MACMA/498/2022 of The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation Vs Pandavula Suguna on 29 December 2023

1. Pandavula Suguna, W/o. Late. Sadanandam @ Sadaiah, R/o. NarsingapurVillage, Tadvai Mandal, Warangal District, presently residing at SundaraiahNagar, Enumula, Hanamkonda, Warangal District.Village, Tadvai Mandal, Warangal District, presently residing at SundaraiahNagar, Enumula, Hanamkonda, Warangal District.

2. Pandavula Bharath, S/o. Late. Sadanandam @ Sadaiah, Occ Student( 58 percent Physically Handicapped Person) R/o. Narsingapur Village,Tadvai Mandal, Warangal District, presently residing at Sundaraiah Nagar,Enumula, Hanamkonda, Warangal District.( 58 percent Physically Handicapped Person) R/o. Narsingapur Village,Tadvai Mandal, Warangal District, presently residing at Sundaraiah Nagar,Enumula, Hanamkonda, Warangal District.

... Petitioners/Respondent Nos.1 & 2

AND

'1 . Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, represented by its ManagingDirector, Musheerabad, Hyderabad... RespondenUPetitioner/AppellantDirector, Musheerabad, Hyderabad... RespondenUPetitioner/Appellant

2. Konda Ashok, S/o. Cheralu, [Occ. ][Driver ][of ][TSRTC bus bearing No'AP-29-Z-]1099, R/o. Dhasthagiripalli [Village, ][Nallabelli ][[Mandal, ][Warangal district'](Respondent No.2 herein is not necessary [part to ][this ][petition)]...RespondenURespondent [No.3/Respondent ][No'3]

PetltlonunderSectlonl5lCPCpraylngthatinthecircumstancesstatedinthe affidavit filed in support [of ][the ]Petition, [the ][High Court may ][be ][pleased ][to]vacate the interim ordei [granted ][in ][LA. No. ][3 ][of ][2022 ][in ][M.A.C.M.A. No. ][498 ][of]2022, daled 2o-og-2022, thereby [permit ][us ][to withdraw ][the ][said deposited 5o ][o/o ][of]the compensation amount.

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri K VenumadhavCounsel for the ResPondents: Sri G. Srinivae [(SC FOR TSRTC)]The Court delivered the [following]: Judgment r HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NAR.8.YANA ALISHEITYM.A.C.M.A.NOs.238 and 498 of 2o22

COMMON JUDGMENT:

MACMA No.238 ol 2022 is an appeal hled by the clarmants arrdMACMA No-498 of 2022 is an appeal filed by T.S.R.T.C. Considering thefact that these two appeals arise out of the same award dated Oa.O3.2022passed in M.V.O.P.No.628 of 2016 on the file of the Principal MotorAccident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Warangal, (forshort, 'the Tribunal"), these two appeals are taken up together arddecided by this common [judgment.]

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will bereferred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The facts leading to filing o[ these two appeals.are thatM.V.O.P.No.6 28 of 2022 was filed under Section 166 of the MotorVehicles Act, 1988, by the mother and brother of PandavulaMadhu (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased"), againstrespondents I and 2, claiming compensation of Rs. 1O,OO,O00/- torthe death of the deceased in an accident. It is stated that on15.06.2016 in morning hours, the deceased and his villagers wentto Vanabojanalll a[ Karmaram forest area and due to paucity ofwater, deceascd as a rider and one Yakaiah as pillion rider on hisBajaj Pulsar motor cyclc bearing registration No.Ap-36_R_gO33,went to village for water can and after purchasing water can, they L'A J

returned to forest area and at about 3.OO p.m., u,hen they reachedthe outskirts of Tadvai village, TSRTC Bus bearing registrationNo.AP-29-Z-1099 driven by its driver in rash and negligent mannercame from Eturunagaram side to Hanamkonda side and dashed tothe motor cycle of the deceased in opposite direction, due to which,the deceased and pillion rider fell on the road, sustained fatalinjuries and deceased died on the spot. The Police, P.S.Tadvairegistered a case in Crime No.65/2076 and after investigation filedcharge sheet under Section 304-A IPC against the driver ofTSRTCBus.

