni V. Subhashchandra 2 and therefore requested for enhancement o[ comPensation. 13 Now the points that emerge for determination are, l- Whether tle order passed by the Trtbunal suffers from ong inegulaitg? {20r 2 ACJ sc 2oo2 t 2t{ s e.c.t sc z+ t t I 6 MGP) MACMA.N'S. 2854 ol 2015 & 2570 ol 2016 tt. Whether the appellants/ claim petitioners are entitled for enhonement of compen sation? PTOINTS:-

14. A perursal of the record discloses that petitioner No.I was examined as PWl and reiterated the contents made in the claim petition. As she is not an eye-witness to the incident, she got examined PV/2. PW2 in his evidence deposed that on 25.05.2013 when he was proceeding from Siddipet to Venkatapur Village on his motorcycle and when reached outskirts of Timmareddypally Village on R:rjiv Rahadari, at that time, he noticed one RTC Bus bearing No.A.P-152-OO31 coming in opposite direction and driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashing the motorcycle of the deceased due to which, the rider of the motorcycle fell down from the motorcycle and sustained grievous injuries and was shifted to Government Hospital, Siddipet by 1O8 Ambulance and later, he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital where the Droctors declared him as brought dead. He further stated that the said accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP- l5Z-OO3l and there is no negligence on part of the deceased. He a,lso stated that Kukunoorpally Police Station registered a case in Crime NO.9z of 2013, under Section 304-A of IPC against the dr$pr of crime RTC bus and recorded his statement. \ 7 MGP,J MACMA.NoS. 2tE4 ol ZO75 & 2570 oJ 2016

15. Coming to the documentary evidence, Ex.Al is the FIR registered by Kukunoorpally Police Station, Medak District, in Crime No.94 of 2013, under Section 3O4-A of IpC, conducted investigation and filed charge sheet under Ex.A2 against the driver of RTC Bus bearing No.AP- l5Z-O03 1 . Ex.A3 is the spot panchanama. Ex.A4 is the inquest report. Ex.AS is the post- mortem examination report wherein the cause of death of the deceased was due to Head injury. Ex.A6 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector report which discloses that the accident had not occurred due to any mechanical defect in the vehicle. Ex.A7 is the Driving license of the deceased.

16. Therefore, from the evidence of PW2-eye witness to the incident coupled with the documentary evidence marked under Exs.Al to A6, it is clear that the death of the deceased was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of RTC Bus bearing No.Ap- 152-OO31. L7. Learned counsel for the appellant/RTC contended that the name of PW2, who is an eye wirness to the incident, was not mentioned in the charge sheet. As such, Ex.A2-charge sheet cannot be relied upon to establish the negligence on part of RTC driver. "/ i I i l I I i 8 MGP,I MACMA-N1,- 28s4 oJ 2015 & 257ool 2015

18. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer to the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case between Sun,lttr Vs, RaJasthan Stntc Transport Corporation3 wherein, when the testimony of an eyewitness was sought to be impeached, inter alia, on the gror:nd his name did not find mention the list of witnesses in the charge-sheet, the Honl:le Apex Court held as under:- "There Ls nothing in the Act to preclude citing of a u.titness in notor accident claim wln hos not been named in the list of tuitnesses in the ciminal case. What r-s essential rb thot the opposite partg should get a fair opportunitA to cross examine th.e concented uitness- Once that is done, it tuill not be open to them to complain about ang prejudice cansed to them- If there utas anA doubt to be cast on the ueracitg of the uitness, the same should hnue come out in cross examinatiory for uhich opportunitA u.tas granted to the respondents bg the Tibunal. "

19. From tl.e above decision, it is clear that the respondents should be given a fair opportunity to cross examine the witness. In the present case, though PW2, eye witness to the accident, was cross-examined at length, nothing adverse was elicited to disbelieve his testimony. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellan t/ RTC that as the name of PW2, an e1'e witness to the incident, was not mentioned in the charge sheet, as such, charge sheet cannot. be relied upon, is not tenable. '(2019) sCC Online S: 19s 9 MGP) MAOTA. Nos. 2854 ol A1S & Em ol 2Ot6

20. The other contention of the learned counsel for appellant/RTc is that the Tribuna-l erred in taking the income of the decea.sed @ Rs.72,OOO I -.

21. In this regard, it is relevant to mention that though the petitioners stated that the deceased used to e€un a sum of Rs. 1O,0OO/- per month by working as Tractor Driver, but they failed to hle any documentary proof evidencing the incorhe of the deceased and failed to examine any person describing his occupation and earning capacity Hence, the learned Tribunal, taking into consideration the age and occupation of tl.e deceased, fixed his monthly income @ Rs.6,0OO/- which this Court finds the same to be reasonable and is not inclined to interfere with the S INC

22. On the other hand, the contention of the learned Counsel for respondents/claim petitioners / appe[ants in M.A.C.M.A.2S7O of 2016 is that the learned Tribunal failed to award future prospects to the income of the deceased.

