Telangana High Court

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport ... vs Rizwana Begum And 5 Others on 2 September, 2025

        THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO

                     MACMA NO.178 OF 2022


JUDGMENT:

1. This Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,

1988 (for short 'the M.V.Act') by Andhra Pradesh State Road

Transport Corporation (for short 'APSRTC') arises out of an award

passed by the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal -Cum- Judge,

Family Court -Cum- III Additional District Judge, Karimnagar (for

short, 'the Tribunal') in MVOP.No.228 of 2018, dated 22.12.2021.

2. Respondent Nos.1 to 5-petitioner Nos.1 to 5 filed petition under

Section 166 (1)(c) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation

of Rs.18,00,000/- for the death of Sajid Hussain @ Sayeed Hussain

from the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally in a road traffic

accident which occurred on 14.09.2016.

3. On 14.09.2016, Sajid Hussain @ Sayeed Hussain along with his

wife and children and her sister-in-law Rukshana started from

Karimnagar and went to Hyderabad to visit the house of his elder

sister-in-law by name Rehana Begum. After getting down at MGBS,

Sajid Hussain went to attend nature call and while he was returning

back to the platform at about 2330 hours, one APSRTC Super Luxury

Bus bearing No.AP-26-Z-0132 of Nellore-I Deport being driven by its

driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, hit Sajid 2/11 BRMR,J MACMA_178_2022

Hussain from the front side, due to which he fell down, received

injuries and died on the spot. The deceased was aged about

40 years as on the date of accident and was working as a Lorry driver

cum Lorry mechanic at Karimnagar, used to earn Rs.15,000/- and

contributed his entire earnings to the family. On the complaint, P.S.

Afzalgunj has registered a case in Crime No.474 of 2016 for the

offence under Section 304-A of IPC against the driver of the crime

vehicle - respondent No.6 herein and prayed to award compensation

jointly and severally.

4. Driver of the crime vehicle - respondent No.6 herein filed

counter and contended that accident occurred due to running of the

deceased across the bus station and was in a drunken condition and

according to the report of A.Krishna Murthy, Controller, when the bus

came into C.B.S. there was heavy rain. The bus came to platform

No.70 in M.G.B.S. and the deceased came there, while the bus was

moving slowly, he fell down in front of the bus as his chappal have

slipped and denied the age, avocation of the deceased, prayed to

dismiss the petition.

5. Appellant - respondent No.2 filed counter and contended that

accident occurred only due to the negligence of the deceased as there

was heavy rain in the bus station and he was in a drunken condition,

without observing the water on the ground he himself slipped from

the platform, fell down on the ground, sustained injuries and died on

the spot. The compensation claimed by respondent Nos.1 to 5-

                               3/11                                BRMR,J
                                                           MACMA_178_2022

petitioners is excessive, arbitrary and out of all proportions and

denied the age, occupation and income of the deceased and prayed to

dismiss the O.P.

6. The learned Tribunal framed the following issues:

1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by R.1 as alleged by petitioners?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation as prayed for and if so, at what rate and from whom?

3. To what relief?

7. Respondent No.1-Petitioner No.1 is examined as PW.1,

examined PW.2-Rukshana Begum and also examined PW.3-Shaik

Zakir Hussain, got marked Exs.A1 to A5. Respondent No.6 herein is

examined as RW.1.

8. During pendency of the O.P. respondent No.5-petitioner No.5,

who is the mother of the deceased died.

9. The Tribunal after going through the evidence led by the

parties and perusing the documents thereon has partly allowed the

claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs.17,64,500/- (Rupees

Seventeen Lakhs Sixty Four Thousand Five Hundred only) with costs

and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date

of deposit and that the respondent No.1 (respondent No.6 herein) and

respondent No.2 (appellant herein) were jointly and severally directed 4/11 BRMR,J MACMA_178_2022

to deposit the amount within one month from the date of judgment

(22.12.2021).

10. In the cause title of the Appeal, it is mentioned that respondent

No.6 is not a necessary party to the Appeal.

11.1. Learned counsel for the appellant-respondent No.2 submits

that the Tribunal erred in holding that the death of the deceased is

due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus and

failed to see that the deceased was trying to board the bus while it

was in motion, slipped and fell down, there is no negligence on the

part of the crime vehicle. The Tribunal erred in considering Exs.A1

and A2 that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of

the driver of the APSRTC bus and also failed to consider the evidence

of RW.1 in proper perspective. The Tribunal failed to see that the

driver of the bus was acquitted by II Addl JFMC, Hyderabad in

CC.No.16 of 2017, dated 12.03.2021 and the Tribunal ought to have

apportioned the liability at 50% : 50%. The Tribunal erred in taking

the notional income of the deceased @ Rs.10,000/- per month with

increase of 25% towards future prospects and also erred in awarding

compensation of Rs.44,000/- towards loss of consortium, 16,500/-

towards funeral expenses, Rs.16,500/- towards loss of estate and in

any event the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and

out of all proportions, prayed to allow the Appeal.

