Telangana High Court
Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport ... vs Sabavath Sakri Bai on 1 May, 2025
1
HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
M.A.C.M.A.NO.172 OF 2021
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the APSRTC, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 23.06.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.1791 of 2017 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-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 claim petitioners before the Tribunal is that on 21.05.2017 at 10:45 a.m., while the petitioner along with others was proceeding in a Tractor Trolley bearing No.TS-06UA-9667 and TS-06UA-9665 towards Jadcherla to purchase fertilizers and when they reached in front of Salguti Company, located in the outskirts of Gollapally Village, one APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP-22Z-0027 driven by its driver at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the Tractor and Trolley from behind, due to which the Tractor and Trolley turned turtle, petitioner and others fell down and received injuries.
4. The respondents filed counter denying their liability and further contended that the owner of the Tractor and Trolley and its Insurance Company are necessary parties to the case and that the ETD,J MACMA No.172_2021 2 accident occurred due to the overload in the Tractor and Trolley and that the driver of the Tractor and Trolley do not possess a valid driving license and hence, the RTC is not liable to pay any compensation.
5. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for trial:
1) Whether the pleaded accident had occurred resulting in injuries sustained by the petitioner Sabhavath Sakri Bai, due to rash and negligent driving of APSRTC Bus bearing Registration No.AP-22Z-0027, by its driver?
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation, if so, at what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents?
3) To what relief?
6. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PW1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. On behalf of the respondents no evidence was adduced.
7. Based on the evidence on record, the trial Court has awarded a compensation of Rs.1,33,842/- with costs and interest @ 9% per annum. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is preferred by the RTC.
8. Heard the submission of Sri K. Srinivas Rao, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri M. Vijay Reddy, learned counsel for respondents.
ETD,J MACMA No.172_2021 3
9. Learned counsel for appellants has submitted that the orders of the Tribunal are contrary to law and weight of evidence. Though, in the Memorandum of Appeal, it raised the grounds with regard to quantum of compensation also, while submitting the arguments, the counsel has fairly submitted that the RTC is particularly contesting on the point of liability and the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal. His contention is that the Tractor Trolley was carrying 15 passengers and was overloaded. He further contended that the driver of the Tractor Trolley did not have any valid driving license and thus, the RTC is mulcted with liability in this case and therefore, he prayed to exonerate the RTC from its liability.
10. The respondent counsel on the other hand has argued that the charge sheet is filed against the RTC driver and that there is no evidence to show that the Tractor was over loaded. He further submitted that even as per the charge sheet, only the labourers for loading and unloading were going on the Trolley and that the Tractor-Trolley cannot go at a speed higher than 20 to 30 kilometers per hour. Thus, the driver of the Tractor-Trolley cannot be in any way rash and negligent and that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligence of the RTC driver.
11. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the following points for determination:
ETD,J MACMA No.172_2021 4
1. Whether the RTC is liable to pay compensation?
2. Whether the rate of interest @ 9% granted by the Tribunal is not proper?
3. Whether the order and decree of the trial Court need any interference?
4. To what relief?
12. Point No.1:-
a) The contention of appellant counsel is that RTC is not liable to pay compensation as there was no negligence of the RTC driver and that the driver of the Tractor did not possess valid driving license and contributed to the accident. A perusal of the FIR under Ex.A1 and Charge sheet under Ex.A2 would reveal that it is filed against the RTC Driver. It is further revealed that the APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP-22Z-0027 was driven by its driver at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and hit the tractor from behind, as a result of which the deceased No.1 and 2 and also LW5/Sabavath Puriya and LW6/Sabavath Sakri fell down and sustained severe bleeding injuries to their vital organs. Thus, it is revealed from the contents of the charge sheet that the two inmates travelling on the Tractor-Trolley got injured, while two persons died. The contention of the appellant counsel is that there were 15 passengers on the tractor, but the contents of the charge sheet do not reveal the said fact. It is mentioned that two people got injured and two people died in the accident.
ETD,J MACMA No.172_2021 5
b) PW1 is one of the injured in the accident, and she was examined as an eye witness in this case. Her evidence reveals that she was proceeding along with few other persons in the Tractor bearing No.TS-06UA-9667 and Trolley bearing No.TS-06UA-9665 as labourers and that they were proceeding towards Jadcherla and when they reached near the outskirts of Gollapally Village on NH- 44, one RTC Bus bearing No.AP-22Z-0027 came from behind, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and dashed their Tractor-Trolley, as a result of which the Tractor and Trolley turned turtle and the inmates sustained injuries.
c) Further, it is the case of the claimants that the passengers on the trolley were going for loading and un-loading purposes and the contents of the charge sheet further reveal that they were going for purchasing agricultural provisions. So nowhere, it is elicited that it was overloaded and there is no whisper about the non possession of driving license by the driver of Tractor-Trolley. There is no rebuttal evidence lead by respondents to prove their contention with regard to the non possession of driving license by the driver of Tractor-Trolley and his rash and negligence. Therefore, it is held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence of the driver of the RTC Bus and thus, the RTC is liable to pay compensation in this case.
Point No.1 is answered accordingly.
ETD,J MACMA No.172_2021 6
13. Point No.2:-
a) The Tribunal has awarded 9% interest on the compensation which is disputed by learned counsel for the appellants.
b) In Jadav Saroja Bai Versus Ghule Naga Rao and Another 1; a Coordinate Bench of this High Court has granted interest @ 7.5% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation.
c) In Bandavath Mangla and Another Versus Bandavath Suresh and Others 2 and National Insurance Company Limited Versus. M. Venkateswarulu and Others 3; also interest @ 7.5% per annum was granted on the enhanced amount of compensation.
d) In United Insurance Company Limited Versus. Bollam Lingaiah 4; 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.
e) A Division Bench of this High Court in National Insurance Company Limited Versus Jagadish Prajapathi 5; has granted 1 2022 SCC Online TS 606 2 2023 SCC Online TS 1095 3 2023 SCC Online TS 1170 4 2024 SCC Online TS 915 5 2024 SCC Online TS 2050 ETD,J MACMA No.172_2021 7 7.5 % per annum on the compensation from the date of petition till realization.
f) 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.2 is answered accordingly.
14. Point No.3:-
In view of the finding arrived at Point No.1 and 2, it is held that the Order and Decree of the Tribunal dated 23.06.2020 need to be modified with regard to the rate of interest reducing it from 9% to that of 7.5%.
15. POINT NO.4:
In the result, M.A.C.M.A filed by the RTC is partly allowed modifying the Order and Decree dated 23.06.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.1791 of 2017 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, 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 respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of ETD,J MACMA No.172_2021 8 this judgment after deducting the amount if any already deposited. On such deposit, the petitioners 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:01.05.2025 ds