Telangana High Court
Telangana State Road Transport ... vs Smt.V.Bujji on 23 July, 2025
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
M.A.C.M.A.No.515 of 2023
JUDGMENT:
Heard Sri M. Ram Mohan Reddy, learned standing counsel for
the appellants/TSRTC and Sri G. Narender Reddy, learned counsel
for respondents/claimants. Perused the entire record.
2. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Chairman, Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XXVI Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil
Court,Hyderabad (for short 'the Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.1729 of
2016, dated 05.05.2022, whereby, claim petition filed seeking
compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- has been partly allowed awarding
with compensation of Rs.22,98,000/- with interest at 6% per
annum.
3. The claimants sought compensation from the
appellants/TSRTC jointly and severally on account of death of one
V. Ramulu in a road traffic accident. The claimants are the parents
of the deceased V.Ramulu. On 21.09.2015 at 12.45 am, the
deceased and his co-worker loaded debris with JCB in the Tata
Tipper bearing No.AP-11-V-015 near Harazpenta Grass Mandi,
Kachiguda, Kamela Road, Hyderabad. Thereafter, said tipper was
proceeding on the road. When the deceased was getting into the
tipper, one RTC bus bearing No.AP-36-Z-0226 came from Golnaka
side in rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased and
the Tata tipper. Due to the said impact, the deceased fell down
from the tipper and sustained head injury and died on the spot.
According to the claimants, the deceased was working as a driver
under a contractor by name M/s. Srinivasa Enterprises with salary
of Rs.15,000/- per month. In view of the crisis caused on account
of the death of the deceased, the claimants sought compensation
from the appellants/TSRTC.
4. The claimants got examined PWs 1 to 4 and exhibited Exs.A1
to A11 and Exs.C1 to C5. The appellants/TSRTC got examined
RW1 and did not exhibit any documentary evidence. Considering
the evidence adduced by both sides, the Tribunal awarded
compensation of Rs.22,98,000/- with 6% interest leading to filing of
present appeal.
5. In grounds of appeal, the TSRTC challenged the quantum of
compensation awarded and the finding about rash and negligent
driving on the part of the driver of RTC bus bearing No.AP-36-Z-
0226. Further, the TSRTC pointed that the deceased while trying to
get into the tipper, suddenly fell down on the road and sustained
injuries and there was no fault on the part of the bus driver.
However, said fact was not considered by the Tribunal.
Alternatively, it is urged that the claimants failed to prove rash and
negligent driving on the part of the driver of the RTC bus and
therefore, the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation under
No Fault Liability to a maximum extent of an amount of
Rs.50,000/-. Lastly, it is urged that the Tribunal erred in
considering income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/.- per month
when Ex.A8/SBH Pass book shows that the deceased was drawing
monthly salary of Rs.5,500/- only. Further, the Tribunal awarded
40% future prospects though his income was not supported by any
document, as such, prayed that the order passed by the Tribunal
be set aside.
6. Coming to the first ground of rash and negligent driving on
the part of the RTC bus bearing No.AP-36-Z-0226, the claimants
got examined PW2 who is an eye witness to the accident who was
driver of the JCB in the Tata Tipper bearing No.AP-11-V-015 who
was present when the accident occurred. PW2 deposed that the
deceased V. Ramulu who was a driver in GHMC was getting into
Tata tipper and at that time, one RTC bus came from Golnaka side
and dashed the Tata tipper from backside and in the process,
V.Ramulu fell down from the tipper, sustained head injury and died
on the spot. When an eye witness to the accident is examined, the
TSRTC cannot raise any issue about there being no proof of rash
and negligent driving. In addition to oral evidence of PW1, the
police record also is heavily weighed against the driver of the RTC
bus. A charge sheet is filed against the driver of RTC bus under
Section 304-A of IPC.
7. Coming to the issue of contributory negligence on the part of
the deceased, it is to be noted that the tipper was stationed and the
deceased was climbing into the tipper and at that time, the RTC
bus came from the backside and dashed the tipper. No negligence
can be attributed to the deceased who was routinely climbing into
the stationed tipper. Therefore, the ground of contributory
negligence also is not sustainable for challenging the impugned
order.
8. Next coming to the income of the deceased, the evidence of
PW1 is that her son was working as a driver in GHMC and had
income of Rs.15,000/- per month. As per evidence of PW2 who is
the JCB driver, the deceased was a contract tipper driver in GHMC
and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. PW2 as a JCB driver is
also earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Lastly, the witness PW3 is the
Proprietor of Srinivasa Enterprises who supplies labour to GHMC.
PW3 deposed that his organization is employed by Circle-9, GHMC
and the deceased was employed as a driver and was paid
Rs.15,000/- per month gross. In cross examination, it is elicited
that the salaries are paid through bank transaction and that the
bank statement of the deceased shows Rs.3,990/- for 15.09.2015
and Rs.8,820/- for 16.10.2015. No document is filed to show that
the deceased was paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- per month.
9. The entire police record shows the deceased was working as
GHMC driver. In general, in the year 2015, about Rs.7,000/- to
Rs.8,000/- per month is taken as the notional income of an
unskilled labourer and about Rs.12,000/- per month is taken as
the notional income of drivers of non-transport light motor vehicles.
Therefore, the Tribunal has taken the fixed income as stated by
PW3 as Rs.15,000/- per month and on the basis of Ex.A9
certificate which shows that the deceased was deputed to work as
tipper driver to GHMC Circle-9. The Assistant Engineer of GHMC
examined as PW4 deposed that in the year 2021, a contract driver
is paid Rs.16,841/-. Exs.C1 to C5 are marked by PW4. On the
basis of said evidence, the Tribunal has taken the income of the
deceased as Rs.15,000/- per month and this Court does not see
any reason to interfere with the same. The other aspects of
computing compensation i.e. adding 40% towards future prospects
and deducting 50% of the monthly income towards personal
expenses and granting funeral expenses and loss of estate are
proper. In addition, the claimants are entitled to payment of filial
consortium of Rs.40,000/- each, but the same was not considered
by the Tribunal. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled for
compensation of Rs.23,78,000/-.
10. In the result, the Motor Accident Miscellaneous Appeal is
disposed off by enhancing the compensation amount awarded by
the Tribunal from Rs.22,98,000/- to Rs.23,78,000/- as hereunder:
a) The enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest
at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of
realization.
b) The appellants shall deposit the amount within a period
of (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of judgment.
On such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw
the entire amount in 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:23.07.2025
gvl