                                  5/11                              BRMR,J
                                                            MACMA_178_2022

11.2. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 submits that the

Tribunal has properly appreciated the facts of the case by considering

the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 coupled with Exs.A1 and A2 and also

rightly arrived at a conclusion that the deceased was earning

Rs.10,000/- per month by considering the evidence of PW.3 and

rightly applied all the multipliers, placed reliance on the decisions in

the cases of i) Janabai WD/o Dinkarrao Ghorpade and Others Vs.

ICICI Lambord Insurance Company Limited 1, ii) National Insurance

Company Limited Vs. Chamundeswari and Others 2, iii) Krishnan Asari

and another Vs. Adaikalam and others 3 and iv) Bontu Venkata Rao

and another Vs. Kalla Venkataramana and another 4, no interference is

called for and prayed to dismiss the same.

12. Heard learned counsel, perused the record.

13. Now the point for consideration is: whether the impugned order

in MVOP No.228 of 2018, dated 22.12.2021 suffers from any illegality

or perversity, if so, does it requires interference of this Court?

14. It is not the case of the appellant-respondent No.2 before the

Tribunal that the deceased was trying to board the bus while it is in

motion, slipped and fell down. Appellant has taken the said ground in

the Appeal for the first time.





  (2022) 10 SCC 512

  (2021) 18 SCC 596

  AIR 1966 Madras 425

  2003 (3) ALD 314
                              6/11                             BRMR,J
                                                       MACMA_178_2022




15.   PW1 has     lodged a complaint before P.S. Afzulgunj, on

15.09.2016 stating that she along with her husband-Sajid Hussain

(deceased), her sister Ruksana and her two children started from

Karimnagar to Hyderabad to visit her elder sister-Rehana Begum and

reached MGBS at 2330 hours, they all deported at platform No.70.

Immediately after getting down from the bus, her husband went to

toilet and when he was returning back, one RTC bus driver drove the

bus in a rash and negligent manner, hit her husband from the front

side due to which her husband fell down and the public there started

shouting, thereafter the bus driver stopped. Her husband has

received bleeding injuries on his head and died on the spot. Basing

on the said complaint, P.S. Afzalgunj has registered Ex.A1 on the

same day against respondent No.6 herein-respondent No.1 before the

Tribunal for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC.

16. The evidence of PW.1 is corroborated with the complaint given

by her. In her cross-examination, she denied the suggestion that her

husband ran to catch the bus to occupy the seat, slipped down from

the platform, sustained injuries and died and accident has not

occurred due to the negligent driving of the driver of the crime

vehicle.

17. PW.2 is an eye-witness to the incident and she supported the

case of PW.1 in all aspects and the deceased is the husband of her

younger sister. In her cross-examination, she denied the suggestion 7/11 BRMR,J MACMA_178_2022

that she has not seen the accident of her brother-in-law and that

there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle.

18. Ex.A2 is the charge sheet filed by Afzalgunj P.S. wherein the

driver of the crime vehicle is shown as accused and the section of law

is 304-A of IPC. PW.1 and PW.2 are shown as LW.1 and LW.2 in the

charge sheet as eye-witnesses.

19. The driver of the crime vehicle deposed as RW.1 and he stated

that the deceased hurriedly came to the bus and tried to board the

same without stopping, as there was heavy rain on that day, he

slipped, fell down on the road, sustained injuries and died, his bus did

not hit or dashed the deceased. In his cross-examination, he

admitted that accident occurred at MGBS, Hyderabad and he was

driving the bus, he is shown as accused in Ex.A1 and charge sheet

was filed against him under Ex.A2.

20. RW.1 has also developed his evidence that the deceased tried

to board the bus. It is not the case of the driver of the crime vehicle

before the Tribunal that the appellant tried to board the bus when it

was moving. It is a development in the evidence of the driver.

21. In the grounds of Appeal, it is stated that the Tribunal failed to

see that the driver of the bus was acquitted by II Addl JFCM,

Hyderabad in CC.No.16 of 2017, dated 12.03.2021. It is worth

mentioning that the driver of the crime vehicle has filed his chief-

affidavit as RW1 on 25.11.2021 i.e., after the alleged acquittal in 8/11 BRMR,J MACMA_178_2022

CC.No.16 of 2017, dated 12.03.2021. There is no explanation from

the appellant what made them not to file the said judgment before

the Tribunal. Hence, the ground taken by the appellant is rejected.

