Telangana High Court
The T.S.R.T.C. vs Rathlavath Bechamma, on 27 June, 2025
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
M.A.C.M.A.No.426 of 2023
JUDGMENT:
Heard Sri B. Mayur Reddy, learned standing counsel for the
appellant/ TSRTC and Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned counsel for
respondent Nos.1 to 5/claimants. Perused the entire record.
2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant/TSRTC
challenging the compensation of Rs.12,11,000/- awarded by the
learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District
Judge at Mahabubnagar (for short 'the Tribunal') in O.P.No.316
of 2022, dated 06.04.2022.
3. The respondent Nos.1 to 5/claimants have filed the claim
petition seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- on account of
death of one Rathlavath Srinu in a road traffic accident. The
accident occurred on 15.11.2018 when the deceased Rathlavath
Srinu went to Pangal to get photo copies of pass book. When he
boarded RTC bus bearing No.AP22 Z 0077 of Kollapur Depot, when
said bus reached the outskirts of Pangal village, Wanaparthy
District, at 11.30 hours, the bus was driven in rash and negligent
manner causing the fall of Rathlavath Srinu on to the ground
followed by the bus running over him causing severe head injury.
For treatment, the deceased was first shifted to Government
hospital, Wanaparthy and then to the District Hospital,
Mahabubnagar. When the deceased was being shifted to Hyderabad
for better treatment, he succumbed to the injuries. In the
circumstances, respondent Nos.1 to 5 filed claim petition, examined
PWs 1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. The appellant herein
did not examine any witness and did not mark any document.
4. Upon examining the evidence adduced by the respondent
Nos.1 to 5/claimants, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation
of Rs.12,11,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum.
5. The appellant (TSRTC) challenged the impugned award
alleging that the learned Tribunal committed an error by holding
that the driver of the bus bearing No.AP22 Z 0077 has driven the
vehicle in a rash and negligent manner without considering the
contributory negligence on the part of the deceased who was doing
foot boarding which is clearly prohibited. The appellant made
repeated emphasis that the deceased was travelling on foot board
without taking precautionary measures and therefore, no
negligence can be attributed to the driver of the bus. Further, it is
alleged that no independent eye witness is examined to prove the
manner of occurrence of the accident. Further, objection is taken to
adding of 40% towards future prospects when the deceased was
aged around 38 years and also contended that the salary taken at
Rs.8,400/- is erroneous. Lastly, it is contended that grant of
interest at 9% per annum without following principle laid down in
various judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India, is erroneous and as such, prayed that the appeal be allowed.
6. During arguments in appeal, the learned counsel for the
appellant contended that the deceased was doing foot boarding
without taking any precautions though it is clearly written at a
conspicuous place in the bus that 'foot boarding is an offence'. The
accident occurred when the bus was taking a curve i.e. only when
the bus was taking a curve, since the deceased was on the foot
board, he fell down and sustained head injury. Due to the manner
of occurrence of the accident, it is contended that no negligence
can be attributed to the driver of the bus.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents argued that
the deceased was standing behind the foot board and not on the
foot board. There is no negligence on the part of the deceased for
occurrence of the accident and that only due to rash and negligent
driving, the deceased fell out of the bus and lost his life. As per
FIR/Ex.A1 got registered by the son of the deceased, the deceased
was coming home by RTC bus bearing No.AP22 Z 0077 in the
morning hours by travelling in RTC bus backside foot boarding.
When the bus reached the outskirts curve, the driver has driven in
rash and negligent manner causing the deceased to slip from the
bus and fall down on the ground and thereafter, the bus ran over
him. The contents of FIR are not totally in tune with the complaint
which shows that the deceased was standing near the back door of
the bus and fell down when the bus was taking a curve near
outskirts of Pangal village. When the deceased fell down, he
suffered head injury and thereby, lost his life while being shifted
from one hospital to the other.
8. As per contents of Inquest report/Ex.A2, the deceased was
standing near the back door and accidentally fell down when bus
was taking a curve a the outskirts of Pangal village. As per PME
report/Ex.A3, the deceased died due to head injury sustained in a
road traffic accident. The MVI report/Ex.A4 shows that the RTC
bus had no mechanical defect and mechanical defect is not the
cause for accident. As per charge sheet/Ex.A5, the accident
occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of driver of RTC
bus. As the deceased was standing near the rear door, he
accidentally fell down when the bus was taking a curve. Except FIR
which was registered by the police on the basis of complaint given
by respondent No.2 i.e. son of the deceased, the rest of the record
only shows that the deceased was standing near rear door but not
on the foot board. The actual written complaint given by
respondent No.2 (son of the deceased) gives no indication that the
deceased was standing on the foot board. It is the FIR which is
registered by the police that does not reflect the true contents of the
complaint which shows that the deceased was not standing on the
foot board but was standing near the rear door of the bus. To sum
up, the contents of documents marked under Exs.A2 to A5 negate
the contents of FIR. When no witness is examined to support the
contents of the counter, wherein negligence is attributed to the
deceased, said plea about contributory negligence cannot be
considered.
9. Coming to the aspect of notional monthly income of the
deceased, it was pleaded by respondents that the deceased was
aged 38 years and was a mason earning Rs.600/- per day with
Rs.18,000/- per month. As a mason, the notional income of the
deceased taken by the learned Tribunal at Rs.6,000/- cannot be
interfered with further adding of future prospects of 40% also
cannot be interfered. Further, interest granted at 9% per annum
also cannot be interfered with given the nature of social welfare
legislation of Motor Vehicles Act. As such, there are no merits and
appeal is liable to be dismissed.
10. In the result, this Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal
is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
_____________________
RENUKA YARA, J
Date:27.06.2025
gvl
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
27th June, 2025
gvl