23. A perusal of quantum of compensation in the impugned judgment shows that the learned Tribunal without granting future prospects to the established income, directly deducted 1/3ra and applied relevant multiptier and calculated compensation. This Court, by relying upon the decision of the Hon,ble Apex Court in 10 MGP'] MACMA.N}S- 2854 ol ?015 & 2570 oI2015 the case between l{atTonat Insurance Co' Ltd' v'Pranag Sethla ' is inclined to add 4Oo/o towards future prospects to the income of thedeceasedfort}redeceasedbeingbelow40yearsofage.Then the net future income of the deceased comes to Rs'8'400/-' As the number of dependents are 3, if 1/3ra is deducted towards the Iiving and personal expenses of the deceased' then the net monthly income comes to Rs.5,6O0/- and the annual income comes to Rs.67,2OO/-. After applying multiplier '18' as the deceased being 25 years at the time of accident, then the total loss of dependency on account of the death of the deceased comes to Rs'12'O9'600/-' Besides this, the learned Tribunal had awarded an amount of Rs.75,O0O/- under the Head of non-pecuniary damages' which this Court finds fhe same to be reasonable and is not inclined to interfere with the same. Hence, the petitioners are awarded with a total compensation which is calculated as under:- S.l{o. Name of the Eead AEount awarded by Tribuoal Amoutrt awarded by this Court 1 2 3 4 Monthly income Rs.6,0O0/- 4ooz'o towards future prospects Deduction of 1/3'o to$-ards Personal and living expenses l,oss of dependency application of Rs.8,4O0l Rs.2,000 Rs.5,600/ - Rs.8,64,O00/ Rs.12,09,6O0/-. '2017(6) r70 sc 11 ,dGP) MACMA_NoS. 26s4 oI 2o1s & 25ZO oJ fr10 5 6 multiplier'18' Conventional Heads Rs.75,00O/- Total compensation Rs.9,39,(X)O/- Rs.12,84,600/-

24. Since the compe nsation arrived is more than the claim amount, this Court, by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble \ \ Supreme Court in the case between Nagappa Vs.Gurudayal Singh and otherss deems fit and proper to allow the Appeal by awarding compensation of Rs.12,84,6O0/-, which is more than the claim amount.

25. As far as interest is concerned, the learned Tribunal awarded interest @ 7.5o/o per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. This Court hnds the same to be reasonable and is not inclined to interfere with the same.

26. In the result, M.A.C.M.A.No.28S4 of 2015 hled by the appellants / RTC is dismissed and M.A.C.M.A.No.257O of 2016 frted by the appellants/claim petitioners is allowed by enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.9,39,0OO/- to Rs. 12,84,6OO/- which shall carry interest @ Z.So/o p.a. as awarded by the Tribunal from the date of petition till the date of realization. The appetlants/ RTC are directed to pay the enhalced compensation within a period of two months from the 'AIR 2oo3 sc 6z+ 72 MGP,I MAcMA.Nos- 285a ol2015 & 2570 ol 2016 date of recelpt of a copy of this order. Upon such deposit, the respondents,/claim petitioners are entitled to withdraw the same as per the apportionment made by the learned Tribunal by paying deficit Court fee. There shall be no order as to costs. 27 Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed /TTRUE COPYII SD'- N. SRIHARI PUTY REGISTRAR CTION OFFICER To, 1 . The Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum Xlll Additional Chief Judge(Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad.(with records if any)

2. One CC to SRI R ANURAG (SC FOR TSRTC) Advocate tOpUCI 3. One CC to SRI KASIREDDY JAGATHPAL REDDY, Advocate tOpUCl 4. Two CD Copies Pcsd/gh W HIGH COURT DATED:0S102l,2025 i:. i-, i i'.i -:-\ f, -,...'.,- '.: .,i' i1,] 2ist-?16 -,' ] COMMON JUDGMENT AND DECREE MACMA.No.2854 OF 2015 & MACMA.No.2570 OF 2016 DISMISSING THE MACMA NO.2854 OF 2015 AND ALLOWING THE MACMA No.2570 of 2016 Gcf}- tr-t' IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF FEARUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENryFME PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSIN] MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOU S APPEAL Nos: 284{ OF 2015 & 2570o1 2O16 MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLAN EOUS APPEAL No. 2854 OF 2015:. Between: 1 The Andhra Pradesh State Road -Transport Corporation, Represented by its Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, Mushedrabad, fi.t.C. X Roats, Hyderabid- 2. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. Reoresented bv the ApSR TC Depot Manager, Husnabad Depot, Medak District. (Owners 'of Bus bearing No.AP 152 0031) ...APPELLANTS'RESPON DENTS AND

1. Smt.Kistapuram @ Ramannagari Aruna, W/o. Satheesh, aqed 20 vears. Occupation:_Household, R/o. Ft.No.3-5-2461 ,lOl2A, Ralmoniala Naiayanguda, Hyderabad 500 029.

