Telangana High Court
The Managing Director vs Kilari Sharada on 28 July, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA
M.A.C.M.A.No.196 of 2020
JUDGMENT:
This M.A.C.M.A. is filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellant/R.T.C. against the
judgment and decree, dated 27.06.2025 passed in
M.V.O.P.No.541 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal-Cum-I Additional District Judge, Khammam,
(hereinafter referred to 'Tribunal'), wherein the learned Tribunal
has awarded an amount of Rs.10,52,800/- as against the claim
of the claimants at Rs.15,00,000/-.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal
hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are that, the claimants filed the
above claim-petition for grant of compensation of
RS.15,00,000/- for the death of one Kilari Nagaraju (hereinafter
referred to as "the deceased"), who died in a motor vehicle
accident that occurred on 26.02.2012. It is stated that on
26.02.2012, while the deceased was crossing the R & B road,
the driver of the R.T.C. bus bearing No.AP 29 Z 2902 drove it in
a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased, due to
NNR, J
Macma_196_2020
which the deceased fell down on the road and sustained fatal
injuries on the vital organs of the body and died on the spot.
Basing on a complaint, the Police, Kodada Town, registered a
case in Crime No.36 of 2012 against the driver of the RTC bus,
for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of I.P.C. It is
further stated that the deceased was aged about 48 years at the
time of the accident and used to earn Rs.20,000/- per month as
Tanker Driver and on account of the death of deceased, the
claimants , who have depended on the income of the deceased,
have lost their source of income. Hence, they filed the claim-
petition against the respondent, who, being the owner of the
said R.T.C. bus is liable to pay the compensation.
4. The respondent filed counter denying the averments made
in the claim-petition such as the manner in which the accident
took place, age, income and avocation of the deceased. It is
specifically denied that there was no rash and negligent driving
on the part of the driver of the RTC bus and the deceased
himself was responsible for the accident. It is further contended
that the compensation claimed by the claimants is exorbitant
and excessive. It is further contended that the claimants are
not entitled to the interest as claimed in the claim-petition since
NNR, J
Macma_196_2020
the claim-petition was filed five years after the accident.
Therefore, prayed to dismiss the claim-petition.
5. Basing on the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal
framed the following issues:-
1. Whether the deceased Kilari Nagaraju died on
26.02.2012 while proceeding on R & B Road near Krishna
Priya Talkies at Kodad Town due to hitting of APSRTC bus
bearing No.AP 29 Z 902 driven by its driver in rash and
negligent manner?
2. Whether the claim-petitioner Nos.1 to 5 are entitled for
compensation, if so, how much and from whom?
3. To what relief?
6. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimants, the wife
of the deceased was examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1
to A5. On behalf of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined but no
documentary evidence was produced.
7. After considering the contents of the claim-petition,
counter filed by the respondent and evaluating the oral and
documentary evidence produced by both the parties, the
Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus and allowed the
M.V.O.P in part and granted compensation of Rs.10,52,800/-
NNR, J
Macma_196_2020
along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition
till date of realization payable by the respondent. Aggrieved by
the said order and decree, the Road Transport Corporation filed
the present appeal on the following grounds:-
(i) that the learned Tribunal without considering the fact
that there is a negligence on the part of the deceased himself as
he crossed the road from right side to left side without observing
the traffic on the road and also jumped the railing and came
infront of the bus and fell down on the road, due to which he
succumbed to injuries. It is further contended that the said
accident was happened in a fraction of seconds as driver of the
bus has no time to stop the bus and therefore, there was no
negligence on the part of the driver of the bus.
(ii) that the learned Tribunal has relied upon the sole
evidence of P.W.1, who is admittedly not an eye witness to the
accident and Ex.A5, had erroneously held that the accident
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
said bus. Further, the learned Tribunal ought to have taken the
contributory negligence on the part of the deceased at 50% and
the notional income which is taken by the learned Tribunal is
without any basis and the compensation awarded by the
NNR, J
Macma_196_2020
Tribunal is exorbitant and excessive and prayed to allow the
appeal.
8. Having heard Sri K.Srinivasa Rao, learned Standing
Counsel for the appellant and Ms.B.Madhavi, learned counsel
representing Sri V.Brahmaiah Chowdary, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent and perusal of the material on
record, the point that arises for consideration before this Court
is whether the appellant has made out any grounds for allowing
the appeal as prayed for.
