Telangana High Court

The Telangana State Road Transport ... vs E. Yellaiah on 4 July, 2025

                                  1


      THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

                    M.A.C.M.A.NO.30 OF 2021

JUDGMENT:

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

Decree dated 12.02.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.1398 of 2017 passed by

the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-The Court of 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 petitioners before the Tribunal was that on

13.08.2016 at about 2:30 p.m., while the deceased was going as a

pillion rider on TVS-XL bearing No.AP-23A-2978 driven by one Ravi

Kumar and when the said motor bike reached near Rangadampally

Chowrastha, one TSRTC bus bearing No.AP-29Z-2351 which was

proceeding toards Mancherial, being driven by its driver in a rash

and negligent manner at a high speed, came in the wrong side and

hit the TVS-XL, due to which the deceased fell down, sustained

grievous injuries and died on the spot. The claimants sought a

compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.

4. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed counter denying the

averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the

accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further ETD,J MACMA No.30_2021

contended that the driver of the bike was not holding valid driving

license at the time of accident and thus, their Corporation is not

liable to pay any compensation and they are not entitled to claim

any compensation.

5. The respondent No.3 is the driver of RTC bus who also filed

counter denying the occurrence of the accident. He contended that

the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the rider of

the motor bike and that he was not at all negligent.

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

framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the pleaded accident had occurred resulting in death of the deceased E. Yellavva, due to rash and negligent driving of RTC bus bearing registration No.AP-29Z-2351 by its driver?

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 PWs1 and 2

and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. On behalf of the respondents, RW1

was examined and no documents were marked.

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

compensation of Rs.9,50,000/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the

present appeal is preferred by the TSRTC.

ETD,J MACMA No.30_2021

9. Heard the submissions of Sri R. Anurag, learned counsel for

the TSRTC and Sri M. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for respondent

No.1.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there

were three people going on the motor bike and thus the said

overload on the motor bike contributed to the accident. He further

argued that the deceased is 40 year old and thus 25% addition

towards future prospects has to be considered, but the tribunal

has taken it as 40%. He further argued that the tribunal has

awarded interest @ 9% per annum and has prayed to reduce the

same to 7.5%.

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

submitted that this Court cannot reduce the rate of interest once

granted by the Tribunal. He further argued that as per the

guidelines of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company

Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others 1, up to 40 years 40%

addition has to be made to future prospects and above 40 years it

will be 25%. In the present case, the deceased is aged 40 years so,

the tribunal has rightly taken the addition of 40%. Therefore, he

prayed to uphold the decision of the Tribunal.

AIR 2017 SCC 5157 ETD,J MACMA No.30_2021

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

following points for consideration:-

1. Whether there was no contributory negligence on part of the rider of the TVS XL motor bike bearing No.AP-23A-2978 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?

13. Point No.1:-

a) The contention of the appellant's counsel is that the accident

occurred due to the negligence of the rider of the TVS XL motor

bike bearing No.AP-23A-2978. In support of their contention, they

got examined RW1 before the Tribunal. He is the driver of the RTC

Bus, he deposed in his chief examination that the rider of the TVS

was coming with two other pillion riders in a rash and negligent

manner, without wearing helmet and hit his bus, and that the

accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the rider of the

motor bike. In his cross examination, it is elicited that he has not

given any complaint to the police alleging that the charge sheet

filed against him is false and that the rider of the motor bike is at

fault.

b) A perusal of the charge sheet filed under Ex.A2 reveals that

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

RTC Bus driver, which came at a high speed in a rash and ETD,J MACMA No.30_2021

negligent manner and dashed against the motor bike on which the

deceased was proceeding as a pillion rider, as a result of which he

fell down on the road and died on the spot and the charge sheet is

filed against the RTC driver. Thus, there is no evidence on record to

show that there was any contributory negligence on part of the

rider of the motor bike. Therefore, it is held that there was no

contributory negligence on part of the rider of the motor bike.

Though it is alleged that there were three persons going on the

motor bike, nowhere it is elicited that the said triple riding

contributed to the accident. Therefore, it is held that there was no

contributory negligence on part of the rider of the motor bike.

Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

14. Point No.2:-

a) PW1 is the husband of the deceased, has asserted that his

wife used to go for coolie work and used to earn an amount of

Rs.10,000/- per month. No proof of can be expected in this regard.

b) In Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram

Alliance Insurance Company Limited 2, 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.

(2011) 12 SCC 236 ETD,J MACMA No.30_2021

In the present case, the deceased is a daily wage labourer. No proof

can be expected in this regard.

c) The deceased is aged '40' years as per the Post Mortem

Examination Report filed under Ex.A4. Thus, considering the facts

and circumstances of the case and evidence on record, it is opined

that the income as assessed by the Tribunal i.e., Rs.5,000/- per

month appears to be justified.

d) The Tribunal has also considered the other guidelines laid

down by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company

Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others 3, by adding future prospects

of 40%, and also has given a deduction of 1/3rd since the

claimants are three in number, has also applied the right

multiplier of '15'. It has considered all the other principles laid

down by the Apex Court and has awarded the compensation.

Therefore, it is held that the compensation i.e., Rs.9,50,000/-

awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable.

Point No.2 is answered accordingly.

AIR 2017 SCC 5157 ETD,J MACMA No.30_2021

15. Point No.3:-

a) In view of the findings arrived at point No.1 and 2 , there is

no need to interfere with the Order and Decree of the Tribunal and

the same is upheld with regard to quantum of compensation.

b) The Tribunal has awarded 9% interest on the compensation

which is disputed by learned counsel for the appellants. He prayed

to reduce the same.

c) In Jadav Saroja Bai Versus Ghule Naga Rao and

Another 4; a Coordinate Bench of this High Court has granted

interest @ 7.5% per annum on the enhanced amount of

compensation.

d) In Bandavath Mangla and Another Versus Bandavath

Suresh and Others 5 and National Insurance Company Limited

Versus. M. Venkateswarulu and Others 6; also interest @ 7.5%

per annum was granted on the enhanced amount of compensation.

e) In United Insurance Company Limited Versus. Bollam

Lingaiah 7; 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.

2022 SCC Online TS 606

2023 SCC Online TS 1095

2023 SCC Online TS 1170

2024 SCC Online TS 915 ETD,J MACMA No.30_2021

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

Company Limited Versus Jagadish Prajapathi 8; has granted

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

realization.

g) 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. Hence, in the present

case, the rate of interest is reduced from 9% per annum to that of

7.5% per annum.

Point No.3 is answered accordingly.

16. POINT NO.4:

In the result, M.A.C.M.A filed by the TSRTC against the

Order and Decree dated 12.02.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.1398 of 2017

passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-The Court of

Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad is partly allowed, by

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

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

2024 SCC Online TS 2050 ETD,J MACMA No.30_2021

such deposit, the respondents are entitled to withdraw the said

amount without furnishing any security, as per their respective

shares as allotted by the Tribunal. No costs.