22. Rule of evidence to prove charges in a criminal trial cannot be

used while deciding an application under Section 166 of the MV Act,

1988 which is summary in nature (see Janabai's case ): If evidence

before the Tribunal runs contrary to the contents of the First

Information Report, the evidence which is recorded before the

Tribunal has to be given weightage over the contents of the First

Information Report (see Chamundeswari's case ) : The decision of a

Criminal Court cannot be relied on as one binding in a civil action (see

Krishnan Asari's case3 and Bontu Venkata Rao's case4).

23. The Tribunal has rightly concluded that accident has occurred

due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime

vehicle.

24. PW.3 is the employer of the deceased who is eking out his

livelihood by running the Lorry on hire, he is the owner of Lorry

bearing No.AP-36-W-7300 and the deceased was working as a driver

since 3 years till his death and was also a Lorry mechanic and that he

used to pay Rs.15,000/- per month towards salary. The Tribunal

taking into consideration the occupation of the deceased as a Lorry

driver and mechanic has fixed the income of the deceased at

Rs.10,000/- per month relying on the judgment of Supreme Court in 9/11 BRMR,J MACMA_178_2022

Rani and Others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and

Others 5, which is appropriate and not inclined to interfere with the

same.

25. The age of the deceased is mentioned as 40 years in the claim

petition, the same age is mentioned in Ex.A3-inquest report and

Ex.A4-postmortem examination report and the Tribunal has applied

the multiplier '15' as the deceased falls within age group of 36 to 40

years and also added future prospects @ 25% as the deceased was

aged between 40 to 50 years. Number of dependants of the

deceased are 4 to 6 and the personal expenses are deducted by 1/4th,

which is also correct.

26. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.44,000/- towards loss of

consortium to respondent No.1-petitioner No.1, Rs.16,500/- towards

loss of estate and Rs.16,500/- towards funeral expenses. The

Tribunal has lost site to award consortium to respondent Nos.2, 3 and

4 - petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 4 towards parental consortium and they

are entitled for the same.

27. The computation is as under:

          Sl.No.           Name of the Head              Amount awarded

          1.        Income (per month)                Rs. 10,000/-

          2.        Add 25% future prospects          Rs. 12,500/-





    2018 (3) T.A.C. 683 (S.C.)
                                   10/11                                    BRMR,J
                                                                    MACMA_178_2022




                (as per National Insurance Co.      (10,000 X 25%)
                Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi 6)
                                                    +10,000
                   th
        3.      1/4     deductions        towards   Rs.9,375/-
                Personal Expenses
                                                    12,500 - (12,500 X 1/4)
                (as per Smt.Sarla Varma Vs.
                Delhi Transport Corporation 7)
        4.      Annual Income                       Rs.1,12,500/-
                                                    (9,375 x 12)


        5.      Multiplier '15'                     Rs.16,87,500/-
                                                    (1,12,500 X 15)


        6.      Consortium (44,000 x 4)             Rs.1,76,000/-

        7.      Loss of Estate                      Rs.16,500/-

        8.      Funeral Expenses                    Rs.16,500/-

                Total                               Rs.18,96,500/-

28. Interest to be awarded @ 9% per annum as per the decision of

the Supreme Court in Anjali and Others vs. Lokendra Rathod and

others 8.

29. In the result, MACMA.No.178 of 2022 is dismissed and the

compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced as under:

a) The impugned award dated 22.12.2021, passed in MVOP.No.

228 of 2018, stands enhanced.

b) The compensation awarded by the Tribunal i.e.,Rs.17,64,500/-

is enhanced to Rs.18,96,500/- together with interest @ 9% per

annum from the date of filing the petition till payment.



  (2017) 16 SCC 680

  (2009) 6 SCC 121

  2022 SCC OnLine SC 1683
                                11/11                                  BRMR,J
                                                               MACMA_178_2022

c) The respondent No.1 to 4 - petitioner Nos.1 to 4 shall pay

Court fee on the enhanced amount.

d) Respondent No.1-petitioner No.1 is entitled for Rs.10,43,075/-

along with costs and interest thereon and she is permitted to

withdraw the entire amount without furnishing security.

e) Respondent Nos.2 and 3 - petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are entitled

for Rs.2,84,475/- each with costs and interest thereon and they

are permitted to withdraw their entire amount without

furnishing security.

f) Respondent No.4 - petitioner No.4 is entitled for

Rs.2,84,475/- with costs and interest thereon, as she is minor

her share amount shall be deposited in any Nationalized Bank