2. Kistapuram @_Ramannag_ari Sathamma, Wo. Srisailam, aged 40 years, 9ccupation : Household, R/o. H. No. 3-5-2 46 I 1 0 l2A, Rajmo-halla Nirayang uda, Hyderabad 500 029.

3. Kistapuram @.fganlqgar! Srighqltam, S/o. Late Narsaiah, aged 45 years, Occupation ; Nil, Rl/o. H.No.3-5-2461 10/2A, Rajmohalla Narayingudaj Hyderabad 500 029. ...RESPONDENTS'PETITIONERS Motor Accident civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dt.1 1.OS.201S,passed in M.V.O.P.No. 2170 of 2013,on the fite of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum Xlll Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court at Hyderabad. This Appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of the appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and ttre material papers in the Suit and upon hearing the arguments of Sri R.ANURAG, SC for TSRTC, Counsel for Appellants and none Appeared for Respondents. MOTOR ACCIDEN T CtVtL M]SCEL I-ANEOUS APPEAL N o-2570 OF 2016: Between: 'l Smt.Kistaouram @ Ramannaqari Aruna, Wo. Satheesh' aged 20 years' ' oicupaticjn: Houd6ho6, R/o. H.No.3-5-2461 1Ol2A, Raimohalla Narayanguoa, Hyderabad 500 029. z. kLiiprram @ Ramannagari Sathamma, Wo' Srisailam, aged 40 years' - ci."rbrtion lHousehold.-R/o. H.No.3-5-246/ 1 0/2A, Raimohalla Narayanguda, HYderabad 500 029.

3. Kistaouram @ Ramannagari Srishailam, S/o. Late Narsaiah, aged 45 years' " bfib;iid Ixit, nyo. H.No.3-5-246l 10/2A, Rajmohalla Naravansuda' Hyderabad 500 029. ...APPELLANTS'PETITIONERS AND

1. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transpo( 9oPg"]iT'^Req1e-s9n-!9!-pyits tvtanaging Diiectoi;'Bus, Bhavan, Musheerabad' R T C X Roads, Hyderabad' 2. The Andhra Fradesh state Road Transpo( corporation, Represented blits - o"poir"llnager, Husnibio Depot, Med'ak District. (owners of the APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 152 0031) ..RESPONDENTS'RESPONDENTS . Motor Accident.Civii Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor V.t Lf"" Act, aggiieVed by the Judgment and Decree dt.'1 1 .05.2015,passed in Ir4.V.O.p.ruo.2f ft-of 2O13,-bn the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum Xlll Additional chief Judge (Fast Track court), city civil court at Hyderabad. ThisAppealcomingbnforhearinganduponperusingthegrounds of the ajpeal, the Juigment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material p"p"r. in the suit aid upon hearing the arguments of Sri KASIREDDY JA.GATHPAL REDDY, Advocate for the Appellants and Sri R.ANURAG, SC for isnic, counsel for Respondents this court doth common Judgment and Decree as follows:-

1. That the MACMA No. 2854 oI 2015, filed by the Appellants/RTC be and here bY is Dismissed.

2.ThattheMACMSNo.25T0of20l6filedbytheAppellants/Claim Petitioners be and. here by is Allowed.

3. That the Compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal be and here by is enhancing from Rs. 9,39,000/- to Rs. 12,84,600L which shall carry interest @ 7.5o/o p.a. as awarded by the Tribunal from the date of petition till the date of realization.

4. That the Appellants/RTC are directed to pay the enhanced compensation within a period of two months irom the date of receipt of a copy of this order, 5. That on such deposit the Respondents/craim petitioners are entitled to withdraw the same as per the apportionment made by the Tribunal by paying deficit Court fee.

6. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Lower court shall stands confirmed in all other respects; and

7. Thatthere be no order as to costs in this Appeal. //TRUE COPY// SD/- N. SRIHARI PUTY REGISTRAR i ECTION OFFICER To, I. The court of the Motor Accidents craims Tribunar -cum Xlll Additionar Chief Judge(Fast Track Court), City Civit Court, Hyderabad.

2. Two CD Copies w HIGH COURT DATED:0510212025 COMMON DECREE MACMA.N o.2854 br ZOtS a MACMA.No.2570 OF 2016 DISMISSING THE MACMA No.2854 OF 2015 AND ALLOWNG THE MACMA No.2570 of 2016 qcoql"[ Yr 166r