4. It is also stated that the deceased was a student studyingB.Sc., lrnal year and was hale and healthy, aged about 22 [years]and was earning Rs. i0,000/- per month by doing agriculture [by]raising commercial crops.

5. The respondent no. 1 remained ex pdrte. The [respondent]No.2/TSRTC ltled counter denying the manner in [which ][the]accident took place including the age, avocation [and ][income ][of ][the]deceased. It is contended that the owner and [the insurer ][of ][motor]cycle are necessary parties to the claim [petition ][and ][prayed ][to]dismiss the claim petition.

6. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal [framed ][the]following issues:-

1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negiigentdriving of the driver of TSRTC Bus bearing No.AP-29-Z-1O99 resulting in death of Pandavula Madhu?driving of the driver of TSRTC Bus bearing No.AP-29-Z-1O99 resulting in death of Pandavula Madhu?

2. Whether petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so,at what rate?at what rate?

3. To what relief?

7. [n order to substantiate the case, on behalf of the claimants,P.Ws. t and 2 were examined and Exs.Al to Al4 were marked.Respondent no. t himself examined as RW. 1 and no documentswere marked. On behalf of respondent no.2-TSRTC, no oral ordocumentary evidence was adduced.

8. The Tribunal, on conclusion of the pleadings and evidence placed on record by the parties, uide the impugned award, heldthat the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving ofthe driver of the R.T.C. bus and accordingly, awarded an amount ofRs.4,68,600/- with interest @ 7 .5%o per annum from the date ofpetition till the date of realization to be paid by the respondents 1and 2 jointly and severally. Challenging the same, the presentappeals came to be filed by the claimants as well as the TSRTC.

9. Heard Srt K.Venumadhav, learned counsel for theappellants / claimants and Sri G.Srinivas, learned standing counselfor TSRTC.

10. During the [hearing ][of ][the ][appeals, ][the ][primary ground ][of]raised [by ][TSRTC ][in ][MACMA ][No'498 ][of 2022 ][was ][frrstly,]challenge so far as disputing [the ][accident ][itself, ][in ][which ][the ][deceased died]and secondly, the [quantum ][of ][compensation ][awarded ][by ][the]Tribunal. The learned [standing ][counsel ][for ][TSRTC ][also ][submitted]that driver [of the crime ][vehicle ][was ][acquitted ][in ][criminal ][case and]there was contributory [negligence ][on ][the part ][of ][the ][deceased since]accident occurred [due to ][triple riding ][of the ][motor ][cycle']

11. MACMA [No.238 ][of ][2022 ][is ][an ][appeal ][filed ][by the ][claimants]seeking for enhancement [of ][compensation' ][The primary ][ground]for [enhancement ][of ][compensation ][was ][that ][the ][Tribunal]seeking had not awarded [the ][compensation ][as ][claimed ][by ][the ][claimants]and secondly, the [Tribunal ][had ][erred ][in ][awarding ][5Oo/o]contributory [negligence ][on the part ][of ][the ][deceased ][without ][there]being any [evidence, so ][also ][the ][consortium ][to ][the claimants' ][The]learned counsel [for claimants submitted ][that ][the ][Tribunal ][erred ][in]the [income ][of ][the ][deceased ][as ][Rs'6,O0O/-' instead ][of]taking Rs.15,000/-. [He ][further ][submitted ][that ][the ][Tribunal ][ought to ][have]that [there was ][no ][negligence ][on ][the part ][of ][the]appreciated deceased in riding [the motor ][cycle.]

