Telangana High Court
Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport ... vs Sabavath Puriya Naik on 1 May, 2025
1
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
M.A.C.M.A.No.96 of 2021
Between:
1. Jorrigala Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation,
Rep. by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director,
Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.
(presently at Pandit Nehru Bus Station,
Vijayawada, Krishna District).
2. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation,
Rep. by its Depot Manager,
Adhoni Depot, Kurnool.
... Appellants
And
Sabavath Puriya Naik, S/o Lingu Naik,
Age: 50 years, Occ: T.S.R.T.C, Bus Driver,
R/o 5-107, Ranga Reddy Guda, Balanagar,
Mahabubnagar, presently R/o 2-2-647/237/9,
D.D Colony, Hyderabad.
... Respondent
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 01.05.2025
Submitted for approval.
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
1 Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to see the Yes/No
Judgments?
2 Whether the copies of judgment may
be marked to Law Reporters/Journals Yes/No
3 Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship
wish to see the fair copy of the Yes/No
Judgment?
ETD,J
MACMA No.96_2021
2
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
+ MACMA. No.96 of 2021
% Dated 01.05.2025
Between:
1. # Jorrigala Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation,
Rep. by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director,
Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.
(presently at Pandit Nehru Bus Station,
Vijayawada, Krishna District).
2. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation,
Rep. by its Depot Manager,
Adhoni Depot, Kurnool.
... Appellants
And
$ Sabavath Puriya Naik, S/o Lingu Naik,
Age: 50 years, Occ: T.S.R.T.C, Bus Driver,
R/o 5-107, Ranga Reddy Guda, Balanagar,
Mahabubnagar, presently R/o 2-2-647/237/9,
D.D Colony, Hyderabad.
... Respondent
! Counsel for the Appellants: Sri K. Srinivas Rao
^ Counsel for the Respondent: Sri M. Vijay Reddy
<Gist:
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1. 2022 SCC Online TS 606
2. 2023 SCC Online TS 1095
3. 2023 SCC Online TS 1170
4. 2024 SCC Online TS 915
5. 2024 SCC Online TS 2050
ETD,J
MACMA No.96_2021
3
HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
M.A.C.M.A.NO.96 OF 2021
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the APSRTC, aggrieved by the Order
and Decree dated 23.06.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.1797 of 2016 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 is that
on 21.05.2017 at 10:45 a.m., while the petitioner along with others
was proceeding in a Tractor Trolley bearing No.TS-06UA-9667 and
TS-06UA-9665 towards Jadcherla to purchase fertilizers and when
they reached in front of Salguti Company, located in the outskirts
of Gollapally Village, one APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP-22Z-0027
driven by its driver at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner,
dashed against the Tractor and Trolley from behind, due to which
the Tractor and Trolley turned turtle, petitioner and others fell
down and received injuries.
4. The respondents filed counter denying their liability and
further contended that the owner of the Tractor and Trolley and its
Insurance Company are necessary parties to the case and that the
ETD,J
MACMA No.96_2021
accident occurred due to the overload in the Tractor and Trolley
and that the driver of the Tractor and Trolley do not possess a valid
driving license and hence, the RTC is not liable to pay any
compensation.
5. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the
following issues for trial:
1) Whether the pleaded accident had occurred resulting in injuries sustained by
the petitioner Sabhavath Puriya, due to rash and negligent driving of APSRTC
Bus bearing Registration No.AP-22Z-0027, by its driver?
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation, if so, at what quantum
and what is the liability of the respondents?
3) To what relief?
6. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PW1 to 3
and got marked Exs.A1 to A8. 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.1,67,449/- with costs and interest @ 9% per
annum. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is
preferred by the RTC.
8. Heard the submission of Sri K. Srinivas Rao, learned counsel
for the appellants and Sri M. Vijay Reddy, learned counsel for
respondents.
ETD,J
MACMA No.96_2021
9. Learned counsel for appellants has submitted that the orders
of the Tribunal are contrary to law and weight of evidence. Though,
in the Memorandum of Appeal, it raised the grounds with regard to
quantum of compensation also, while submitting the arguments,
the counsel has fairly submitted that the RTC is particularly
contesting only on the point of liability and the rate of interest
awarded by the Tribunal. His contention is that the Tractor Trolley
was carrying 15 passengers and was overloaded. He further
contended that the driver of the Tractor Trolley did not have any
valid driving license and thus, the RTC is mulcted with liability in
this case and therefore, he prayed to exonerate the RTC from its
liability.
