High Court · 2025

1 Smt. Pasupulati Alivelu, Wo. Late P.Srinivas Rao, Aged. 49 years, Occ. Housewife, F/o. H.No.3-5-26/ 1, S-2, ll Floor, W Residency, Road No.1D, NFC Main Road, Krishnanagar Colony, HB Colony, Moula Ali, Ranga Reddy District. Kum. Pasupulati Srijahnavi, Dio. Late P.Srinivas Rao, Age_ 20 years, Occ. Student, Ri/o. H.No.3-5-26/ 1, S-2, ll Floor, W Residency, Road No.1D, NFC Main Road, Krishnanagar Colony, HB Colony, Moula Ali, Ranga Reddy District. 2 ...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS l.A. NO: 3 OF 2016(MACMAMP. NO: 30340 oF 2016) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of exectution of the judgement and decree of the court of the XV additional District and sessions judge at L.B.Nager Ranga Reddy District Dt.1g- 12-2015 made in MVOP No. 1032 ol 2012 Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. R ANURAG (SC FOR TSRTC) Counsel forthe Respondents: K. RAJANNA The Court delivered the following: judgment THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTTCE RENUKA YARA M.A.C.M.A.No. 1539 of 2Ol9 JUDGMENT: Heard Sri R. Anurag, learned standing ,:ounsel for the appellant/TSRTC and Sri K. Rajanna, learnt:d counsel for respondents/ petitioners. Perused the entire record.

2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant/TSRTC aggrieved by the award passed by the learned XV Additional Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar (for short 'th(' Tribunal') 1n M.V.O.P.No.1O32 of 2012, dated lA.l2.2OI5, wherern, on account of death of one P. Srinivas Rao in a road tralfic accidenl. compensation of Rs.24,25,OO0/- has been awarded in thvour of respondents/ pel it ioners

3. The appellant disputed grounds of accident orr account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of RTC bus bearing No.AP 28 Z 759 and alleged that the accident occurred due to negligence of rider o[ motorc-ycle bearing No.AP 29 AD 3927. Specifically, the appellant dispute<l the oral evidence of PW3 who is examined as an eye u.itness when his name is not mentioned in the charge sheet as an eye rvitness. As per the charge sheet, there is no indepe nclent e1'e rvitness except the u,ife, uncle and cousin of the deceased wlro urere interested witnesses that rvere examined during investigation. When the police 2 did not examine any eye witness to the accident, there will be no option but to examine persons who have witnessed the accident but are not mentioned in the charge sheet as an eye witnesses and hence the evidence of PW3 has to be relied upon by the Tribunal due to lack of option.

4. The Motor Vehicles Act is a social welfare legislation n,herein all the issues have to be considered from the view point of the victim to provide relief. The Tribunal cannot focus on technicalities such as police not examining an eye witness during their investigation to deny compensation. A person whose name is not mentioned in the charge sheet but witnessed the accident, is also a competent r,r,itness to be examined in a motor vehicle accidents casc to prove rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. Therefore, no issue can be made out about the respondents'/ petitioners' failure to prove rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the RTC bus bearing No.AP 28 Z 759. Further, no fault can be found on the part of the learned Tribunal in computing compensation when there is proof in the form of Bank statement of Axis Bank account of the deceased/ Ex.A7 shou,ing credit of salary to the account, Salary Certifrcate/ Ex.AB and Appointment letter/Ex.A9. When there is documentary evidence to prove the 1' 5 income, no interference can be made with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the basis of the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another'. As such, there are no grounds to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal and the same is conhrmed.

5. In the result, this Motor Accident Civil Miscella neous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaleous Petitions, if any, pending in th is appeal, shall stand closed To, /ITRUE COPY// .r"f \i i,l SD/- A. SREENIVASA REDOY qrsTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

1. The XV Additional District and Sessions Judge at L B Nagar' Ranga ReddY District (with records)

2. One CC to SRI RANURAG (SC FORTSRTC)Advocate [OPUCI 3. One CC to SRI K.RAJANNA, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies ras (y- ' 1zoos1 o scc rzr HIGH COURT DATED:21 10212025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.1539 of 2019 l'' " 4,.. . ' ='- t c ).r( i: ii? ?025 '!r * I ! I i : i I 1 I I I I I I DISMISSING THE APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS G.'euto ft* HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1539 OF 2019 Between: Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, (APSRTC), Rep- by its Managing Director, R.T.C. Cross Roads, lllusheerabad, Hyderabad. ...APPELLANT/RESPONOENT. AND Smt. Pasupulati Alivelu, W/o. Late P.Srinivas Rao, Aged. 49 years, Occ. Housewife, Ri.io. H.No.3-5-26/ 1, S-2, ll Floor, VV Residency, Road No.1D, NFC Main Road, Krishnanagar Colony, HB Colony, Moula Ali, Ranga Reddy District.

2. Kum. Pasupulati Srijahnavi, D/o. Late P.Srinivas Rao, Age.20 years, Occ. Student, Rl/o. H.No.3-5-26/ 1, S-2, ll Floor, VV Residency, Road No.1D, NFC Main Road, Krishnanagar Colony, HB Colony, Moula Ali, Ranga Reddy District. ...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS (Appeal Under Sectionl T3 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and Decree made in M.V.O.P.No.1032 ot 2012 daled 1811212O15 on the file of the Court of the XV Additional Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District of L.B Nagar. ORDER :This appeal 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 R. Anurag, (Sc for TSRTC) , Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri K,Ra.janna, Advocate for the Respondents This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the MACMA be and hereby is dismissed , and 2. Thal there shall be no order as to costs of this appeal SD/. A. SREENIVAS ASSI\1TT:E A REDDY GISTRAR //TRUE COPY// -[J"-,o* OFFICER To, 1 The XV Additional District and Sessions Judge at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District (with records) Two CD Copies 2 RAS Y\- HIGH COURT DATED:21 10212025 JUDGMENT + DECREE MACMA.No.1S39 of 2019 DISMISSING THE APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS ,r'\( k'-t