The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport ... vs Vulasa Asha Shiva Jyothi
2025 Latest Caselaw 274 Tel

Telangana High Court

The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport ... vs Vulasa Asha Shiva Jyothi on 4 July, 2025

                                    1



      THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

                    M.A.C.M.A.NO.106 OF 2021

JUDGMENT:

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

Decree dated 07.02.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.470 of 2012 passed by the

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, 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 was that on

11.04.2010, while the petitioner was travelling from Guntur to

Nalgonda along with her brother in APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP-

28Z-5948, after the bus crossed Miryalaguda town at about 10:00

p.m., the driver of the bus drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent

manner, at a high speed, tried to overtake another vehicle which

was proceeding ahead and thereby dashed against the lorry in the

opposite direction, due to which the petitioner and other

passengers received multiple injuries. Immediately the petitioner

was shifted to Area Hospital, Miryalaguda and from there she was

admitted in Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad for better treatment. She

incurred huge expenses and thus, sought a compensation of

Rs.40,00,000/-.

ETD,J MACMA No.106_2021

4. The respondent filed counter denying the averments of the

petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age,

avocation and income of the petitioner. It is further contended that

the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties i.e., the

owner and insurer of lorry. It is further contended that the

accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry

driver and that the driver of the bus was not at all negligent.

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

framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the pleaded accident had occurred resulting in injuries to the petitioner, V. Asha Shiva Jyothi, due to rash and negligent driving of RTC Bus bearing registration No.AP-

28Z-5948, by its driver?

3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation if so, at what quantum and what is the liability of the respondent?

4. To what relief ?

6. To prove their case, the petitioner got examined PWs 1 to 3

and got marked Exs.A1 to A21. On behalf of the respondents, RW1

was examined and Ex.B1 was marked.

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

compensation of Rs.12,59,409/-. Aggrieved by the same, the

present appeal is preferred by the RTC.

8. Heard Sri K. Srinivas Rao, learned counsel for TSRTC. No

representation on behalf of the respondent.

ETD,J MACMA No.106_2021

9. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the

Tribunal has committed an error in awarding exorbitant amounts

under various heads towards compensation. He further argued

that there is no negligence of RTC driver in the occurrence of the

accident and that the petitioner has not lead any evidence with

regard to the medical expenses and has also not filed any proof of

income, but claims to be a Lecturer. He further argued that the

Tribunal has believed the version of the petitioner without any

proof and has granted huge compensation. He further argued that

the interest awarded by the Tribunal is very high @ 9% and prayed

to reduce the same to 7.5%.

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

following points for consideration:-

1. Whether there was no negligence of driver of RTC Bus bearing No. AP-

28Z-5948 in the occurrence of the accident?

2. Whether the compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?

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

4. To what relief?

11. Point No.1:-

a) The contention of the appellants counsel is that there was no

negligence of RTC driver in causing the accident. In support of

their contention, they got examined RW1. RW1 is the driver of the

bus which was involved in the accident. He deposed that he tried ETD,J MACMA No.106_2021

to avoid the accident, but that the accident occurred due to rash

and negligence of the lorry driver.

b) In his cross examination, RW1 has admitted that the

Departmental Enquiry was conducted against him in respect of the

accident, but has not filed any report. He stated that he is not in

possession of the said report. Though, RW1 has stated that he gave

complaint against the driver of the lorry, no copy of such complaint

is filed.

c) A perusal of Ex.A1/FIR and Ex.A2/Charge Sheet reveals that

the complaint was lodged against RW1 who is the driver of the bus

and charge sheet is filed after thorough investigation against the

driver of the bus, observing that the accident occurred due to the

rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. There is no averment

as to the rash and negligence of lorry driver.

d) It is pertinent to mention herein that the petitioner is the

injured witness and her evidence is creditworthy. She has filed

bus ticket under Ex.A3, which shows that she travelled by the RTC

Bus bearing No.AP-28Z-5948 on the fateful day which met with the

accident. She has stated that the accident occurred due to the rash

and negligent driving of the driver of RTC Bus. Further in addition

to it, Ex.A1 and A2 reveals that the accident occurred due to the

rash and negligence of the RTC driver. Though RW1 is examined, ETD,J MACMA No.106_2021

nothing could be elicited from him to show that there was rash and

negligence on part of the lorry driver. Therefore, it is held that the

accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the

driver of RTC Bus bearing No.AP-28Z-5948.

Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

12. POINT NO.2:

a) PW1 has stated that she sustained fracture injuries in the

accident and has undergone treatment at Yashoda Hospital,

Hyderabad. In support of her case, she has filed Ex.A4/outpatient

ticket which reveals that, initially she was taken to Area Hospital.

It is further mentioned in Ex.A4 that she is referred to higher

centre. Ex.A9 is the Discharge Summary, which shows that the

petitioner was admitted on 12.04.2010, in Yashoda hospital

surgery was performed on 19.04.2010 and was discharged on

11.05.2010 that means she was hospitalized for a period of one

month for the treatment of her injuries.

b) Ex.A9 further reveals the details of the treatment given to the

petitioner during her stay at the hospital. She was diagnosed with

left fronto temporal contusion and right fronto temporal scalp

avulsion. Ex.A10 is the set of medical bills which includes the Final

Bill of Yashoda Hospital for Rs.5,70,613/- and she has also filed

certain other bills to an extent of Rs.56,796/-. Hence, the same is ETD,J MACMA No.106_2021

granted towards medical bills which comes to a total of

Rs.6,27,409/-.

c) In addition to the said expenditure, she must have incurred

certain amount towards transportation, incidental expenses,

attendant charges, extra nourishment etc., It is already discussed

supra that she underwent inpatient treatment for about a period of

one month.

d) PW2 is a Neuro Surgeon at Sun Shine Hospital and

previously he worked at Yashoda Hospital as a Neuro Surgeon. His

evidence reveals that petitioner was admitted on 12.04.2010 in

Yashoda Hospital and that he has treated her, she was shifted to

INCU and Emergency intubation and ionotropics were given, she

was operated on 19.04.2010 for left temporal craniotomy excision

of left fronto temporal contusion and closure of right fronto

temporal scalp laceration.

e) PW3 is the Consultant Plastic Surgeon who treated the

petitioner at Yashoda Hospital. His evidence reveals that petitioner

was examined by team of doctors comprising of Neuro Surgeon,

Gastroenterologist Orthopedic Surgeon, Cardiologist and Plastic

Surgeon. He stated that the plastic surgery was done for primary

repair and skin grafting and that the petitioner was advised with

follow up treatment on outpatient basis at the time of discharge.

ETD,J MACMA No.106_2021

f) Nothing was elicited in the cross examination of PW2 and 3

to dislodge their evidence. By considering the entire phase of

recovery by the petitioner for about a period of three years, the

Tribunal has rightly granted Rs.1,00,000/- towards incidental

expenses.

g) Considering the evidence on record i.e., the injuries as stated

by PW1 to 3 and as disclosed by the discharge summary and other

medical record filed by the petitioner, it is opined that the

petitioner must have underwent acute pain and suffering because

of the said injuries, till she has recovered from the same. Therefore,

an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded towards pain and

suffering.

h) PW1 has stated that she used to work as a Lecturer. In

support of the same, she has filed Ex.A11/Salary Certificate issued

by Rama Devi College of Education. Ex.A11 is dated 29.10.2010

which discloses that she was working as a Lecturer in the

Department of Education from 11.04.2008 to 11.04.2010 and that

her gross salary is Rs.12,140/- per month. She has also filed

Certificates in support of her qualification. Ex.A12/SSC Certificate,

Ex.A13/Intermediate Education, Ex.A14/Graduation Certificate of

B.SC and Ex.A15 is the Certificate in Bachelor of Education,

Ex.A16/M.Sc Certificate showing that the petitioner has qualified ETD,J MACMA No.106_2021

in M.Sc Mathematics. Thus, all these certificates reveal that the

petitioner possesses the necessary qualification to work as a

lecturer and the salary certificate further discloses that she was

earning a salary of Rs.12,140/- at Rama Devi College of Education.