12. In support of [the ][contention ][that ][the ][Tribunal ][erred]"irnposing [contributory ][negiigence ][to ][the extent of ][5O% ][on the ][part]

of the rider/driver of the motor cycle, without there being anyevidence, the learned counsel for claimants relied upon thedecision of the erstwhile High court ol Andhra pradesh in unitedIndia Insurance Company Limited vs. Chendri Ramaiah andotherst and Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd., vs. T.LaxmanGoud and others2

Consideration:

13. Coming to the first ground raised by TSRTC i.e., disputingthe accident tha[ occurred on 15.06.2016, this Court is of theopinion that TSRTC has failed to discharge its obligations so far asproving the contention raised by it by placing cogent, substantialmaterial and evidence in support of its contention. TSRTC neitherexamined any w,itness nor marked any document to support theircontention.

14. PW.2-Sadu Kumar, who has been examined as an eyewitness, deposed that he witnessed the accident and hecategorically deposed that accident occurred only due to rash andnegligent driving of TSRTC Bus with high speed and therebydashed the motor cycie of the deceased in a opposite direction.

' [2O1O SCC ]Ontine Ap 942 (201i) 2 ALD 3

' 2014 Lawsuit (Hyd) 105l

I

15. As per the postmortem report of the deceased, there [is ][no]alcoholic content present in the stomach [of the ][deceased. ][It ][is ][the]case of TSRTC that the deceased, who [rode/drove ][the ][motor]vehicle, was in drunken state, but in [the ][absence ][of ][any]documentary evidence or conclusive [evidence ][to ][come ][to]conclusion that rider/driver [of ][the ]motor [vehicle ][was ][in ][a ][drunken]state at the time of accident, [the ][contention of ][TSRTC ][cannot ][be]believed.

16. In Chendri Ramaiah [(supra), ][the ][learned single ][Judge ][of]erstwhile High Court [of ][Andhra ][Pradesh ][held ][as ][under:]

"5. [Evidence ][in lhal ][particular ][case ][is the first crlterion ][while considering]the issue regarding [negtigence ][or ][contributory ][negligence ][lf ][evidence on]record is scrutinlsed in the light of [the ][above ][pronouncements ][of ][lhis]Court, it ts evident that [there is ][sufficicnt ][evtdence ][on ][rccord let ][in ][by ][the]claimants to [prove ]negligence on [the part ][of ][D'C ][M ][van ][driver' ][PW2 ][is]cashier in tsnapur [filling ][station, Muthangi ][in front ][of ][which petrol pump]the accident took [place. ]It is [his ][categorical evidence ][that ][the ][accident]occurred due to [fault ][of D.G.M ][van driver ][as ][he ][drove ][the ][vehicle ][in ][rash]and negligent manner [and ][dashed ][the motor ][cycle ][in ][wrong ][direction' ][It]is not a case where [there was head ][on collision ][between two vehicles on]middle of the road. D.C.M [van ][driver ][drove ][the ][same ][towards wrong ][side]and dashed the [opposite motor cycle ][killing ][three ][riders ][on ][the ][motor]cycle on the spot [This is ][not a ][case ][where ][due ][to ][triple riding, ][driver of]the motor cycle became [cramped and ][could ][not ][control ][the vehicle due ][to]discomfort or inconvenience [because ][of ][triple ][riding ][Evidence ][on ][record]amply [proved ]that the [fault ][was ][with ][D.C ][M ][van driver only and that]th".. *a" no fault on the [part of motor ][cycle ][rider/driver ][and ][that ][for ][no]fautt of the motor cycle driver, [D.C.M ][van ][came ][on to ][wrong side ][and]fashed [the motor ][cycle ][which ][was ][going ][in ][proper ][direction ][Thus, ][the]llr.ver Tribunal was right in holding that [the accident took ][place ][due ][to]rash and negligent driving of [D ][C.M ][van ][driver- ][The motor ][cycle]rider/driver on which three [deceased ][persons were ][travelling ][did ][not]

contribute any negligence for this accident. This accident was not due totriple riding of the motor cycle, but due to fault as well as rash andnegtigent driving on the part of the D.C.M van driver.'

17. In the above decision, the eye witness P.W.2 categoricallydeposed that the accident occurred due to fault of D.C.M van driveras he drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and dashedthe motor cycle in wrong direction. In the case on hand, P.W.2-Sadu Kumar, an eye witness, categorically deposed that theaccident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of TSRTCbus with high speed and dashed the opposite motor cycle, killingthree riders of the motor cycle on the spot.

18. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimants contended thatthe Tribunal erroneously deducted 50% of the compensationamount on account of contributory negligence on the part of thedeceased. There is no dispute that the deceased along with twoothers were travelling on two wheeler in contravention of theprovisions of the M.V.Act. The triple riding/driving of two wheelerwould attract penal action in accordance with the provision of theM.V.Act. However, that would not necessarily be basis for denyingcompensation to the victims/dependents since the M.V.Act isbeneficial legislation and is aimed at providing hnancial support tothe victims/ dependents. In a given case, where a vehicle is drivenin violation/contravention of the provisions of M.V.Act and it1,

resulted in an accident, the Tribunal can fix contributorynegligence on the person, who drove the vehicle in violation of theprovisions of the M.V.Act subject to sufficient material, evidence onrecord. However, in the present case, there is no material, evidenceto show that the accident had taken place only because of tripleriding of the vehicle by the deceased. Therefore, the Tribunal erredin deducting 507o towards contributory negligence on the part ofthe deceased. In considered opinion of this Court, the same is notsustainable and accordingly, set aside.

19. The facts of the decision referred supra are similar to thefacts of the present case. This Court is in respectful agreementwith the decision referred to above. Thus, this Court is of theconsidered opinion that the Tribunal had erred in imposing S0%contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.

20. In the absence of any material on the part of TSRTC, it isdiflicult to accept the contention of negligence on the part ofrider/driver of the motor cycle. The said ground raised by theappellant-TSRTC thus stands answered in the negative.

21. Insofar as the other contention raised by the learned counselfor TSRTC with regard to the quantum of monthly income of thedeceased, the appellants/claimants, except claiming monthly income of the deceased as Rs. l5,OO0/_ from the agriculture landsto an extent o[ Acs.3.OO guntas, have not placed any material orevidence before the Tribunal in proof of monthly income of thedeceased. [n the absence of any proof with regard to the income ofthe deceased, in considered opinion of this Court, the Tribunal hadrightly considered the monthly income of the deceased asRs.6,000/- per month.

22. Coming ro the appeal in MACMA No.23g ot 2022 hied by theclaimants, on perusal of the entire award, considering the age ofthe deceased as 22 years as on thc date of accident, the Tribunalhad rightly considered ali the counts i.e., personal expenses, futureprospects, multiplier, loss of eslalc arrd funeral expenses etc., inview of the decisions of Hon,ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma andothers vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 3 andNational Insurance Co.Ltd., vs. pranay Sethi and othersa,

23. However, insofar as the contention of the learned counsel forclaimants, Tribunal erred in not awarding consortium to theclaimants, it is relevant to refer to the decision of Hon,ble ApexCourt in Pranay Sethi (supra) at paragraph 59.g, as per which, I

' [(zoog) ]e scc rzro (zorz) ro scc esoo (zorz) ro scc eso the claimants are entitled to Rs.40,OOO/_ cach towardsconsorttum

24. The other contention raised by the learned counsel forclaimants that Tribunal erred in imposing SO% of the contributorynegligence on the part of the rider/driver of the motor cycle i.e.,and deceased and this issue is already discussed in the precedingparagraphs and answered in favour of the claimants.

25. The contentions raised by the learned counsel forappellants/ claimants deserve to be allowed to the above extent.

Conclusion:

26. In view of the above discussion, material and evidence placed on record, the compensation amount is recalculated as under:

III

27. The total compcnsation amount paya blc to the claimants isenhanced from Rs.4,68,600/_ ro Rs. 10,17,2O0l-, subject topayment of court fee on enhanced compensation amount. The saidcompensation amount shall also carry interest @ Z.S% per annumfrom the date of the claim petition made before the Tribunal till thedate of the actuar payment. The TSRTC is directed to enslrre thatthe entire amount of compensation is deposited within a period ofsix weeks from thc d:ltc of rcccipt of copy of this order, dulyadjusting rhe amounr, ir any, arready paid by TSRTC. The ratio ofapportionment of amounts among the appellants/claimants andthe permission to withdrawal shall be thc same in terms of thearvard passed by the Tribunal.

