Telangana High Court

Telangana State Road Transport ... vs Vengali Lakshmi on 25 June, 2025

                                 1



     HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

                   M.A.C.M.A.NO.632 OF 2021

JUDGMENT:

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

Decree dated 16.03.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.1482 of 2018 passed by

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 claim petitioners before the Tribunal was that

on 20.06.2018 at about 5:45 p.m., while the deceased along with

others was travelling in an Autorickshaw bearing No.AP-28Y-9440-

from Manneguda towards Antharam Village, when they reached

near Mirzapur Gate, one TSRTC Bus bearing No.TS-08Z-0065

came in the opposite direction driven by its driver in a rash and

negligent manner at a high speed, dashed against the said auto, as

a result of which the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died

on the spot. The claimants sought a compensation of

Rs.10,00,000/.

4. The respondents 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 specifically contended ETD,J MACMA No.632_2021

that the alleged bus was not there at the alleged location and they

disputed the accident itself.

5. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the

following issues for trial:

1) Whether the alleged accident dated 20.06.2018 resulting in death of the deceased Smt. Juttu Shamamma, occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of TSRTC Bus bearing registration No.TS-08Z-0065?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation, if so, from whom and to what extent?

3) To what relief?

6. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PWs1 and 2

and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. On behalf of the respondents no

evidence was adduced.

7. Based on the evidence on record, the trial Court has awarded

a compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- with costs and interest @ 9% per

annum. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is

preferred by the TSRTC.

8. Heard the submission of Sri R. Anurag, learned Standing

Counsel for TSRTC and Sri M. Vijay Reddy, learned counsel for

respondents.

9. Learned counsel for appellants had contended that the

Tribunal has erred in awarding excess compensation and has also

granted higher rate of interest @ 9% per annum. He further argued ETD,J MACMA No.632_2021

that auto was over loaded and that the driver of the auto could not

balance the auto due to the over load and was also rash and

negligent in his driving, which contributed to the accident.

Therefore, he prayed to consider the contributory negligence on

part of the auto while awarding compensation. He further

contended that no age proof and no proof of income was filed

before the Tribunal and has therefore prayed to reduce the

quantum of compensation.

10. The respondent counsel on the other hand has submitted

that the charge sheet is filed against the RTC Driver and that there

is no complaint against the auto and the charge sheet also does

not reveal any averments that the auto driver has contributed to

the accident. He therefore submitted that there is no contributory

negligence on part of the auto driver and that the RTC is solely

liable to pay compensation. He further argued that the deceased is

a lady who used to work as a labourer and her earnings are

assessed by the Tribunal as Rs.6,000/- which is infact very low

and that he further submitted that there is no infirmity in the

orders passed by the Tribunal and has prayed to dismiss the

appeal.

11. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the

following points for consideration:

ETD,J MACMA No.632_2021

1. Whether there is any contributory negligence on part of the driver of the auto bearing No.AP-28Y-9440 in the occurrence of the accident ?

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

3. Whether the order and decree of the trial Court need any interference?

4. To what relief?

12. Point No.1:-

a) The contention of appellant counsel is that at the time of

accident, the auto was carrying over load of more than five

passengers and that the auto driver could not control the auto and

contributed accident.

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

were two deaths out of the accident that is the deceased in the

present case and another person, and injuries of one person who

were travelling in the auto. It does not reveal any other names to

show that some more people were travelling in the auto. It is

further mentioned in the charge sheet that their investigation has

revealed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent

driving of the RTC Bus bearing No.TS-08Z-0065 and that when the

auto reached near Mirzapur Gate, the bus being driven in a rash

and negligent manner at a high speed, dashed the auto. Thus,

there is no evidence to hold that the auto was overloaded at the

time of the accident and that the auto driver has contributed to the

accident. Thus the contention of the appellant counsel fails and it ETD,J MACMA No.632_2021

is held that there is no contributory negligence on part of the auto

driver in the occurrence of the accident.

Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

13. Point No.2:-

a) The contention of the appellant counsel is that the

compensation granted by the Tribunal is too high and that the

deceased was a Lorry Driver and thus the Tribunal ought not to

have assessed the income to be Rs.6,000/- per month.

b) In Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram

Alliance Insurance Company Limited 1, 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.

But in the present case, the deceased stated to have been a lorry

dirver as per the contention of the petitioners. In the said case the

accident occurred in the year 2004, while in the present case, the

accident has occurred in the year 2018. Thus, the income assessed

by the Tribunal as Rs.6,000/- is found to be just and proper.

c) The Tribunal has taken into consideration all the principles

laid down by National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay

(2011) 12 SCC 236 ETD,J MACMA No.632_2021

Sethi & Others 2, and has awarded 25% towards future prospects

and also has deducted towards personal expenses and has applied

the right multiplier of "14", as the deceased was aged "43" years as

per the Post Mortem Examination Report. Therefore, the Tribunal

has taken into consideration all the components which are

supposed to be followed while awarding the compensation. Hence,

it is held that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just

and reasonable.

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

which is disputed by learned counsel for the appellants.

e) In Jadav Saroja Bai Versus Ghule Naga Rao and

Another 3; a Coordinate Bench of this High Court has granted

interest @ 7.5% per annum on the enhanced amount of

compensation.

f) In Bandavath Mangla and Another Versus Bandavath

Suresh and Others 4 and National Insurance Company Limited

Versus. M. Venkateswarulu and Others 5; also interest @ 7.5%

per annum was granted on the enhanced amount of compensation.

AIR 2017 SCC 5157

2022 SCC Online TS 606

2023 SCC Online TS 1095

2023 SCC Online TS 1170 ETD,J MACMA No.632_2021

g) In United Insurance Company Limited Versus. Bollam

Lingaiah 6; 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.

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

Company Limited Versus Jagadish Prajapathi 7; has granted

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

realization.

i) 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.2 is answered accordingly.

14. Point No.3:-

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.

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

of 7.5% per annum.

Point No.3 is answered accordingly.

2024 SCC Online TS 915

2024 SCC Online TS 2050 ETD,J MACMA No.632_2021

15. POINT NO.4:

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

Order and Decree dated 16.03.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.1482 of 2018

passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-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 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.