Telangana High Court

Telangana State Road Transport ... vs Kallepalli Jaya, And 4 Others on 1 May, 2025

                                 1


     HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

                   M.A.C.M.A.NO.700 OF 2021

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the TSRTC aggrieved by the order and

decree dated 12.04.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.414 of 2017 passed by the

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, at

Karimnagar (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 claimants before the Tribunal is that on

05.07.2017, in the morning hours, the deceased left from his

house on his TATA ACE Magic vehicle bearing No.AP-15-TV-2893

and on the way, at about 1.30 P.M., when he reached the outskirts

of Sulthanabad village, he has stopped his vehicle by the side of

the road to attend nature call and after attending nature call and

while he was crossing the road, in the mean time one TSRTC bus

bearing No.AP-29Z-3645 being driven by the respondent No.1 in a

rash and negligent manner at a high speed dashed him, due to

which he received grievous injuries and died on the spot. It is their

case that the deceased was aged 45 years at the time of accident,

he was hale and healthy and he was owner-cum-driver of TATA

ACE Magic vehicle bearing No.AP-15TV-2893 and was earning

Rs.20,000/- per month. They claimed a compensation of

Rs.25,00,000/-.

ETD,J MACMA No.700_2021

4. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte before the Tribunal.

5. Respondent No.2 filed counter denying the material

averments in the petition with regard to age, income and avocation

of the deceased. It is further contended that there is no negligence

on the part of driver of the RTC bus and that the accident occurred

due to the negligence of the deceased as he suddenly jumped out

from the shrubs to the left side of the road to cross the road

without observing the vehicles and the traffic and due to the

sudden jump, the deceased lost control over himself, fell down and

sustained injuries which lead to his death.

6. Based on the rival pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has

framed the following issues for trial:

1) Whether the death of Sri Kallepalli Jeevan was due to Motor Vehicle accident that took place on 05.07.2017 and is it due to rash and negligent driving of TSRTC bus bearing No.AP-29Z-3645 driven by its driver?

2) Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation and if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

3) Whether the order and decree of the Tribunal needs any interference?

4) To what relief?

7. At the time of trial, claimants got examined P.Ws.1 to 3, got

marked Exs.A.1 to A.10 & Ex.X.1 . On behalf of TSRTC R.W.1 was

examined, but no documents were marked.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a

compensation of Rs.14,70,000/- as against the claim of

Rs.25,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the said award, TSRTC preferred the

present appeal to set aside the order passed by the Tribunal.

ETD,J MACMA No.700_2021

9. Heard the submission of Sri N. Chandra Sekhar, learned

Standing Counsel for TSRTC. No vakalath was filed on behalf of

the respondents.

10. It is submitted by learned Standing Counsel for TSRTC that

the Tribunal failed to consider that the driver of RTC bus was not

negligent in the occurrence of the accident and that the deceased

due to his own negligence has jumped out from the bushes, as a

result fell down on the road and sustained injuries. He further

argued that the Tribunal failed to consider the evidence of R.W.1

and has fastened the liability on RTC. He further submitted that

the Tribunal granted exorbitant amount of compensation under

various heads and therefore prayed to set aside the order and

decree of the Tribunal.

11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents

submitted that the Tribunal has passed its orders on sound

reasoning and has granted just compensation and therefore prayed

to uphold the orders of the Tribunal.

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

following points for determination:

1. Whether the accident has not occurred due to rash and negligence of the Driver of RTC Bus bearing No. AP-29Z-3645?

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

3. Whether the order and decree of Tribunal needs any interference?

4. To what relief?

ETD,J MACMA No.700_2021

13. POINT NO.1:

a) P.W.1 is not an eye witness to the accident. One Saliganti

Venkatesh-P.W.2 is examined as an eye witness to the accident. In

his chief examination he deposed with regard to occurrence of the

accident. He stated that on the date of accident i.e., on

05.07.2017, while he was proceeding from Sulthanabad to

Peddapalli with passengers, at about 1.30 P.M., when he reached

the outskirts of Sulthanabad, in the mean time he observed that

the deceased parked his auto by the side of the road for attending

to nature call on the other side of the road and while he was

crossing the road, in the mean time the TSRTC bus bearing No.AP-

Z-3645 was proceeding towards Peddapally being driven by its

driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed ran over the

deceased. In his cross-examination, it is elicited that an RTO

official was checking the vehicles on Sulthanabad-Peddapally road.

Though, it is contended by the learned Standing Counsel for the

RTC that since 'vehicle check' was going on in the said road, there

is no question of RTC bus going at high speed. It is not the case of

the respondents that the accident occurred at the vehicle checking

point. It is revealed from the F.I.R and charge sheet that the

accident occurred on the said road, when the deceased jumped out

from the bushes, the RTC bus ran over him resulting in his death.

Thus based on the evidence of P.W.2 coupled with the F.I.R and

charge sheet, it is held that accident occurred due to the rash and ETD,J MACMA No.700_2021

negligent driving of the RTC driver. Point No.1 is answered

accordingly.

Point NO.2:

b) P.W.1 asserted that the deceased used to run an auto for his

livelihood and in support of their contention, petitioners filed

Ex.A.7/certificate issued by the Head Master, Gayathri Concept

School, Peddapalli. A perusal of the said exhibit reveals that the

auto of the deceased was engaged for their institution for the

academic year 2015-16 till the death of the deceased i.e.,

05.10.2017 and that he was being paid Rs.15,000/- per month. To

prove Ex.A.7, P.W.3 is examined who is working as a teacher and

also in-charge of Gayatri Concept School, Peddapalli. His evidence

reveals that he engaged the services of the deceased and that the

deceased used to drive his auto for their requirements and they

paid Rs.15,000/- per month. Thus, it is revealed that the deceased

was running an auto for Gayathri Concept School for his

livelihood. It is contended by the petitioners that the deceased

was the owner of the auto and a copy of the R.C/Ex.A.8 is filed.