MACMA/427/2023 of The T.S.R.T.C. Vs R. Neelima on 31 December 2024

1. The TSRTC, reptd. by its [[Vlanaging ][Director, ][RTC ][X Roads, Musheerabad,]HyderabadHyderabad

2. The TSRTC, reptd. by its [Depot ][fVlanager, ][Hayathnagar-l ][Depep,]Hayathnagar, Ranga ReddY DistrictHayathnagar, Ranga ReddY District (Owners of the TSRTC Bus bearing [No'AP28Z-1858)]

3. - D. Sathaiah, S/o. Gandaiah, [Aged about 59 years, Occ. Driver' ][Native ][of ]['1-]igZ, pielentiv fanOa6ur nio. H. Village, trto.i-s-+ol Chandir 1 89, lVtandal, P riyadarsh \q1gof{a i ni Colo ny, District - H ayath 543001nagar, R' R'DistrictigZ, pielentiv fanOa6ur nio. H. Village, trto.i-s-+ol Chandir 1 89, lVtandal, P riyadarsh \q1gof{a i ni Colo ny, District - H ayath 543001nagar, R' R'District (Driver of the TSRTC Bus bearing No.AP28Z-1858)

...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants

:Sri Kota Subba Rao:Sri R AnuragStanding Counsel for TSRTCStanding Counsel for TSRTC

Counsel for the Respondent No 1 & 2 :

Appeal under Section I 73 of' the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against theJudgment and Decree dated 17-05-2022 made in M.V.O.P.No.953 of 2016 on thefile of the Court of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City CivilCourt, Hyderabad.file of the Court of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City CivilCourt, Hyderabad.

Between:

'1 . T.he T.S.R-T.C., Rep. by its Managing Director RTC X Road, lVlusheerabad,Hyderabad. T.he T.S.R-T.C., Rep. by its Managing Director RTC X Road, lVlusheerabad,Hyderabad

2. The T.S.R.T.(1, Rc!. by its Depot Manager, Hayathnagar-l Depot,Hayathnagar Flanga Reddy DistrictHayathnagar Flanga Reddy District

...Appellants / Respondents

AND

1. R. Neelima, Wto. Late Narender, Aged 26 years, Occ. Household

2. R. Lakshmi Pranathi, D/o. Late Narender, Aged about 5 years, Occ. NIL

3. R. Sai Charan, S/o. Late Narender, Aged about 4 years, Occ. NIL

4. R. Ram Charan, S/o. Late Narender, Aged about 2yea$, Occ. NIL

5. R. Prashanthi,'///o. R. Prasad, Aged about 50 years, Occ. House Hold

6. R. Prasad, S/o. Ramalingam, Aged about SB years, Occ. NIL

All are Rl/o. H.NIo.4-9-649, FIat No. G3, Sri Swathi Residencv, Vinavakanaqarp.op1V, Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District, Presenily ruo. H.tto.t'O-+-ZlC]Malakpet, Hyderabad

.. .Respondents / Petitioners

7Pt. [Sathiah, ][S/o. ][Gandaiah, Aged about ][53 ][years, Occ, Driver, Native ]of [j-132,]Kandapur Village, Chandur Mandal, Nalgorida District- 50g 001Kandapur Village, Chandur Mandal, Nalgorida District- 50g 001

l1e.s91tly [Rl/o. ][ll.No.4-9-401 ][189, ][Priyadarshini Colony, Hayathnagar, ][R.R.]District (Respondent N,r.7 is not necessary party to this case)

...Respondents / Respondent No 3

lA NO: 3 OF 2023

Petition under Section 151 CPC [praying ]that in the circumstances [stated ][in]the affidavit filed in support of the [petition, ]the High Court may be [pleased ][to ][grant]stay of execution of the Judgment and Decree of the Motor [Accident ][Claims]Tribunal-cum{he Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, [Hyderabad, ][dated]1710512022, made in lt/VOP. No.953 of 2016.

