Telangana High Court
Azra Begum, And 2 Others vs T.S.R.T.C, And Another on 7 March, 2025
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
M.A.C.M.A.No.3437 of 2019
JUDGMENT:
Heard Sri T. Viswarupa Chary, learned counsel for the
appellants/claimants and Sri R. Anurag, learned standing counsel
for respondents/RTC. Perused the entire record.
2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellants/claimants
aggrieved by the dismissal order dated 05.08.2019 passed by the
learned Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal-cum-The Court of the
Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short 'the Tribunal') in
M.V.O.P.No.1951 of 2015.
3. The appellants filed claim petition under Section 163 of
M.V.Act seeking compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- with interest on
account of death of one Mohammed Hassanullah in a road traffic
accident. The case of the appellants is that the deceased was
travelling in an RTC bus bearing No.AP 28Z 826 on 26.05.2015,
and at about 7.30pm, due to jerks of the bus, the deceased fell
down in the bus, sustained injuries and died on the spot. The
respondents claimed that there is no fault on the part of the driver
of the bus and that there is no disclosure as to the death of the
deceased and therefore, the police registered a case under
Section 174 of Cr.P.C and that corporation is not liable to pay
compensation.
4. The Tribunal upon examining the evidence adduced by the
appellants dismissed the claim petition holding that there is no
accident on account of use of vehicle and that the appellants are
not entitled to any compensation. Aggrieved by the same, the
present appeal is preferred.
5. In grounds of appeal, the appellants contended that
Ex.A1/FIR and A2/Inquest report clinchingly established the fact
that the deceased while travelling in the bus, due to sudden brakes
fell down, sustained injuries and died. The said factual situation
amply makes it clear that the deceased died by use of motor vehicle
and therefore, just compensation ought to have been awarded.
6. A perusal of record reveals that the appellants have chosen to
file only FIR and inquest report in support of their case. The FIR
reveals that the appellant No.1 herein who is wife of the deceased
reported to the police that on 26.05.2015, when her husband
completed his work and was returning back in an RTC bus, at
about 8.30pm, he died in the bus due to sun stroke. As per Ex.A2,
the panchas to the inquest opined that when the bus reached
Tadbund, Shiva temple, the deceased suddenly felt dizzy and fell
down due to sun stroke and died in the bus. The factual pattern
shows that the deceased did not die on account of use of vehicle
but rather died due to sun stroke. Without any evidence to show
that there were jerks in the bus or that the jerks caused the fall of
the deceased, no case can be made out as to death of the deceased
on account of use of vehicle. The appellants have pleaded that the
deceased fell down in the bus, sustained injuries and died,
whereas, the inquest report at column No.7 (2) reveals that there
are no external injuries. The case of the appellants about falling
down due to jerks of the bus is not proven. In the circumstances,
the finding given by the Tribunal that any person who is in danger
while he is being transported in a vehicle cannot be equated to
death of the person due to usage of the vehicle as contemplated
under Section 163 of M.V.Act is based on sound reasoning. As
such, there are no merits in the appeal and the same is liable to be
dismissed.
7. In the result, this Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal
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: 07.03.2025
gvl
