Telangana High Court

Apsrtc And Another vs Sabavat Mohan And 2 Others on 1 May, 2025

                                 1



     HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

                   M.A.C.M.A.NO.94 OF 2021

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the APSRTC, aggrieved by the Order

and Decree dated 24.06.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.2437 of 2017 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.94_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 Basu alias Dasya Naik, 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 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.6,50,800/- 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.94_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 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 held to be in any way rash and negligent and that the accident

occurred only due to the rash and negligence of the RTC driver.

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

following points for determination:

ETD,J MACMA No.94_2021

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 possess 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 the 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

fact. It is mentioned that two people got injured and two people

died in the accident.

ETD,J MACMA No.94_2021

b) PW2 is one of the injured in the accident, and he was

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

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.

ETD,J MACMA No.94_2021

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.

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

Company Limited Versus Jagadish Prajapathi 5; has granted

2022 SCC Online TS 606

2023 SCC Online TS 1095

2023 SCC Online TS 1170

2024 SCC Online TS 915

2024 SCC Online TS 2050 ETD,J MACMA No.94_2021

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 24.06.2020 need

to be modified only with regard to the rate of interest reducing it

from 9% to that of 7.5%.

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 24.06.2020 in

M.V.O.P.No.2437 of 2017 passed by Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, by

reducing the rate of interest from 9% to 7.5% per annum from the

date of claim petition till the date of 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 ETD,J MACMA No.94_2021

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.