Telangana High Court
Mutyala Adi Reddy vs Nimma Ganga Narsaiah on 4 July, 2025
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
M.A.C.M.A.Nos.794 and 1332 of 2023
COMMON JUDGMENT:
Heard Sri N. Chandra Sekhar, learned standing counsel for the appellant in M.A.C.M.A.No.794 of 2023 and Sri A.V.K.S.Prasad, learned counsel for the appellants in M.A.C.M.A.No.1332 of 2023. Perused the entire record.
2. Since both the above appeals are arising out of the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge, Karimnagar (for short 'the Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.570 of 2015, dated 10.11.2022, they were taken up for hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
3. The M.A.C.M.A.No.794 of 2023 is filed by the appellant/respondent No.2/TSRTC and M.A.C.M.A. No.1332 of 2023 is filed by the appellants/petitioners/claimants.
4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in M.V.O.P.No.570 of 2015.
5. The claimants filed petition under Section 166(1) © of M.V.Act, seeking compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- on account of 2 death of one Mutyala Venkat Reddy in a road traffic accident. On 18.01.2015 at about 8.00 am, the deceased Mutyala Venkat Reddy proceeded from his house at Arpapalli on a motorcycle bearing No.AP-10-F-6525 to Raikal Village to visit his aunt Bodigem Laxmi. At 10.00 am, he left Raikal Village to meet his uncle at Sirikonda Village. When the deceased reached outskirts of Raikal and was passing from Telangana Chowk, at 10.15 am, the driver of TSRTC bus bearing No.AP-11-Z-5543 came in rash and negligent manner in opposite direction to wrong side of the road and hit the deceased causing severe injuries which resulted in his death on the spot. The police, Raikal registered a case in Crime No.10 of 2015 against respondent No.1 who was driving the offending bus for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC.
6. The claimants adduced oral and documentary evidence in the form of witnesses PWs 1 to 4 and Exs.A1 to A14. The respondent No.2/TSRTC got examined RW1 but did not mark any documents.
7. Upon examining the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal fixed liability at 50% each on the deceased and the driver of the RTC bus and thereby, awarded compensation of Rs.19,25,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum. 3
8. Aggrieved by the said award, the claimants filed MACMA No.1332 of 2023 challenging imposition of liability of 50% on the deceased and deduction of the compensation awarded to said extent. Further, the claimants sought compensation towards filial consortium and parental consortium. Lastly, the claimants alleged that Ex.A9/Salary certificate showing income of the deceased at Rs.25,000/- was not taken into consideration though the same was not challenged.
9. The respondent No.2/TSRTC challenged the award filing MACMA No.794 of 2023 alleging that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and therefore, imposition of 50% liability on TSRTC is erroneous. In that context, the respondent No.2 referred to paragraph 17 of the award passed by the Tribunal wherein it is held that there is no negligence on the part of the driver as per the version of police. Lastly, respondent No.2 alleged that the interest granted at 7.5% per annum is excessive.
10. The first issue to be addressed is the liability of the deceased and the liability of the RTC driver which is fixed at 50% each by the Tribunal. Both the rival parties are aggrieved by the said finding of the Tribunal. In that context, the important documents to be perused are the FIR/Ex.A1 and the Final Report/Ex.A12 filed by 4 the police. As per FIR and the complaint given by the father of the deceased, when the motorcycle of the deceased reached outskirts of Raikal, said motorcycle was struck by RTC bus bearing No.AP-11- Z-5543 which was driven in rash and negligent manner. After completing investigation, the police filed final report on the basis of version presented by the eye witnesses stating that at about 10.15 am, when the motorcycle reached outskirts of Raikal, at that time, the deceased was coming in opposite direction on his Yamaha RX 100 motorcycle bearing No.AP-10-F-6525 carrying a phone in his hand, even after blowing horn by the bus driver, the deceased did not observe the bus and dashed the right side of the bus, due to which, the deceased died on the spot due to severe injuries.
11. Further, as per Final report/Ex.A12, there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and the action is abated due to the death of the deceased in the accident i.e. charge sheet is not filed against the TSRTC driver. As per version presented by the police, it is the deceased who was riding the vehicle while speaking over cell phone and therefore, the accident took place in spite of the precautions taken by the driver of TSRTC bus. On this aspect, the counsel for the claimants would contend that speaking over cell phone is different from holding a cell phone. This Court would differ with the contention of the counsel for the claimants for the 5 simple reason that holding a cell phone in one hand would compel the rider to drive a motorcycle with one hand and irrespective of whether he was speaking or not controlling the motorcycle with one hand would be risky and life threatening. Therefore, fixing liability at 50% is less when compared to the finding given by the police after conducting investigation wherein it is held that there is absolutely no fault on the part of the driver of TSRTC bus. However, in view of the fact that there are witnesses examined before the Tribunal who deposed that the accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of RTC bus and since there are catena of judgments which mandate that the oral evidence of the witnesses before the Tribunal be taken into consideration as against the contents of the police record, this Court is inclined to fix the liability as decided by the Tribunal at 50% each.
12. Further, a perusal of the record shows that the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased as Rs.25,000/- on the basis of Ex.A9 salary certificate and on the basis of the oral evidence of PW4. Though there is ambiguity about the avocation of the deceased on account of the contents of the complaint given by the father of the deceased while lodging complaint with the police about the accident, in view of the education of the deceased who was a B.Tech graduate and was preparing for higher studies, this Court is 6 not inclined to interfere with the notional income taken by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.70,000/- towards loss of consortium to petitioner No.1, loss of estate and funeral expenses. The same is appropriate and need not be interfered with. This Court is inclined to grant only an amount of Rs.40,000/- towards filial consortium to claimant No.2 being the mother of deceased and Rs.40,000/- to claimant No.3 being the brother.
13. As per judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others 1, the interest of 7.5% on the compensation is held to be just and reasonable, therefore, said interest granted by the Tribunal cannot be interfered with.
14. In the result, the MACMA No.794 of 2023 filed by the TSRTC is dismissed and MACMA No.1332 of 2023 is allowed in part enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.19,25,000/- to Rs.20,05,000/- as hereunder:
a) The compensation amount shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.
b) The respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall deposit the amount within a period of (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of judgment. On such deposit, the appellants/ claimants are entitled to withdraw the entire amount in 1 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35 7 proportion to their shares awarded by the Tribunal, without furnishing the security.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
___________________ RENUKA YARA, J Date: 04.07.2025 gvl 8 HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA M.A.C.M.A.Nos.794 and 1332 of 2023 4th July, 2025 gvl