Telangana High Court
Telangana State Road Transport ... vs Jogu Janaki on 2 February, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
M.A.C.M.A.NO.1223 OF 2023
JUDGMENT:
Heard learned standing counsel Sri Thoom Srinivas for the
appellant-TSRTC and the learned counsel Sri Venkatesh Gupta
for the respondents-claimants.
2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-TSRTC
challenging the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Sessions, Mahabubnagar
(for short, 'Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.355 of 2018, dated
31.01.2023, thereby seeking to set-aside the award against the
TSRTC.
3. The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is as under.
4. On 05.09.2018 at about 7.00 p.m., while the deceased i.e.,
Jogu Srinu was proceeding from Kondgullaram to Hyderabad by
his car bearing registration No.AP-28-TS-8049 and when he
reached Jayaprakashnagar cross roads of Kalwakurthy, the
respondent no.1, who is driver of RTC bus bearing registration
No.TS-31-Z-0023, drove the bus in rash and negligent manner
LNA,J
in high speed and dashed the car of the deceased on front side,
due to which, deceased sustained injuries. Immediately, he was
shifted to local private hospital, and thereafter he was shifted to
Hyderabad for better treatment and expired while undergoing
treatment. The Police, Kalwakurthy P.S., registered a case in
Crime No.238/2018 under Section 304-A IPC against the driver
of the offending vehicle and filed charge sheet.
5. The claimants, i.e., the wife, children and parents of the
deceased, have filed claim petition against appellant under
Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Tribunal
claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- along with interest
from the date of the petition till the date of deposit.
6. It is contended that the deceased was aged about 33 years
as on the date of accident, hale and healthy and he purchased
the car in the year 2013 by obtaining loan from TVS Credit
Services and used to transport the passengers and earn
Rs.20,000/- per month and was contributing the same to the
welfare of his family and that claimants lost the support of the
deceased.
LNA,J
7. The driver of the RTC Bus, respondent no.6 herein,
remained ex parte. The appellant-TSRTC filed counter denying
all the allegations made in the claim petition and contended that
accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased only, but
not the driver of offending vehicle and finally, prayed for
dismissal of the claim petition.
8. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed
the following issues:
i) Whether the accident dated 05.09.2018 was caused
due to negligence of TSRTC bus bearing No.TS-31-Z-
0023 and due to rash and negligence driving of
respondent no.1 ?
ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation? If so, what is the quantum and from
whom?
iii) To what relief?
9. In order to substantiate the case, on behalf of the
claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A8 were
marked. On behalf of the TSRTC, neither any witness was
examined nor any document was marked.
LNA,J
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 RTC Bus and
awarded compensation of Rs.27,61,250/- along with costs and
interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of
deposit of amount.
11. During the course of hearing of the appeal, learned
counsel for appellant-TSRTC, while reiterating the averments
made in the counter, submitted that the Tribunal erroneously
decreed the O.P. He further submitted that there was no
negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and therefore,
TSRTC is not liable to pay the compensation. He also submitted
that Tribunal erred in considering the monthly income of the
deceased as Rs.15,000/- without there being any proof of
income and submitted that Tribunal erred in granting interest @
9% per annum and finally, prayed to set aside the award passed
by the Tribunal.
12. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent submitted
that the Tribunal granted proper compensation on due
LNA,J
consideration of evidence, material placed on record. He further
submitted that the appeal is devoid of any merit and the
appellant failed to make out any case warranting this Court to
interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal and finally,
prayed to dismiss the appeal.
Consideration :
13. The main contention raised by the 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. It is pertinent to mention that the Tribunal considered the
evidence of eye witness, P.W.2-B.Ramulu, who testified the
evidence of petitioners that accident occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the RTC Bus and nothing was
elicited from him contrary to petitioners case. Further, Police filed
Ex.A6-charge sheet, as per which, the Police have examined the
eye witness and others and have found that the driver of RTC bus
is responsible for the accident and is liable for the offence
punishable under Section 304-A IPC. Considering the oral evidence
adduced by P.Ws.1 and 2, coupled with Exs.A1 to A6, the Tribunal
LNA,J
came to conclusion that the driver of RTC bus was responsible for
causing the accident by driving the bus in rash and negligent
manner.
14. Insofar as the income of the deceased is concerned, though
the petitioner have not filed any proof of income of the deceased as
on the date of the accident, Ex.A7, which is registration certificate
of AP-28-DS-8049 of the deceased, clearly establish that deceased
purchased the car by obtaining loan from TVS credit services and
working as driver cum owner and transporting the passengers. The
Tribunal on considering Exs.A7 and A8 and also considering the
driver charges prevailing at that time, had taken the monthly
income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- and assessed the
compensation amount. In considered opinion of this Court, the
appellant failed to make out any ground to interfere with the award
passed by the Tribunal.
15. 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 1 decided on 06.12.2022, had
2023(1) ALD 107(SC)
LNA,J
granted interest @ 9% per annum. Therefore, this Court does not
find reason to interfere with the interest awarded by the Tribunal.
Conclusion:
16. In view of the above discussion and the material placed on
record, the appellant failed to make out any case warranting
interference of this Court with the impugned award passed by the
Tribunal.
17. In the result, this Appeal stands dismissed. The appellant-
TSRTC is 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: 02.02.2024
kkm
LNA,J
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
M.A.C.M.A.NO.1223 OF 2023
Date:02.02.2024
kkm