9. Point:-
The main grievance of the learned Standing Counsel for
the appellant is that the learned Tribunal ought to have
dismissed the claim-petition or ought to have taken the
contributory negligence on the part of the deceased on the
ground that as per the contentions of the claimants the
deceased himself had jumped the railing while crossing the road
from left side to right side and suddenly came in front of the bus
due to which the driver of the bus could not apply the brakes to
stop the bus and therefore, there is no negligence on the part of
the driver of the said bus. Learned Standing Counsel further
contended that the only evidence placed before the Tribunal is
NNR, J
Macma_196_2020
P.W.1, who is wife of the deceased and admittedly she is not an
eye witness to the accident. He also contended that the learned
Tribunal did not consider the fact that the case registered
against the driver of the bus was ended in acquittal and that the
acquittal of the said case would goes to show that there is no
negligence on the part of the driver of the bus.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported
the findings given by the learned Tribunal and she pointed out
that the learned Tribunal having taken into consideration of the
fact that there was no pleading from the appellant that the said
accident occurred due to sudden jumping of the railing by the
deceased for crossing the road from left side to side. Learned
counsel also pointed out that a crime was registered against the
driver of the bus and after due investigation only Ex.A5-charge
sheet was filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kodada Town
Police Station, therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly held
that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the bus.
11. A perusal of the material on record would show that
except the evidence of R.W.1 no other evidence was placed by
the respondent either before the Tribunal or before this Court to
NNR, J
Macma_196_2020
show that there was railing on the road and the deceased
jumped the railing and suddenly came infront of the bus. In the
absence of any evidence placed to that effect and basing on the
evidence of P.W.1 and Ex.A5, the learned Tribunal has rightly
held that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the
bus. Apart from that, the acquittal in criminal case does not
make any impact in claiming the compensation under Section
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Therefore, this Court do
not see any error committed by the Tribunal in giving a finding
that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving
of the driver of the RTC bus.
12. The other ground urged by the learned Standing Counsel
for the appellant is that the learned Tribunal ought to have
taken the future prospects at 25% though the deceased was
aged 50 years but the Tribunal has taken the future prospects
at 40%.
13. As seen from the record, the deceased was aged about 50
years and the learned Tribunal ought to have taken the future
prospects at 25% in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay
NNR, J
Macma_196_2020
Sethi and others 1. Therefore, this Court inclined to reassess
the compensation under the head of loss of dependency by
taking the future prospects at 25%. Admittedly, considering the
age and avocation of the deceased, the Tribunal has fixed the
income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month. Apart from
the same, the claimants are also entitled to addition of 25%
towards future prospects as stated supra. Therefore, monthly
income of the deceased comes to Rs.7,500/- (Rs.6,000/- +
Rs.1,500/-) and annual income would be Rs.7,500/- x 12 =
Rs.90,000/-. From this, 1/4th is to be deducted towards living
and personal expenses of the deceased following Sarla Verma
v. Delhi Transport Corporation 2 as the claimants are five in
number. After deducting 1/4th amount towards the personal
and living expenses, the contribution of the deceased to the
family would be Rs.67,500/- per annum. Since the age of the
deceased at the time of the accident was 48 years, the
appropriate multiplier for the age group 46 to 50 is '13' as per
Clause 4 of the Schedule prescribed by the decision reported in
Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2 supra).
Adopting multiplier '13', the total loss of dependency would be
Rs.67,500/- x 13 = Rs.8,77,500/-. Apart from the above, the
1 2017 ACJ 2700
2 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)
NNR, J
Macma_196_2020
claimants are also entitled to an amount of Rs.70,000/- as
awarded by the Tribunal under conventional heads. Thus, in all
the claimants are entitled to Rs.9,47,500/-.
14. The other contention raised by the learned Standing
Counsel for the appellant is that the learned Tribunal has
awarded interest at 9% per annum, which is excessive and
exorbitant, and it was not based on any sound reasons and that
the interest may be reduced to 6% P.A.
15. As per the decision of the Apex Court in Rajesh and
others v. Rajbir Singh and others 3 the claimants are entitled
to interest @ 7.5% per annum on the compensation awarded by
the Tribunal from the date of petition till realization,. Hence,
the interest granted by the Tribunal @ 9% per annum is
reduced to 7.5% per annum. Accordingly, the point is
answered to the extent indicated above.
16. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A is partly allowed,
reducing the compensation from Rs.10,52,800/- to
Rs.9,47,500/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. on the
enhanced amount from the date of petition till the date of
3 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35
NNR, J
Macma_196_2020
realization. The appellant is directed to deposit the said
amount together with costs and interest after giving due credit
to the amount already deposited, if any, within two months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The
compensation amount shall be apportioned among the
respondents/claimants in the same manner and ratio as
ordered by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.
17. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand
closed.
_________________________________
NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, J
28.07.2025
gkv
