Telangana High Court
The Telangana State Road Transport ... vs E. Yellaiah on 4 July, 2025
1
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
M.A.C.M.A.NO.30 OF 2021
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by TSRTC, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 12.02.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.1398 of 2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-The Court of Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short "the Tribunal").
2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The case of the petitioners before the Tribunal was that on 13.08.2016 at about 2:30 p.m., while the deceased was going as a pillion rider on TVS-XL bearing No.AP-23A-2978 driven by one Ravi Kumar and when the said motor bike reached near Rangadampally Chowrastha, one TSRTC bus bearing No.AP-29Z-2351 which was proceeding toards Mancherial, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, came in the wrong side and hit the TVS-XL, due to which the deceased fell down, sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. The claimants sought a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.
4. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further ETD,J MACMA No.30_2021 2 contended that the driver of the bike was not holding valid driving license at the time of accident and thus, their Corporation is not liable to pay any compensation and they are not entitled to claim any compensation.
5. The respondent No.3 is the driver of RTC bus who also filed counter denying the occurrence of the accident. He contended that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the rider of the motor bike and that he was not at all negligent.
6. Based on the above rival contentions, the Tribunal has framed the following issues:-
1. Whether the pleaded accident had occurred resulting in death of the deceased E. Yellavva, due to rash and negligent driving of RTC bus bearing registration No.AP-29Z-2351 by its driver?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation. If so, at what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents?
3. To what relief ?
7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PWs1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. On behalf of the respondents, RW1 was examined and no documents were marked.
8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.9,50,000/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is preferred by the TSRTC.
ETD,J MACMA No.30_2021 3
9. Heard the submissions of Sri R. Anurag, learned counsel for the TSRTC and Sri M. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there were three people going on the motor bike and thus the said overload on the motor bike contributed to the accident. He further argued that the deceased is 40 year old and thus 25% addition towards future prospects has to be considered, but the tribunal has taken it as 40%. He further argued that the tribunal has awarded interest @ 9% per annum and has prayed to reduce the same to 7.5%.
11. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that this Court cannot reduce the rate of interest once granted by the Tribunal. He further argued that as per the guidelines of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others 1, up to 40 years 40% addition has to be made to future prospects and above 40 years it will be 25%. In the present case, the deceased is aged 40 years so, the tribunal has rightly taken the addition of 40%. Therefore, he prayed to uphold the decision of the Tribunal. 1
AIR 2017 SCC 5157 ETD,J MACMA No.30_2021 4
12. Based on the above rival submission, this Court frames the following points for consideration:-
1. Whether there was no contributory negligence on part of the rider of the TVS XL motor bike bearing No.AP-23A-2978 in the occurrence of the accident?
2. Whether the compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?
3. Whether the Order and Decree passed by the Tribunal need any interference?
4. To what relief?
13. Point No.1:-
a) The contention of the appellant's counsel is that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the rider of the TVS XL motor bike bearing No.AP-23A-2978. In support of their contention, they got examined RW1 before the Tribunal. He is the driver of the RTC Bus, he deposed in his chief examination that the rider of the TVS was coming with two other pillion riders in a rash and negligent manner, without wearing helmet and hit his bus, and that the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the rider of the motor bike. In his cross examination, it is elicited that he has not given any complaint to the police alleging that the charge sheet filed against him is false and that the rider of the motor bike is at fault.
b) A perusal of the charge sheet filed under Ex.A2 reveals that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the RTC Bus driver, which came at a high speed in a rash and ETD,J MACMA No.30_2021 5 negligent manner and dashed against the motor bike on which the deceased was proceeding as a pillion rider, as a result of which he fell down on the road and died on the spot and the charge sheet is filed against the RTC driver. Thus, there is no evidence on record to show that there was any contributory negligence on part of the rider of the motor bike. Therefore, it is held that there was no contributory negligence on part of the rider of the motor bike.
Though it is alleged that there were three persons going on the motor bike, nowhere it is elicited that the said triple riding contributed to the accident. Therefore, it is held that there was no contributory negligence on part of the rider of the motor bike.
Point No.1 is answered accordingly.
14. Point No.2:-
a) PW1 is the husband of the deceased, has asserted that his wife used to go for coolie work and used to earn an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month. No proof of can be expected in this regard.
b) In Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited 2, the Apex Court has held that in the absence of any proof of income with regard to a labourer, Rs.4,500/- per month can be safely taken as the income. 2 (2011) 12 SCC 236 ETD,J MACMA No.30_2021 6 In the present case, the deceased is a daily wage labourer. No proof can be expected in this regard.
c) The deceased is aged '40' years as per the Post Mortem Examination Report filed under Ex.A4. Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence on record, it is opined that the income as assessed by the Tribunal i.e., Rs.5,000/- per month appears to be justified.
d) The Tribunal has also considered the other guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others 3, by adding future prospects of 40%, and also has given a deduction of 1/3rd since the claimants are three in number, has also applied the right multiplier of '15'. It has considered all the other principles laid down by the Apex Court and has awarded the compensation.
Therefore, it is held that the compensation i.e., Rs.9,50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable.
Point No.2 is answered accordingly.
3 AIR 2017 SCC 5157 ETD,J MACMA No.30_2021 7
15. Point No.3:-
a) In view of the findings arrived at point No.1 and 2 , there is no need to interfere with the Order and Decree of the Tribunal and the same is upheld with regard to quantum of compensation.
b) The Tribunal has awarded 9% interest on the compensation which is disputed by learned counsel for the appellants. He prayed to reduce the same.
c) In Jadav Saroja Bai Versus Ghule Naga Rao and Another 4; a Coordinate Bench of this High Court has granted interest @ 7.5% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation.
d) In Bandavath Mangla and Another Versus Bandavath Suresh and Others 5 and National Insurance Company Limited Versus. M. Venkateswarulu and Others 6; also interest @ 7.5% per annum was granted on the enhanced amount of compensation.
e) In United Insurance Company Limited Versus. Bollam Lingaiah 7; when the Tribunal has granted rate of interest @ 9% per annum, the High Court has modified the rate of interest to 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. 4
2022 SCC Online TS 606 5 2023 SCC Online TS 1095 6 2023 SCC Online TS 1170 7 2024 SCC Online TS 915 ETD,J MACMA No.30_2021 8
f) A Division Bench of this High Court in National Insurance Company Limited Versus Jagadish Prajapathi 8; has granted 7.5 % per annum on the compensation from the date of petition till realization.
g) Therefore, in the light of the above cited decisions, this Court has been consistently granting interest @ 7.5% on the compensation that is awarded in such cases. Hence, in the present case, the rate of interest is reduced from 9% per annum to that of 7.5% per annum.
Point No.3 is answered accordingly.
16. POINT NO.4:
In the result, M.A.C.M.A filed by the TSRTC against the Order and Decree dated 12.02.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.1398 of 2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-The Court of Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad is partly allowed, by reducing the rate of interest from 9% to 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. However, the interest for the period of delay, if any, is forfeited. The appellant/TSRTC is directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after deducting the amount if any already deposited. On 8 2024 SCC Online TS 2050 ETD,J MACMA No.30_2021 9 such deposit, the respondents are entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security, as per their respective shares as allotted by the Tribunal. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed.
_________________________________ JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA Date: 04.07.2025 ds