Counsel for the : Appellants

Sri R AnuragStanding Counsel for TSRTC

Counsel for the Respondent No 1 to 6:

Sri P Rama Krishna Reddy

The Court delivered the following Common Judgment [:]

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE [SUJOY PAUL]ANDTHE HONOURABLE [SRI JUSTICE ][NAI\{AVARAPU ][RAJESHWAR ][RAO]

M.A.C.M.A.Nos.5570f[202][2 ][and ][427of 2023]

COMMON JUDGMENT: ftter [Hctn'ble ][Sri ][Justice ][NamaoaroPlt ][l?ajeshr'nr ][Rcto)]

These tv'o appeals are [being ][disposed ][of by ][uay ][of ][this]common [judgrnent ]since [M.A.C.M.A.No.557 of ][2022 ][filed by ][the]appellants/claimants and [M.A.C.M.A.No.427 ][of ][2023 ][filed ][by]the appellant's/TSRTC, [are ][directed ][against ][the ][r"ery ][same]Award and de,:ree, dated [17.05.2022 ][passed ][in ][M.V.O'P'No'953]of 2016 by the Chairman, [Motor ][Vehicle Accidents ][Claims]Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, [City Civil ][Court, ][Hvderabad ][(for]short, "the Tribunal").

For the sake of convenience, the sake of convenience, the of convenience, the convenience, the the [parties ][are ][l-rereinaJter]

2. For the sake of convenience, the sake of convenience, the of convenience, the convenience, the the referred to as they are arrayed [before ][the ][Tribunal.]

3. The briei facts of the case are [as ][follows:]

The clain petition is filed under [Section 166 ][ol' ][the ][Motor]

Vehicles Act, seeking a compensation [of ][Rs.1,00,00,000/ ][- ][from]respondent l\ios.l to 3, who [are ][Managing ][Director, ][Depot]Malager and the driver of [the ][T.S.R.T.C., on ][account ][of ][ddath of]one Rapolu Narender [(hereinafter referred ][to ][as ]['deceased'), ][in ][a]

motor vehicle accident [that ][occurred ][on ][13'01'2016 ][at ][about]1O.30 p.m.

3(i) On 13.01.2016 at [about ][10'30 ][p'm', ][near ][Bawarchi]Hote1, Hayathnagar, [Cyberabad ][on ][National Highway-65, ][the]deceasedwasproceedingonhismotorcyclebearingregistrationNo.AP 24P-2838 from [Sunrise Hospital, ][Hayathnagar, ][towards]Vinayakanagar Colony, slowly [on ][the ][extreme ][left ][side ][of ][the]road and when he [reached ][Bawarchi ][Hotel, ][on ][National]one [T.S.R.T.C. ][bus ][bearing ][registration ][No'AP-28-]Highway-65, Z lB58 driven by its [driver ][at ][high ][speed ][in ][a ][rash ][and negligent]manner, while [proceeding ][in ][the ][same ][direction, ][came ][to ][the]wrong side and dashed [the ][motorcycle ][of the ][deceased ][from]backside. Due to the [impact, ][the ][deceased ][fell ][down ][and]sustained [grievous ][injuries ][to ][the ][head ][and ][fell ][unconscious']Thedeceasedsustainedmultiplegrievousinjuries,fracturesand other injuries [all ][over ][the ][body']The deceased was [shifted]108 Ambulance [for ][first]to Sunrise Hospital, [Hayathnagar, ][in]aid. As the condition [of ][the ][deceased ][was ][serious, ][he ][was]shifted to Yashoda [Hospital, Malakpet, for better ][treatment' ][The]deceased succumbed [to his ][injuries ][on ][15'01 ][2016 ][while]treatment [at ][Yashoda ][Super ][Specialty ][Hospital']undergoing Malakpet 3(ii) The Police Hayathnagar registered a case in Cr.No.45of 2O16 under Sections 337 and 304-A of IPC against the driverof the said TSI?TC bus bearing No.TS-2BZ- 1858.of 2O16 under Sections 337 and 304-A of IPC against the driverof the said TSI?TC bus bearing No.TS-2BZ- 1858.

