Telangana High Court
Mutyala Adi Reddy vs Nimma Ganga Narsaiah on 4 July, 2025
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
M.A.C.M.A.Nos.794 and 1332 of 2023
COMMON JUDGMENT:
Heard Sri N. Chandra Sekhar, learned standing counsel for
the appellant in M.A.C.M.A.No.794 of 2023 and Sri A.V.K.S.Prasad,
learned counsel for the appellants in M.A.C.M.A.No.1332 of 2023.
Perused the entire record.
2. Since both the above appeals are arising out of the award
passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-
Principal District Judge, Karimnagar (for short 'the Tribunal') in
M.V.O.P.No.570 of 2015, dated 10.11.2022, they were taken up for
hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this common
judgment.
3. The M.A.C.M.A.No.794 of 2023 is filed by the
appellant/respondent No.2/TSRTC and M.A.C.M.A. No.1332 of
2023 is filed by the appellants/petitioners/claimants.
4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as
they are arrayed in M.V.O.P.No.570 of 2015.
5. The claimants filed petition under Section 166(1) © of
M.V.Act, seeking compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- on account of
death of one Mutyala Venkat Reddy in a road traffic accident. On
18.01.2015 at about 8.00 am, the deceased Mutyala Venkat Reddy
proceeded from his house at Arpapalli on a motorcycle bearing
No.AP-10-F-6525 to Raikal Village to visit his aunt Bodigem Laxmi.
At 10.00 am, he left Raikal Village to meet his uncle at Sirikonda
Village. When the deceased reached outskirts of Raikal and was
passing from Telangana Chowk, at 10.15 am, the driver of TSRTC
bus bearing No.AP-11-Z-5543 came in rash and negligent manner
in opposite direction to wrong side of the road and hit the deceased
causing severe injuries which resulted in his death on the spot. The
police, Raikal registered a case in Crime No.10 of 2015 against
respondent No.1 who was driving the offending bus for the offence
under Section 304-A of IPC.
6. The claimants adduced oral and documentary evidence in the
form of witnesses PWs 1 to 4 and Exs.A1 to A14. The respondent
No.2/TSRTC got examined RW1 but did not mark any documents.
7. Upon examining the oral and documentary evidence, the
Tribunal fixed liability at 50% each on the deceased and the driver
of the RTC bus and thereby, awarded compensation of
Rs.19,25,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum.
8. Aggrieved by the said award, the claimants filed MACMA
No.1332 of 2023 challenging imposition of liability of 50% on the
deceased and deduction of the compensation awarded to said
extent. Further, the claimants sought compensation towards filial
consortium and parental consortium. Lastly, the claimants alleged
that Ex.A9/Salary certificate showing income of the deceased at
Rs.25,000/- was not taken into consideration though the same was
not challenged.
9. The respondent No.2/TSRTC challenged the award filing
MACMA No.794 of 2023 alleging that there is no negligence on the
part of the driver of the bus and therefore, imposition of 50%
liability on TSRTC is erroneous. In that context, the respondent
No.2 referred to paragraph 17 of the award passed by the Tribunal
wherein it is held that there is no negligence on the part of the
driver as per the version of police. Lastly, respondent No.2 alleged
that the interest granted at 7.5% per annum is excessive.
10. The first issue to be addressed is the liability of the deceased
and the liability of the RTC driver which is fixed at 50% each by the
Tribunal. Both the rival parties are aggrieved by the said finding of
the Tribunal. In that context, the important documents to be
perused are the FIR/Ex.A1 and the Final Report/Ex.A12 filed by
the police. As per FIR and the complaint given by the father of the
deceased, when the motorcycle of the deceased reached outskirts of
Raikal, said motorcycle was struck by RTC bus bearing No.AP-11-
Z-5543 which was driven in rash and negligent manner. After
completing investigation, the police filed final report on the basis of
version presented by the eye witnesses stating that at about 10.15
am, when the motorcycle reached outskirts of Raikal, at that time,
the deceased was coming in opposite direction on his Yamaha RX
100 motorcycle bearing No.AP-10-F-6525 carrying a phone in his
hand, even after blowing horn by the bus driver, the deceased did
not observe the bus and dashed the right side of the bus, due to
which, the deceased died on the spot due to severe injuries.
11. Further, as per Final report/Ex.A12, there is no negligence on
the part of the driver of the bus and the action is abated due to the
death of the deceased in the accident i.e. charge sheet is not filed
against the TSRTC driver. As per version presented by the police, it
is the deceased who was riding the vehicle while speaking over cell
phone and therefore, the accident took place in spite of the
precautions taken by the driver of TSRTC bus. On this aspect, the
counsel for the claimants would contend that speaking over cell
phone is different from holding a cell phone. This Court would
differ with the contention of the counsel for the claimants for the
simple reason that holding a cell phone in one hand would compel
the rider to drive a motorcycle with one hand and irrespective of
whether he was speaking or not controlling the motorcycle with one
hand would be risky and life threatening. Therefore, fixing liability
at 50% is less when compared to the finding given by the police
after conducting investigation wherein it is held that there is
absolutely no fault on the part of the driver of TSRTC bus. However,
in view of the fact that there are witnesses examined before the
Tribunal who deposed that the accident occurred due to negligence
of the driver of RTC bus and since there are catena of judgments
which mandate that the oral evidence of the witnesses before the
Tribunal be taken into consideration as against the contents of the
police record, this Court is inclined to fix the liability as decided by
the Tribunal at 50% each.
12. Further, a perusal of the record shows that the Tribunal has
taken the income of the deceased as Rs.25,000/- on the basis of
Ex.A9 salary certificate and on the basis of the oral evidence of
PW4. Though there is ambiguity about the avocation of the
deceased on account of the contents of the complaint given by the
father of the deceased while lodging complaint with the police about
the accident, in view of the education of the deceased who was a
B.Tech graduate and was preparing for higher studies, this Court is
not inclined to interfere with the notional income taken by the
Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.70,000/- towards loss of
consortium to petitioner No.1, loss of estate and funeral expenses.
The same is appropriate and need not be interfered with. This
Court is inclined to grant only an amount of Rs.40,000/- towards
filial consortium to claimant No.2 being the mother of deceased and
Rs.40,000/- to claimant No.3 being the brother.
13. As per judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others 1, the interest of 7.5%
on the compensation is held to be just and reasonable, therefore, said
interest granted by the Tribunal cannot be interfered with.
14. In the result, the MACMA No.794 of 2023 filed by the TSRTC
is dismissed and MACMA No.1332 of 2023 is allowed in part
enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from
Rs.19,25,000/- to Rs.20,05,000/- as hereunder:
a) The compensation amount shall carry interest at 7.5%
p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.
b) The respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall deposit the amount
within a period of (8) weeks from the date of receipt of
copy of judgment. On such deposit, the appellants/
claimants are entitled to withdraw the entire amount in
2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35
proportion to their shares awarded by the
Tribunal, without furnishing the security.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal, shall
stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
___________________
RENUKA YARA, J
Date: 04.07.2025
gvl
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
M.A.C.M.A.Nos.794 and 1332 of 2023
4th July, 2025
gvl
