Telangana High Court
Telangana State Road Transport ... vs Jogu Janaki on 2 February, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
M.A.C.M.A.NO.1223 OF 2023
JUDGMENT:
Heard learned standing counsel Sri Thoom Srinivas for the appellant-TSRTC and the learned counsel Sri Venkatesh Gupta for the respondents-claimants.
2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-TSRTC challenging the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Sessions, Mahabubnagar (for short, 'Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.355 of 2018, dated 31.01.2023, thereby seeking to set-aside the award against the TSRTC.
3. The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is as under.
4. On 05.09.2018 at about 7.00 p.m., while the deceased i.e., Jogu Srinu was proceeding from Kondgullaram to Hyderabad by his car bearing registration No.AP-28-TS-8049 and when he reached Jayaprakashnagar cross roads of Kalwakurthy, the respondent no.1, who is driver of RTC bus bearing registration No.TS-31-Z-0023, drove the bus in rash and negligent manner LNA,J MACMA No.1223 of 2023 2 in high speed and dashed the car of the deceased on front side, due to which, deceased sustained injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to local private hospital, and thereafter he was shifted to Hyderabad for better treatment and expired while undergoing treatment. The Police, Kalwakurthy P.S., registered a case in Crime No.238/2018 under Section 304-A IPC against the driver of the offending vehicle and filed charge sheet.
5. The claimants, i.e., the wife, children and parents of the deceased, have filed claim petition against appellant under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- along with interest from the date of the petition till the date of deposit.
6. It is contended that the deceased was aged about 33 years as on the date of accident, hale and healthy and he purchased the car in the year 2013 by obtaining loan from TVS Credit Services and used to transport the passengers and earn Rs.20,000/- per month and was contributing the same to the welfare of his family and that claimants lost the support of the deceased.
LNA,J MACMA No.1223 of 2023 3
7. The driver of the RTC Bus, respondent no.6 herein, remained ex parte. The appellant-TSRTC filed counter denying all the allegations made in the claim petition and contended that accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased only, but not the driver of offending vehicle and finally, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
8. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
i) Whether the accident dated 05.09.2018 was caused due to negligence of TSRTC bus bearing No.TS-31-Z-
0023 and due to rash and negligence driving of respondent no.1 ?
ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, what is the quantum and from whom?
iii) To what relief?
9. In order to substantiate the case, on behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. On behalf of the TSRTC, neither any witness was examined nor any document was marked.
LNA,J MACMA No.1223 of 2023 4
10. The Tribunal on due consideration of the evidence and material placed on record, came to conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the RTC Bus and awarded compensation of Rs.27,61,250/- along with costs and interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit of amount.
11. During the course of hearing of the appeal, learned counsel for appellant-TSRTC, while reiterating the averments made in the counter, submitted that the Tribunal erroneously decreed the O.P. He further submitted that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and therefore, TSRTC is not liable to pay the compensation. He also submitted that Tribunal erred in considering the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- without there being any proof of income and submitted that Tribunal erred in granting interest @ 9% per annum and finally, prayed to set aside the award passed by the Tribunal.
12. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent submitted that the Tribunal granted proper compensation on due LNA,J MACMA No.1223 of 2023 5 consideration of evidence, material placed on record. He further submitted that the appeal is devoid of any merit and the appellant failed to make out any case warranting this Court to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal and finally, prayed to dismiss the appeal.
Consideration :
13. The main contention raised by the appellant is that the Tribunal committed irregularity in holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of RTC Bus. It is pertinent to mention that the Tribunal considered the evidence of eye witness, P.W.2-B.Ramulu, who testified the evidence of petitioners that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC Bus and nothing was elicited from him contrary to petitioners case. Further, Police filed Ex.A6-charge sheet, as per which, the Police have examined the eye witness and others and have found that the driver of RTC bus is responsible for the accident and is liable for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC. Considering the oral evidence adduced by P.Ws.1 and 2, coupled with Exs.A1 to A6, the Tribunal LNA,J MACMA No.1223 of 2023 6 came to conclusion that the driver of RTC bus was responsible for causing the accident by driving the bus in rash and negligent manner.
14. Insofar as the income of the deceased is concerned, though the petitioner have not filed any proof of income of the deceased as on the date of the accident, Ex.A7, which is registration certificate of AP-28-DS-8049 of the deceased, clearly establish that deceased purchased the car by obtaining loan from TVS credit services and working as driver cum owner and transporting the passengers. The Tribunal on considering Exs.A7 and A8 and also considering the driver charges prevailing at that time, had taken the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- and assessed the compensation amount. In considered opinion of this Court, the appellant failed to make out any ground to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal.
15. With regard to the quantum of interest awarded, the Hon'ble Supreme Court very recently in the case of Anjali and others vs Lokendra Rathod and others 1 decided on 06.12.2022, had 1 2023(1) ALD 107(SC) LNA,J MACMA No.1223 of 2023 7 granted interest @ 9% per annum. Therefore, this Court does not find reason to interfere with the interest awarded by the Tribunal. Conclusion:
16. In view of the above discussion and the material placed on record, the appellant failed to make out any case warranting interference of this Court with the impugned award passed by the Tribunal.
17. In the result, this Appeal stands dismissed. The appellant- TSRTC is directed to deposit the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, duly adjusting the amount already deposited by the appellants. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed. [[ __________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY,J Date: 02.02.2024 kkm LNA,J MACMA No.1223 of 2023 8 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY M.A.C.M.A.NO.1223 OF 2023 Date:02.02.2024 kkm