i) The contention of the appellant counsel is that the author of

the document is not examined and hence, the same cannot be

considered. The petitioner possesses the necessary qualifications to

work as a lecturer and she is aged around 30 years. Thus, her age

and qualification probabilizes the contention of the petitioner that

she used to work as a lecturer and hence the salary as disclosed

from Ex.A11 is taken into consideration, thus her income is

assessed as Rs.12,000/- per month. The period of treatment as

disclosed from the discharge summary is one month as inpatient

and it is also elicited from PW2 and 3 that she was advised with

follow up treatment.

j) It is elicited from PW2 that the petitioner has taken around

three years to recover and was under his follow up treatment. No

question was posed to him on this aspect during cross

examination. Depending on the nature of injuries sustained by the

petitioner and the medical record filed by her and also by taking

into consideration the evidence of PW2, it is held that she was out

of work for at least three years. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly ETD,J MACMA No.106_2021

granted loss of earnings for 36 months which comes up to

Rs.4,32,000/- (36 x 12,000/-). The Tribunal has rightly considered

all the points and has awarded compensation. Therefore, there is

no infirmity in the orders passed by the Tribunal, hence the same

is found to be just and reasonable.

13. Point No.3:-

a) In view of the finding arrived at Point Nos.1 and 2, it is held

that the Order and Decree of the Tribunal dated 07.02.2020 need

not be interfered with regard to liability and quantum of

compensation. With regard to the rate of interest, the grievance of

the appellant is that the tribunal has granted a high rate of interest

i.e., @ 9%.

b) In Jadav Saroja Bai Versus Ghule Naga Rao and

Another 1; a Coordinate Bench of this High Court has granted

interest @ 7.5% per annum on the enhanced amount of

compensation.

c) In Bandavath Mangla and Another Versus Bandavath

Suresh and Others 2 and National Insurance Company Limited

Versus. M. Venkateswarulu and Others 3; also interest @ 7.5%

per annum was granted on the enhanced amount of compensation.

2022 SCC Online TS 606

2023 SCC Online TS 1095

2023 SCC Online TS 1170 ETD,J MACMA No.106_2021

d) In United Insurance Company Limited Versus. Bollam

Lingaiah 4; when the Tribunal has granted rate of interest @ 9%

per annum, the High Court has modified the rate of interest to

7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization.

e) A Division Bench of this High Court in National Insurance

Company Limited Versus Jagadish Prajapathi 5; has granted

7.5 % per annum on the compensation from the date of petition till

realization.

f) Therefore, in the light of the above cited decisions, this Court

has been consistently granting interest @ 7.5% on the

compensation that is awarded in such cases.

g) Therefore the same is awarded in this case also. Thus, the

rate of interest granted by the Tribunal is reduced to that of 7.5%.

Point No.3 is answered accordingly.

14. Point No.4:-

In the result, M.A.C.M.A filed by the APSRTC is partly

allowed modifying the Order and Decree dated 07.02.2020 in

M.V.O.P.No.470 of 2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, by

reducing the rate of interest from 9% to 7.5% per annum from the

2024 SCC Online TS 915

2024 SCC Online TS 2050 ETD,J MACMA No.106_2021

date of claim petition till realization. However, the interest for the

period of delay, if any, is forfeited. The appellant-TSRTC is directed

to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a

period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment after deducting the amount if any already deposited. On

such deposit, the respondent-claimant is entitled to withdraw the

said amount without furnishing any security, as per their

respective shares as allotted by the Tribunal. No costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall

stand closed.

_________________________________ JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

Date: 04.07.2025 ds