4. Before t.re Tribunal, respondents No. I and 2 by filing acounter opposed the claim petition denying the averments withrespect to date, time, place, manner of occurrence ol accident,rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver ol RTC busand the death. of the deceased due to injuries suffer:ed in theaccident. Thev pleaded that the accident occurred only due tonegligence an<l mistake of the deceased. Further, they deniedthe age, healtLL condition, income of the deceased. Further, it ispleaded that the petitioners are making attempts to takeadvantage of social justice scheme by impleading the bus in anaccident, in which the bus is not involved, though the. deceaseddied due to his or.r,n fault. Accordingly, prayed to di smiss theclaim petition.

5. Respondent No.3, driver of the said bus, filed a counterdenying rash and negligent driving on his part being the causefor accident arid death of the deceased. He pleaded 1.hat he isholding valid and subsisting driving license to drive a heavypassenger bus. Further, he is holding D.L.No.24g732 lHyD,valid upto Julv, 2O 19, Badge No.12385, issued by Regional Transport Authority, Nalgonda District. He further pleaded thatthe petitioners have not filed aly document to prove therelationship with the deceased arrd the age, income, occupationof the deceased, as such, denied the petitioners entitlement toclaim compensation of Rs. 1,O0,OO,OOO/-.

5(i) The positive case of the Respondent No.3 is that on13.01.2016, the bus according to T.S.R.T.C. Statistical andTicket Account Record, left the Depot at 1 4.45 p.m., andreturned back to the Depot on the same day at 21.3O hoursafter completing the scheduled trips. The Service Conductorremitted day's collection vide Total Remittance Reporton13.01.2018 at 22.27.12 seconds at Depot Office. In thecircumstances, the respondent No 3 pleaded that he is notresponsible for the accident ald that the deceased himself isresponsible for the accident. Lastly, he pleaded that as perpolice complaint given by the brother of the deceased, one driverof unknou,n RTC bus, has driven in a rash and negligentmanner and dashed the bike of the deceased. In spite of suchclear narration, it is alleged that the petitioners colluded forwrongfui enrichment and to cause wrongful loss to theRespondent Nos. 1 and 2 and to tarnish the career ofRespondent No. 3 in spite of the fact that there is no involvement ,rf the bus in the accident. The Respondent No.3

pleaded that the claim petition is misconceived and deserves tothe dismissecl r.l.ith costs.the dismissecl r.l.ith costs.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed thefoliowing issues Whether the pleaded accident had occurred resultingIin death of deceased R. Narender, due to rash andnegligent driving of TSRTC bus bearing No.TS-2BZ-1858, by its driver?negligent driving of TSRTC bus bearing No.TS-2BZ-1858, by its driver?

Wtrether the petitioners are entitled to any11compensation, if so, at what quantum and what istht: liability of the respondents?compensation, if so, at what quantum and what istht: liability of the respondents?

111 To What relieP

7. To prov,: their case, petitioners got examined their case, petitioners got examined case, petitioners got examined petitioners got examined P.Ws.1 to 3to 33ald got marl-red Exs.A1 to A25. On behalf of the r:espondentNos.1 and 2, RW. 1 was examined and got marked Ex B 1

To prov,: their case, petitioners got examined their case, petitioners got examined case, petitioners got examined petitioners got examined P.Ws.1 to 3to 33

FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL ON ISSUE No.I:

8. The Tritrunal observed that as per the contents of ExhibitA1-FIR, it is the police vvho informed the brother of lhe deceased(complainant) that his brother met with an accident upon beinghit by an RTC) bus- PW2's evidence is that he noted the numberof the bus as AP 28 Z 1858, gave his details to the relatives ofthe injured, rvho were gathered at the aqr:irlent site. In case, such is the case, there is no reason why the number of RTC busis not written in the FIR, which was lodged on 14.0i.2016 at14.00 hours i.e. . after gap of almost 15 hours. The version ofPW2 is also not believable for the reason that as per Exhibit A2-charge sheet, the Station House Offrcer made enquiry with theDepot Manager about the buses which were plied betweenHayathnagar-l Depot and Hayathnagar Bus-stand on13.01.2O16 between 10.OO p.m. and 1O.30 p.m. In case, PW2was an eyewitness to the accident ald had truly noted down thenumber of the bus, there would be no reason for the StationHouse Officer to make the enquiry with the Depot Manager ofHayathnagar - [ Depot about the buses and the drivers whowere piying the buses, in the route where the accident tookplace.

