Telangana High Court
The Telangana State Road Transport ... vs Donakanti Ashok on 18 December, 2023
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
M.A.C.M.A.NO.890 OF 2023
JUDGMENT:
Heard learned standing counsel Sri Thoom Srinivas for the
appellant-TSRTC.
2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-TSRTC
challenging the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal-cum-Principal District and Sessions Judge at
Nizamabad (for short, 'Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.128 of 2019,
dated 19.12.2022, thereby seeking to set-aside the award
against the TSRTC.
3. The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is as under.
4. On 04.01.2019 at about 9.30 a.m., while the deceased i.e.,
Donakanti Laxmi and others were travelling in a Car bearing
registration No.MH-01-AH-0145 from Vadyat village to Adilabad
town, a Bus bearing registration No.AP-28-Z-4382 came in rash
and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the Car.
Due to said accident, the deceased received multiple fractures to
skull, fracture of right side temporal bone, fracture of nasal
LNA,J
bone and middle temporal bone, fracture of backside and other
multiple and grievous injuries to all over the body. Immediately,
she was shifted to RIMS Hospital, Adilabad, where she
underwent treatment and later she was admitted in Yashoda
Hospital, Hyderabad and she underwent treatment as inpatient
from 05.01.2019 to 18.01.2019 and later, she was shifted to
private hospital, Nizamabad, where she succumbed to injuries
on 19.01.2019. The claimants incurred an amount of
Rs.8,00,000/- towards treatment, medicines, transportation of
dead body. The Police, Mavala P.S., registered a case in Crime
No.6/2019 under Section 338 and 304-A IPC against the driver
of the offending vehicle and filed charge sheet.
5. The claimants i.e., respondent nos.1 to 3 herein, who are
husband and children of deceased, have filed claim petition
against appellants under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 before the Tribunal claiming compensation of
Rs.20,00,000/- along with interest from the date of the petition
till the date of deposit.
LNA,J
6. The deceased was aged about 45 years as on the date of
accident, hale and healthy and was working as washerwoman
and doing agriculture and was getting an income of Rs.30,000/-
per month and claimants lost the support of the deceased.
7. The appellant-TSRTC filed counter denying all the
allegations made in the claim petition and contended that
deceased was travelling in the car and seven persons were
travelling in the car at the time of accidents, as such, the driver
of the car unable to control the car and dashed the bus at
middle at "T" junction, while the bus crossed 80% of the road.
Thus, the conditions of the insurance policy were violated and
finally, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
8. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Court below
framed the following issues:
i) Whether the accident took place due to rash and
negligent driving of Bus bearing No.AP-28-Z-4382 by its
driver causing death of Donakanti Laxmi @ Rajavva?
ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom?
iii) To what relief?
LNA,J
9. In order to substantiate the case, on behalf of the
claimants, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A9 were
marked. On behalf of the TSRTC, RW.1 was examined and did
not mark any document on its behalf.
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 lorry bearing
registration No.AP-28-Z-4382 and awarded compensation of
Rs.17,22,939/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the
date of petition till the date of deposit of amount. TSRTC is liable
to pay the compensation.
11. During the course of hearing of the appeal, learned
counsel for appellant-TSRTC submitted that the Tribunal
erroneously decreed the O.P., and erred in believing the
evidence of P.W.3. He submitted that there is no negligence on
the part of the driver of the bus and therefore, TSRTC is not
liable to pay the compensation. He further submitted that
Tribunal erred in considering the age of the deceased as 45
without there being any documents. He further submitted that
LNA,J
Tribunal erred in granting interest @ 7.5% per annum without
following the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
T.N.State Transport Corporation Ltd., v. S.Raja Priya and
others 1 and finally, prayed to set aside the award passed by the
Tribunal.
Consideration :
12. With regard to the main contention of the learned counsel for
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. The Tribunal considered the evidence of eye
witness, P.W.3, who deposed that while he along with deceased
and others were travelling in a car, the driver of the Bus driven the
bus in rash and negligent manner and dashed the car, due to
which car turned turtle and went off the road and inmates of the
car sustained multiple fractures and grievous injuries and
deceased died while undergoing treatment. Further, Police filed
Ex.A4-charge sheet, as per which, the Police have examined P.W.3
as eye witness and others and have found that the driver of RTC
bus is responsible for the accident and is liable for the offence
(2005) 6 SCC 236
LNA,J
punishable under Sections 337, 338 and 304-A IPC. Considering
the oral evidence adduced by P.Ws.1 and 3, coupled with Exs.A1 to
A4, the Tribunal came to conclusion that the driver of RTC bus
was responsible for causing the accident in rash and negligent
manner.
13. Insofar as the age of the deceased is concerned, as per
Ex.A2-copy of inquest panchanama and Ex.A3-copy of PME report,
the age of the deceased was shown as 45 years. Considering the
same, the Tribunal had rightly considered the age of the deceased
as 45 years as on the date of accident.
14. 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 2 decided on 06.12.2022, had
granted interest @ 9% per annum. Therefore, this Court does not
find reason to interfere with the interest awarded by the Tribunal.
Conclusion:
15. In view of the above discussion and the material placed on
record, the appellant failed to make out any case warranting
2023(1) ALD 107(SC)
LNA,J
interference of this Court with the impugned award passed by the
Tribunal.
16. In the result, this Appeal stands dismissed. The appellants-
TSRTC are 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: 18.12.2023
kkm
LNA,J
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
M.A.C.M.A.NO.890 OF 2023
Date: 18.12.2023
kkm
