Telangana High Court

The Managing Director vs Sonali And 3 Others on 25 April, 2025

                                 1




      THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

                   M.A.C.M.A.NO.07 OF 2021

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by NEKRTC, aggrieved by the Order and

Decree dated 31.10.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.899 of 2015 passed by the

Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XIV Additional

Chief Judge (FTC) 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 petitioner before the Tribunal is that on

25.01.2015 the deceased-S. Gopal and one Deepak went to

Kandekeri, Bidar District on motor cycle bearing No.AP-11-Q-8614

and on 27.01.2015 at about 19:00 hours, while they were

returning to Hyderabad, when they reached Budhera X Road of

Munipally Mandal, one Karnataka RTC bus bearing No.KA-32-F-

1727 which was proceeding towards Zaheerabad from Hyderabad

came in a high speed in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the

motor cycle, due to which the deceased-Gopal who was riding the

bike and the pillion rider fell down and sustained grievous injuries

and died on the spot. The petitioners filed a claim petition seeking

Rs.10,00,000/-.

ETD,J MACMA No.7_2021

4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1-RTC has filed

counter denying the material averments with regard to the

occurrence of the accident, age and income of the deceased and

has further denied the rash and negligence on part of the bus

driver. It is further contended that the accident occurred due to the

rash and negligence of the deceased.

5. The respondent No.2/driver has also filed counter alleging

that a false case is filed for seeking compensation and has denied

the occurrence of the accident. He further contended that the claim

of the petitioners is excessive and has stated that the rider of the

bike did not hold a valid driving license.

6. Based on the above rival contentions, the Tribunal has

framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the pleaded accident had occurred resulting in death to the Deepak Raju Devkate, due to rash and negligent driving of bus No.AP-11-Z-7380?

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

3. To what relief ?

7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PWs 1 and

2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A9. On behalf of the respondents, no

evidence was adduced.

ETD,J MACMA No.7_2021

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a

compensation of Rs.23,38,000/- Aggrieved by the said order and

decree dated 31.10.2019, the present appeal is filed by the RTC.

9. Heard Sri E. Venkata Reddy, learned counsel for the

appellant and Sri C. Vikram Chandra, learned counsel for the

respondent Nos.1 to 3.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the

Tribunal has grossly erred in awarding huge compensation and

that the Tribunal has failed to account for contributory negligence

on part of the bike rider. He further contended that the deceased

did not hold a valid driving license and thus the Tribunal ought to

have fixed negligence on both the drivers equally. He further

argued that the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the

deceased as Rs.10,000/- and has awarded excess amounts under

various heads. He therefore, prayed to set aside the order and

decree of the Tribunal.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has

prayed to confirm the award passed by the Tribunal.

12. Based on the above rival submission, this Court frames the

following points for determination:-

1. Whether the accident has not occurred due to the rash and negligence of the driver of the RTC bus bearing No.KA-32-F-1727?

ETD,J MACMA No.7_2021

2. Whether there was any contributory negligence on part of the deceased who was riding motor bike bearing No.AP-11-Q-8614?

3. Whether the Order and Decree passed by the Tribunal need any interference?

4. To what relief?

13. Point No.1:-

a) The case of the petitioners is that the accident occurred due

to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus

bearing No.KA-32-F-1727. PW1 is not an eye witness to the

accident. PW2 is an eye witness, his evidence reveals that he was

sitting in the counter at his hotel and that the scene of offence was

at a distance of 100 feet from his hotel, and he saw that the bike

of the deceased was proceeding from Zaheerabad to Hyderabad,

while the RTC Bus was coming in the opposite direction and that

the accident occurred as the RTC Bus bearing No.KA-32-F-1727

was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at a high

speed and dashed to the motor bike of the deceased.

b) In the cross examination of PW2, it is elicited that a road

repair work was going on at the relevant time and the ingress and

aggress of the vehicles was from only one side and that the width of

the road was 20 feet at that time and also that it is a very busy

highway. The contention of the appellant counsel is that since

there was road repair work going on, there was no possibility for

the bus driver to go at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner ETD,J MACMA No.7_2021

and that the said allegation is false. But PW2 denied the

suggestion that the rash driving is not possible when the road work

is going on. Nothing material could be elicited in his cross

examination to dislodge the evidence of PW2.

c) A perusal of FIR under Ex.A1 and charge sheet under Ex.A4

reveals that the case is registered against the bus driver under

Section 304-A. There is no rebuttal evidence with regard to the

occurrence of the accident by the respondents, though they have

taken such a plea in their counter. The charge sheet is filed by

the Police after investigation. Therefore, it is held that the accident

occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the

bus and that there is no contributory negligence on part of the

deceased.

Hence Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

14. Point No.2:-

a) The case of the petitioner is that the deceased used to work

as an auto driver and was earning an amount of Rs.12,500/- per

month, but they have not filed any proof of income of the deceased.

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,

(2011) 12 SCC 236 ETD,J MACMA No.7_2021

Rs.4,500/- per month can be safely taken as the income. In the

said case the accident occurred in 2004, but in the present case,

the accident occurred in 2015 and the petitioner is stated to have

been working as an auto driver. The Tribunal has taken the

earnings of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- which appears to be

reasonable.

b) The Tribunal has followed the dicta laid down in National

Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others 2, and

added 40% towards future prospects, and deducted 1/4th towards

personal expenses as the number of claimants are four.

c) The Post Mortem Examination report filed under Ex.A4

reveals the age of the deceased as 23 years. Therefore, the age as

revealed under Ex.A4 is taken into consideration. The Tribunal

has applied the right multiplier of '18' as per column No.4 of the

table given in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 3.

The Tribunal has also awarded amounts towards Loss of Estate,

Loss of Consortium and Funeral Expenses as per Pranay Sethi's

case.

AIR 2017 SCC 5157

2009 (6) SCC 121 ETD,J MACMA No.7_2021

d) Therefore, it is opined that the order and decree passed by

the Tribunal awarding an amount of Rs.23,38,000/- towards

compensation appears to be well justified.

Point no.2 is answered accordingly.

15. Point No.3:-

In view of the discussion held supra, it is held that the order

and decree passed by the Tribunal do not need any interference

and therefore, the same is upheld.

16. Point No.4:-

In the result, the appeal is dismissed upholding the Order

and Decree dated 31.10.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.899 of 2015 passed by

the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XIV Additional

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