Telangana State Road Transport ... vs T. Savithri
2022 Latest Caselaw 3400 Tel

     HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

                   M.A.C.M.A.No.1618 of 2018
JUDGMENT :

This appeal is filed by the TSRTC, aggrieved of the orders

dated 08.02.2018 in MVOP.No.2272 of 2012 on the file of MACT-

cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. The above MVOP was filed under Section 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, by the claimants, claiming compensation of

Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of one T.Nikhil Goud, in the accident

that occurred on 26.08.2012 at about 12.45 Noon at Kothapet Cross

Roads, Hyderabad.

3. On 26.08.2012 at about 12.45 Noon, the deceased T. Nikhil

Goud, who was working as a part-time Lecturer, boarded the bus

bearing No.AP-28-Z-5031 at Post Office, Saroornagar and when

the bus reached the Kothapet Cross Roads, the bus was stopped

and when the deceased was about to get down from the bus, the

driver of the bus moved it in a rash and negligent manner, due to

which, the deceased got skid and came under the tyres of the bus

and the bus ran over the deceased, killing him on the spot.

GAC, J MACMA.No.1618 of 2018

4. The Tribunal, on examining the oral and documentary

evidence on record, partly allowed the O.P., granting compensation

of Rs.4,75,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of

filing of the petition till the date of realization, payable by both the

respondents jointly and severally.

5. Heard both sides and perused the record.

6. It is urged by the learned counsel for the appellants that the

Tribunal has erred in awarding Rs.4,50,000/- towards loss of

dependency, which is highly excessive and also erred in awarding

Rs.25,000/- towards love and affection and funeral expenses,

instead of awarding Rs.15,000/- under the said heads. Therefore,

prayed to set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondents

contended that the compensation granted by the Tribunal can be

enhanced in this appeal itself as per Order 41 Rule 33 of CPC,

though cross objections are not filed. It is contended that as per the

said provision, "the appellate court shall have power to pass any

decree and make any order which ought to have been passed or

GAC, J MACMA.No.1618 of 2018

made and to pass or make such further or other decree or order as

the case may require, and this power may be exercised by the court

not withstanding that the appeal is as to part only of the decree and

may be exercised in favour of all or any of the respondents or

parties, although such respondents or parties may not have filed

any appeal or cross-suits or where there have been decrees in

cross-suits or where two or more decrees are passed in one suit, be

exercised in respect of all or any of the decrees, although an

appeal may not have been filed against such decrees."

8. Though there is ample power for the appellate Court under

Order 41 Rule 33 of CPC to pass any orders in a case of recovery

of money, as far as the motor accident claims are concerned, such

orders cannot be passed without there being cross-objections or

cross-appeals.

9. On perusal of the entire material on record, the impugned

order and decree, this Court is of the considered view that there is

no valid ground to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal as far

as the negligence of the RTC driver is concerned and also the

GAC, J MACMA.No.1618 of 2018

quantum of compensation arrived at by the Tribunal i.e.

Rs.4,75,000/-. In order to support the case of claimants about the

rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus, PW-2/an

eyewitness was also examined and the evidence of PW-2 also

corroborates the evidence of PW-1 in all respects as to the rash and

negligent act of the driver of the bus. Though it is the contention

of the appellants/TSRTC that the deceased tried to get down the

running bus due to which the accident occurred. But there is no

evidence on record to show that the deceased had stepped down

from the running bus. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly held that

there is no negligence on the part of the deceased and the

negligence is on the part of the driver of the bus and due to his rash

and negligent act, the death of the deceased had occurred. Further,

the Tribunal has rightly considered that there is no documentary

evidence as to the income of the deceased though it is the

contention of claimants that the deceased was giving tuitions to 15

to 20 students and was earning Rs.30,000/- per month. Therefore,

I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the orders of the

Tribunal, so as to interfere with the same.

GAC, J MACMA.No.1618 of 2018

10. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is devoid of merits and

it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

________________________________ G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J Date: 05.07.2022

ajr