Telangana High Court
The Depot Manager vs Chittemsetti Savithri on 24 July, 2025
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
M.A.C.M.A.No.836 of 2023
JUDGMENT:
Heard Sri P. Satish Kumar, learned standing counsel for the
appellants/TSRTC and Sri K. Pavan Kumar, learned counsel for
respondents/claimants. Perused the entire record.
2. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Chairman,
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge,
at Khammam (for short 'the Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.409 of 2020,
dated 02.08.2022, wherein, the claim petition filed by the
respondents/claimants was allowed by awarding compensation of
Rs.32,81,950/- with interest at 7.5% per annum payable by the
appellants/TSRTC, the appeal is filed.
3. The claimants filed claim petition seeking compensation of
Rs.30,00,000/- on account of death of one Chittemsetti Narasimha
Rao in a road traffic accident. On 08.11.2020, the deceased went
to Mudigonda to perform his duty and after completion of his duty,
to attend another duty, he went to Nelakondapalli on his
motorcycle. When the deceased was crossing Guvvalagudem, near
Sai Laxmi boiled rice mill at Acharlagudem cross road, the RTC bus
bearing No.AP 29-Z-2056 driven by its driver in rash and negligent
manner in high speed dashed the motorcycle of the deceased from
backside and dragging the same at 50 meters on the road causing
breaking of the head, fracture of right hand, right leg and death on
the spot. Hence, the claim petition was filed seeking compensation
of Rs.30,00,000/-.
4. The Tribunal upon examining the claimants' oral evidence
adduced through PWs 1 to 3 and the documentary evidence under
Exs.A1 to A9, in the absence of contra evidence on the part of the
TSRTC, awarded compensation of Rs.32,81,950/- with interest.
Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred.
5. In grounds of appeal, the TSRTC contended that awarding
sum of Rs.32,81,950/- with interest is an error as the accident did
not occur due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC
bus bearing No.AP 29-Z-2056. Further, it is argued that there is an
error in considering the date of birth and contributory negligence of
the rider of the motorcycle.
6. The Tribunal has relied upon the version presented by the eye
witness PW2 with respect to manner of occurrence of the accident
i.e. offending bus dashing the motorcycle from backside and
dragging it for about 50 meters on the road and the contents of
Ex.A1/FIR with complaint, Ex.A2/Charge sheet, Ex.A3/Inquest
report, Ex.A4/PME report, Ex.A5/MVI report and gave finding that
the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the bus.
7. Coming to the issue of contributory negligence, the TSRTC
filed a formal counter before the Tribunal denying the rash and
negligent driving on the part of the driver of the RTC bus and
contending that the claim made under various heads are exorbitant
and that the claim petition is filed in order to extract money. There
is no mention about the contributory negligence on the part of the
deceased. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that the bus has
struck the motorcycle from backside. Therefore, no contributory
negligence can be attributed to the deceased. The question of
contributory negligence would arise generally in cases where there
is head on collision between two vehicles and not in cases where
one vehicle is struck by another vehicle when they are proceeding
in the same direction. Therefore, the ground of contributory
negligence for challenging the impugned order is not sustainable.
8. Coming to the aspect of age of the deceased, the claimants
have deposed that the deceased was hale and healthy without
mentioning the age. The claimants got examined the wife of the
deceased as PW1 and she deposed that her husband age was 48
years. The same is reflected in the FIR, charge sheet, inquest report
and PME report. When the age of the deceased is mentioned as
48 years in the entire police record and the same is admitted by the
claimants, there is no ground to dispute the same unless contra
evidence is adduced. Further, as per ID card of the deceased
produced under Ex.A7, the date of birth of the deceased is shown
as 20.05.1972. The deceased died on 08.11.2020. As such, the age
will be 48 years as on the date of accident. Therefore, this Court
does not see any reason to give a contra finding about the age as
ascertained by the Tribunal. There is no challenge to rest of the
findings given by the Tribunal except the interest part. Thus, there
are no grounds to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. Hence,
the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
9. Accordingly, the MACMA is dismissed. There shall be no order
as to costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal, shall
stand closed.
___________________
RENUKA YARA, J
Date: 24.07.2025
gvl