28. [n the result, MACMANo.238 of of 2022 filed by thefiled by theby thetheappellan ts / claimants is allowedln part as indicated above andMACMA No.498 of 2022 filed by appellant/1.SRTC is dismissedThere shall be no ordcr as to costs.

No.238 of of 2022 filed by thefiled by theby thethe

29. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed SD/. MOHD SANAULLAH [ANSARI]ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

/[RUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,1The Prlnclpal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, at [Warangal.(With ][Records']if any)1The Prlnclpal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, at [Warangal.(With ][Records']if any)

One CC to Sri K Venumadhav, Advocate [OPUC]

One CC to Sri G. Srinivas, Advocate [OPUC]

Two CD Cores

II

HIGH COURT

DATED:2911212023

COMMON JUDGMENTMACMA.No.238 of 2022ANDMACMA.No.498 of 2022

1BE [STAT]6(ooI [B ][I{AY ][2021])-**a-,i -,ri![r-ti:(i-1]

PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA.NO.z38 OF 2022ANDDISMISSING THE MACMA.NO.4g8 OF 2022

IN THE HIGH [COURT FOR THE ][STATE ][OF ][TELANGANA]AT HYDERABAD

FRIDAY, THE [TWENTY NINTH DAY ][OF ][DECEMBER]TWO THOUSAND [AND TWENTY THREE]

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE [SRIJUSTICE ][LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY]

TORcIDENTtvlLCEEOPPNO:o2MOToR ACCIOENT CIVIL MISCELLANE[OUS ][APPEAL ][N][Oi ][238][ o][F ][2022]

Between:

1Pandavula Suguna, [Wo. ][Late. ][Sadanandam ]@ [Sadaiah, Fl/o' ][Narsingapur]Viffrg", IrOr.i Mandal, [Warangal ][Districl ][presently residing ][at ][Sundaraiah]Nagir, Enumula, Hanamkonda, [Warangal ][District']Viffrg", IrOr.i Mandal, [Warangal ][Districl ][presently residing ][at ][Sundaraiah]Nagir, Enumula, Hanamkonda, [Warangal ][District']2Paidavula Bharath, [S/o. ][Late. ][Sadinandam ][@ ][Sadaiah' ][Occ ][Student]i-ig [p".."nt ][Physically Handicapped Person) ][R/o' ][Narsingapur ][Village']irar"i f.a"na"t, [W"rangal ][District, preeently ][residing ][at ][Sundaraiah ][Nager']Enumula, Hanamkonda, [\ly'arangal ][District. ]Appellants/petitionersi-ig [p".."nt ][Physically Handicapped Person) ][R/o' ][Narsingapur ][Village']irar"i f.a"na"t, [W"rangal ][District, preeently ][residing ][at ][Sundaraiah ][Nager']Enumula, Hanamkonda, [\ly'arangal ][District. ]Appellants/petitioners

AND

1. Konda Ashok, [S/o. Cheralu, ][occ ][Driver ][of ][TSRTC Bus bearing ][No. ][AP ][29 ][Z]1099, R/o. Dhasthagiripalli [Village, ][Nallabelli ][Mandal' Warangal ][District']1099, R/o. Dhasthagiripalli [Village, ][Nallabelli ][Mandal' Warangal ][District']

Z. fetangana State [R6ad Transp6rt Corporation, represented ][by ][its ][Managing]Director' Musheerabad' [Hyderabad ]Director' Musheerabad' [Hyderabad ]

...Respondents/Respondents

MqTOR A[CIDENT GIVI]nnISCLLANOUSPEANO:aoF22

Between:The Telangana [State ][Road Transport ][Corporation, represented ][by its ][Managing]Director, Musheerabad, [HYderabad]