10. The respondent counsel on the other hand has argued that
the charge sheet is filed against the RTC driver and that there is no
evidence to show that the Tractor was over loaded. He further
submitted that even as per the charge sheet, only the labourers for
loading and unloading were going on the Trolley and that the
Tractor-Trolley cannot go at a speed higher than 20 to 30
kilometers per hour. Thus, the driver of the Tractor-Trolley cannot
be in any way rash and negligent and that the accident occurred
only due to the rash and negligence of the RTC driver.
ETD,J
MACMA No.96_2021
11. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the
following points for determination:
1. Whether the RTC is liable to pay compensation?
2. Whether the rate of interest @ 9% granted by the Tribunal is not
proper?
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 RTC is not liable
to pay compensation as there was no negligence of the RTC driver
and that the driver of the Tractor did not posses valid driving
license and contributed to the accident. A perusal of the FIR under
Ex.A1 and Charge sheet under Ex.A2 would reveal that it is filed
against the RTC Driver. It is further revealed that the APSRTC Bus
bearing No.AP-22Z-0027 was driven by its driver at a high speed in
a rash and negligent manner and hit the tractor from behind, as a
result of which the deceased No.1 and 2 and also LW5/Sabavath
Puriya and LW6/Sabavath Sakri fell down and sustained severe
bleeding injuries to their vital organs. Thus, it is revealed from the
contents of the charge sheet that two inmates travelling on the
Tractor-Trolley got injured, while two persons died. The contention
of the appellant counsel is that there were 15 passengers on the
tractor, but the contents of the charge sheet do not reveal the said
ETD,J
MACMA No.96_2021
fact. It is mentioned that two people got injured and two people
died in the accident.
b) PW1 is one of the injured in the accident, and he is examined
as an eye witness in this case. His evidence reveals that he was
proceeding along with few other persons in the Tractor bearing
No.TS-06UA-9667 and Trolley bearing No.TS-06UA-9665 as
labourers and that they were proceeding towards Jadcherla and
when they reached near the outskirts of Gollapally Village on NH-
44, one RTC Bus bearing No.AP-22Z-0027 came from behind,
driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed
and dashed their Tractor-Trolley, as a result of which the Tractor
and Trolley turned turtle and the inmates sustained injuries.
c) Further, it is the case of the claimants that the passengers
on the trolley were going for loading and un-loading purposes and
the contents of the charge sheet further reveal that they were going
for purchasing agricultural provisions. So nowhere, it is elicited
that it was overloaded and there is no whisper about the non
possession of driving license by the driver of Tractor-Trolley. There
is no rebuttal evidence lead by respondents to prove their
contention with regard to the non possession of driving license by
the driver of Tractor-Trolley and his rash and negligence.
Therefore, it is held that the accident occurred due to the rash and
ETD,J
MACMA No.96_2021
negligence of the driver of the RTC Bus and thus, the RTC is liable
to pay compensation in this case.
Point No.1 is answered accordingly.
13. Point No.2:-
a) The Tribunal has awarded 9% interest on the compensation
which is disputed by learned counsel for the appellants.
b) In Jadav Saroja Bai Versus Ghule Naga Rao and
Another 1; a Coordinate Bench of this High Court has granted
interest @ 7.5% per annum on the enhanced amount of
compensation.
c) In Bandavath Mangla and Another Versus Bandavath
Suresh and Others 2; and National Insurance Company Limited
Versus. M. Venkateswarulu and Others 3; also interest @ 7.5%
per annum was granted on the enhanced amount of compensation.
d) In United Insurance Company Limited Versus. Bollam
Lingaiah 4; 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.
2022 SCC Online TS 606
2023 SCC Online TS 1095
2023 SCC Online TS 1170
2024 SCC Online TS 915
ETD,J
MACMA No.96_2021
e) A Division Bench of this High Court in National Insurance
Company Limited Versus Jagadish Prajapathi 5; has granted
7.5 % per annum on the compensation from the date of petition till
realization.
f) 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 finding arrived at Point No.1 and 2, it is held
that the Order and Decree of the Tribunal dated 23.06.2020 need
to be modified only with regard to the rate of interest reducing it
from 9% to that of 7.5%.
Point No.3 is answered accordingly.
15. Point No.4:-
In the result, M.A.C.M.A filed by the RTC is partly allowed
modifying the Order and Decree dated 23.06.2020 in
M.V.O.P.No.1797 of 2016 passed by Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, by
2024 SCC Online TS 2050
ETD,J
MACMA No.96_2021
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 respondent Nos.1 and 2 are
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 petitioners are entitled to withdraw the said
amount without furnishing any security, as per their respective
shares as allotted by the Tribunal. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall
stand closed.
_________________________________
JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
Date: 01.05.2025
ds