9. The Tribunal further observed that in this fact situation,another point to be noted is that not just the buses fromHayathnagar Depot, but buses from all the depots of Telanganaand Andhra Pradesh would be plying near the accident site atthe materia-l time of accident. There is no ground to believe thatit is the bus, which is alleged to be involved in the accident andit is the accused driver who has caused the accident with rashand negligent driving since indefinite number of buses would be :i plying at the accident site on National Highwat,-65. Theprobability' ol- involvement of the alleged TSRTC bus is furtherrendered doubtful on account of the fact that as [per ]Ex.A-1, thebus was parked in the depot when the accident took placeTherefore, though this Tribunal is not inclined to believe theversion of P\['2, since the petitioners are claiming cornpensationunder social welfare legislation, r,vhere the evidencc has to beexamined on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and notthe parameter of beyond reasonable doubt, the involvement ofthe alleged bus i.e., AP- 282-1858 is taken to be trueprobability' ol- involvement of the alleged TSRTC bus is furtherrendered doubtful on account of the fact that as [per ]Ex.A-1, thebus was parked in the depot when the accident took placeTherefore, though this Tribunal is not inclined to believe theversion of P\['2, since the petitioners are claiming cornpensationunder social welfare legislation, r,vhere the evidencc has to beexamined on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and notthe parameter of beyond reasonable doubt, the involvement ofthe alleged bus i.e., AP- 282-1858 is taken to be true

10. The Tribunal further observed that the social welfarelegislation cannot be taken advantage of for u,rongs committedby individuals due to bad habits. Exhibit 81 shows when theAmbulance rr:ached the accident site to transport the injured tothe nearest hospital, the injured was noted to be in aninebriated ccndition and in unconscious state. This fact isconfirmed b.r Exhibit A5 Postmortem examination report,u,herein, the doctor who conducted autopsy recorded presenceof 30 c.c. brc,wn colour liquid in the abdomen of the deceasedthat too after tu'o days of the accident on 15.01.2016. As muchas there is rloubt about the involvement of the vehicle i.e.TSRTC bus bearing registration No. AP 282-1858, '"r,ith a rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the RTC bus,the accident occurring due to fault of the deceased, who wasunder the influence of alcohol in inebriated condition cannot beruled out. Therefore, the liability for occurrence of the accidentis found to be 5O% each. Accordingly, issue No.1 is answered.

I 1. Pointing out the observations made by the Tribunal withregard to negligence aspect, learned counsel for theappellants/petitioners in M.A.C.M.A No.557 of 2022 vehementlyargued that the Tribunal without appreciating the oral anddocumentar5z evidence property, had wrongly held that theaccident occurred due to the contributory negligence of thedeceased and driver of bus to extent of 50%. That the Tribunalfailed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence of theAppellants/ petitioners under Ex.Al to Al2 corroborated by theoral evidence of the independent eyewitness (PW2) whichclinchingly establish that the accident occurred only due to therash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC Bus bearingNo.AP2SZ 1858

12. Learned counsel for the appellants / petitioners furthersubmitted that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that PW2 is anindependent eyewitness whose hotel is located just opposite toplace of the accident and his presence at the place of accident is quite natural and his evidence is [unshaken ][in ][the ][cross-]examination by Respondents [No. ]I to [3. ][The Tribunal ][had]wrongly giver the undue importance [to ][Ex.B ][I ][as ][it ][is ][not ][proved]by the respondents by examining [the ][concerned ]l)erson [and]RW 1 is not t.he author of Ex.B 1 and [he ][is ][no ][wa1' ][concerned]with the con:ents of Ex.Bl with [regard ][to ][drunken ][stage. ][The]Tribunal ha<l wrongly given undue [weightage ][to Ex.Bl ][in]relation to drunken stage as the same [had ][no ][basis ][in ][the]absence of Breath Analyzer or [Blood Test ][to ][show ][the ][presence]of Alcohol in the blood or the deceased [was ][under ][the influence]of Alcohol.