...APPellants

AND

1. Pandavula Suguna, [Wo. ][Late. ][Sadanandam ][@ ][Sadaiah' Ryo-.N?Pi:S:pur]Village, Tadvai [Mandal, ][Warangal District' ][Presently residing ][at ][R/o H No ][3-3O]Suniaraiah Nagar, [Enumula, Hanamkonda' ][\A/arangal ][District']Village, Tadvai [Mandal, ][Warangal District' ][Presently residing ][at ][R/o H No ][3-3O]Suniaraiah Nagar, [Enumula, Hanamkonda' ][\A/arangal ][District']2. [pandavuta ][enaratn, ][Sio. ][1ate. ][Sadanandam ][@ ][Sadaiah, ][Occ ][Student]( 58 percent enysicaity [Handicapped ][Person) ][R/o ][Narsingapur ][Village']( 58 percent enysicaity [Handicapped ][Person) ][R/o ][Narsingapur ][Village']

Tadvai Mandal, Warangal District, presently residing at R/o [H,No.3-30]Sundaraiah Nagar, Enumula, [Hanamkonda, ]Warangal [District.]

... Respondents/Petitioners

3. Konda Ashok, S/o. Cheralu, [Occ. ][Driver ][of ][TSRTC ]bus [bearing ][No.AP-29-Z-]1099, R/o. Dhasthagiripalli Village, Nallabelli Mandal, [Warangal diskict.]1099, R/o. Dhasthagiripalli Village, Nallabelli Mandal, [Warangal diskict.]

...RespondenURespondent No.1

Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order anddecree in [I.V.O.P. No. 628 of 2016 dated 08.03.2022 on the file of the Court of thePrincipal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, at Warangal.

ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds ofappeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers inthe Case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K Venumadhav, Advocate for theAppellant in MACMA.No.238 of 2O22 and Respondent ln MACMA.No.498 of 2022and of Sri G. Srinivas (SC FOR TSRTC), Advocate for the Respondents [in]MACMA. No.23 I of 2022 and Appellants in MACMA. No. 498 of 2022.

This Court doth order and Decree as follows

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.498 of 2022 be andhereby is dismissed.hereby is dismissed.

2. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.238,of 2022 be andhereby is Allowed in Part;hereby is Allowed in Part;

3. That the compensation amount payable to the claimants is enhanced fromRs.4,68,600/- to Rs.10,17,2004 subject to payment of Court fee on enhancedcompensation amount,Rs.4,68,600/- to Rs.10,17,2004 subject to payment of Court fee on enhancedcompensation amount,

4. That the said compensation amount shall also carry interest @ 7.5o/o [per]annum from the date of the claim petition made before the Tribunal till thedate of the actual payment;annum from the date of the claim petition made before the Tribunal till thedate of the actual payment;

5. That the Respondent No.2 be and hereby is directed to ensure that the entireamount of compensation is deposited within a [period ]of six weeks from thedate of receipt of copy of this Order, duly adjusting the amount, if any alreadyby the Respondent No.2;amount of compensation is deposited within a [period ]of six weeks from thedate of receipt of copy of this Order, duly adjusting the amount, if any alreadyby the Respondent No.2;

6. That the ratio of apportionment of amounts among the appellants/claimantsand the permission to withdrawal shall be the same in terms of award passedby the Tribunal and :and the permission to withdrawal shall be the same in terms of award passedby the Tribunal and :

7. That there be no order [as to costs ][in ][this appeal]

SD/. MOHD SANAULLAH [ANSARI]ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE [COPYII]

SECTION OFFICER

To'1. Th" Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal' at Warangal'

2. One CC to Sri K Venumadhav, [Advocate ][OPUC]

3. One CC to [Sri G. Srinivas, Advocate ][OPUC]

4. Two CD CoPies

SP/SP

HIGH COURT

DATED:2911212023

COMMON DECREE

MACMA.No.238 ot 2022ANDMACMA.No.498 ot 2O22

PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA-NO.238 OF 2022ANDDISMISSING THE MACMA.NO.4g8 OF 2022

{