The Telangana State Road Transport ... vs M. Hari Since Died
2025 Latest Caselaw 4523 Tel

Telangana High Court

The Telangana State Road Transport ... vs M. Hari Since Died on 4 April, 2025

                                 1




     HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

                  M.A.C.M.A.NO.123 of 2021
                             AND
                  X-Objections No.48 of 2021

COMMON JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the RTC aggrieved by the order and

decree dated 04.10.2019 passed in O.P.No.478 of 2014 by the

XIV Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad

(for short "the trial Court"). The claimants also filed Cross

Objections No.48 of 2021 through which they are seeking

enhancement of compensation.

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred

to as they were arrayed before the Trial Court.

3. The case of the petitioners before the Trial Court is that on

05.12.2012 at 08.00 PM, the petitioner No.1 was travelling in

RTC bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 7317 from Mehdipatnam to

Lakdikapool and when the bus stopped at Lakdikapool bus stop,

he was getting down and in the meantime the driver of the bus

suddenly started the bus at a high speed in a rash and negligent

manner, due to which the deceased fell down and the bus ran

over the right leg, due to which he sustained a crush injury on

his leg and he was shifted to Osmania General Hospital. He was ETD,J

admitted in the hospital and treated for his injuries and the

wound got developed into gangrene, the leg below knee was

amputated and that he was discharged on 09.01.2013 with an

advice to go for a review after a week and that he incurred huge

expenditure towards his treatment and therefore, filed claim

petition seeking compensation of Rs.15 Lakhs.

4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed counter denying all the

material averments and they further contended that the accident

occurred due to the self negligence of the petitioner and that he

was negligent in getting down the bus, thus, sustained injury.

5. Based on the above pleadings, the Trial Court has framed

the following issues for trial:

"1. Whether the pleaded accident had occurred resulting in injuries to the petitioner, M.Hari due to the rash and negligent driving of RTC bearing No.AP 11 Z 7317 by its rider?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation? And if so, at what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents?

3. To what relief?"

6. At the time of trial, the petitioner got examined PWs 1 and

2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. No evidence was adduced on

behalf of the respondents.

ETD,J

7. Based on the evidence on record, the Trial Court has

granted a compensation of Rs.18,31,946/- along with interest at

9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization

along with costs. Aggrieved by the said award, MACMA No.123

of 2021 is preferred by the RTC, while X-Objections No.48 of

2021 is filed by the claimants.

8. Heard the submission of Sri N.Vasudeva Reddy, learned

Standing Counsel for the appellant and Sri P.Rama Krishna

Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents.

9. Learned Standing Counsel for RTC has submitted that the

Trial Court has wrongly awarded exorbitant amounts towards

compensation and that the Trial Court has grossly erred in

holding the bus driver to be negligent in causing the accident

and that there was contributory negligence on the part of the

petitioner while getting down the bus. It is his contention that

the injured tried to get down a running bus and fell down, as

such, he himself has contributed to the accident. He further

submitted that the name of PW2 is not mentioned in

Ex.A2/charge sheet, but still the Trial Court has believed the

evidence of PW2 as an eye witness, which is not proper. He

further argued that the Trial Court has erred in taking the ETD,J

income of the injured as Rs.10,000/- in the absence of any proof

and also has believed the disability to be 90% as per Ex.A6

though no doctor is examined to prove the disability. He further

argued that the Trial Court has granted huge amount under

various heads and has arrived at an exorbitant amount towards

the compensation, he therefore, prayed to set aside the order and

decree passed by the Trial Court by allowing this appeal.

10. The respondents counsel, on the other hand, has

submitted that the claimant is in fact entitled to more

compensation and that the Trial Court has awarded a low

amount of compensation and therefore, prayed to enhance the

same.

11. Based on the above rival contentions and the X-objections

filed by the claimants, this Court frames the following points for

determination:

1. Whether the driver of the bus was not negligent in driving the bus bearing No.AP11 Z 7317 on 05.12.2012 causing the accident resulting in injuries to the 1st petitioner?

2. Whether there was any contributory negligence on part of the petitioner?

3. Whether the compensation granted by the Trial Court is just and reasonable?

ETD,J

4. Whether the order and decree of the trial Court need any interference?

5. To what relief?

12. POINT NOS.1 AND 2:

a) It is borne out by record that by the time of adducing

evidence, the injured-1st petitioner has died and his LRs were

brought on record. PW1 is the wife of the deceased who is the

2nd petitioner and petitioner Nos.3 to 7 are the children of the

injured-1st petitioner who died during the pendency of the

proceedings.

b) PW1 is not an eye witness to the accident. A perusal of

Ex.A1/FIR and Ex.A2/charge sheet reveals that the driver of RTC

bus is the accused and that the accident occurred due to the

rash and negligent driving of the RTC bus bearing No.AP 11 Z

7317.

c) PW2 was examined as an eye witness. It is contended by

the learned Standing Counsel that PW2 is not an eye witness and

that his name is not cited in the charge sheet. PW2 is one

D.Karthik, who deposed that he is an eye witness to the accident,

as he was present at the accident spot and that the deceased was

travelling in the RTC bus and while he was getting down at the ETD,J

Lakdikapool bus stop, the driver of the bus suddenly started the

bus at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner, due to

which the deceased fell down and the RTC bus ran over his right

leg. During his cross examination, he admitted that his name is

not mentioned as eye witness in the charge sheet. Even leaving

aside the evidence of PW2, by going through the contents of the

charge sheet, it is held that the accident occurred due to the rash

and negligence of the driver of RTC bus and that there is no

contributory negligence on part of the deceased. Point Nos.1 and

2 are answered accordingly.

13. POINT NO.3:

a) The petitioners have claimed Rs.15,00,000/- and the Trial

Court has granted Rs.18,31,946/- along with interest at 9% per

annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization

along with costs.

b) On an overall perusal of the orders passed by the trial

Court it is revealed that it has considered all the components

including the loss of future earnings, medical expenses, pan and

suffering, transportation etc., while calculating compensation.

The petitioners have asserted that the injured petitioner was ETD,J

working as security guard at the time of accident and was

earning Rs.10,000/- per month.

c) The contention of the appellants counsel is that no proof is

filed by the petitioners with regard to the income of the injured.

In Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance

Insurance Company Limited 1, 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. But in

the present case, the accident occurred in the year 2012 and the

injured petitioner is stated to have been working as a security

guard, thus, on a reasonable hypothesis, the monthly income of

the injured petitioner as assessed by the Tribunal to be

Rs.10,000/- is well justified.

d) Further, the trial Court has calculated the loss of earnings

by taking 90% of disability. It is pertinent to mention here that

his leg was amputated below knee and that the 1st petitioner was

bed ridden and after three years, he died. Considering the said

fact on record, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the

award passed by the trial Court as it is found to be just and

reasonable. Point No.3 is answered accordingly.

(2011) 12 SCC 236 ETD,J

14. POINT NO.4:

In view of the findings arrived at point Nos.1 to 4, it is held

that the order and decree passed by the Trial Court do not need

any interference and therefore, the same is upheld.

15. POINT NO.5:

In the result, the MACMA No.123 of 2021 filed by the RTC

and the X-objections No.48 of 2021 filed by the petitioners are

dismissed upholding the order and decree dated 04.10.2019

passed in O.P.No.478 of 2014 by the XIV Additional Chief Judge

(FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad. No costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal,

shall stand closed.

                                  _________________________________
                                  JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

Date:      4.04.2025
ns