i 3 . Learnecl counsel for the [appellants/ ][petitionr:rs further]

submitted that the Tribunal failed to [see ]that [immediately after]the accident, the deceased was taken [to ][SunriSe ][Hospital,]Hayathnagar by 1O8 Ambulance [and there ][is no ][metrtion ][in ][the]causality prescription dated 14.O1 .2016 issued [by ][Sunrise]Hospital, tha, the deceased was in drunken stage [or there ][is ][aly]smel1 of Alcohol and also there [is ][no ][mention about the ][drunken]stage in the rnedical record under [Ex ][A9, ][death ][summarl ][issued]by Yashoda Hospital, Malakpet, [Hyderabad, ][and thus, ][the]Tribunal had wrongly held that [the ][deceased ][was ][in ][drunken]

stage arrd contributed to [the ][accident ][to ][the ][extent ][of ][5O%o]without there being anY [evidence.]

14. Learned counsel for [the ][appellants/petitioners ][further]submitted. that the [appellants have proved ][by ][filing the ][Police]records and the ora-l [evidence ][of ][independent ][eyewitness ][with]regard to involvement [of crime vehicle ][as ][the ][respondents ][have]the [documenlarSr ][evidence ][and ][intentiona'Ily ][got]suppressed eschewed the evidence [of the ][Depot ][Manager ][(RW2) ][as ][if ][she]enters into the witness [box, ][the ][actual facts ][would ][have ][been]elicited from her [cross-examination ][with ][reference ][to ][the]documents in their [possession. ][As ][such, ][the ][order under ][appeal]is liable to be set [aside.]

15. Learned counsel [for the ][appellants/ ][petitioners ][further]submittedthattheTribuna]failedtoappreciatethefactthatthecontents of the [viscera ][were ][not ][sent ][to ][FSL ][Laboratory as ][the]Postmortem Doctor [did not ][entertain any ][doubt ][or ][suspicion]with regard to the [presence of ][Alcohol ][in ][the ][stornach ][contents']As such, the order [under ][appeal ][is ][liable ][to ][be ][set ][aside' ][The]Tribunal had [wrongly entertained doubt ][that ][as ][per ][PME ][report]there is 30 CC of brown [color ][liquid ][in ][the ][stomach ][of ][the]deceased suspecting [aicohol ][in ][the ][absence ][of ][FSL ][Report ][or]

any other record. Accordingly, [prayed ]to [set aside ][the Order ][of]the Tribunal

16. Learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners [relied ][upon]

the following [judgments:]

12OO9 ACJ1725(SC) in the case of Bimlr Devi andothers Vs.Himchal Road Transport Oorporationand others.others Vs.Himchal Road Transport Oorporationand others.

2AIR 1972 (SC) 283 in the case of Hasib Vs. State ofBihar.Bihar.

31994 ACJ 993 (SC) in the case of Ha;i ZainullahKhan (dead) by LRs Vs. Nagar I\{ahapalika,Allahabad.Khan (dead) by LRs Vs. Nagar I\{ahapalika,Allahabad.

I200t AIHC 3472(RAJ) in the case of RajasthanRoad TransportCorporation Vs. Satrtosh aldo thers.Road TransportCorporation Vs. Satrtosh aldo thers.

52001ACJ 1273 (SC) in the case of La-xmibai VsKarnataka State Road Transport Corporation.Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation.6AIR 1999 (SC) 144 1 in the case of Vidhvadar VsNlanikrao and another.Nlanikrao and another.7AIR 1966 (SC) 629 in the case ol Atyam Veerarajuand others Vs. Venkanna ald others.and others Vs. Venkanna ald others.

82013 ACJ 2141 (SC) in the case of Jijtt Kuruvillaand others Vs. Kunjujamma Mohan and others.and others Vs. Kunjujamma Mohan and others.

92023 ACJ 2578 (Bomb) in the case of Platima HariGaonker and others Vs. Deepak Singh and others.Gaonker and others Vs. Deepak Singh and others.

lO. 2Ol9(2) ALD 390 (APDB) in the case of P. Suneelaand others Vs. Shaik Kamal and another.and others Vs. Shaik Kamal and another.

112022 ACJ 2OO3(SC) in the case of Janabai Vs. ICICILcmbard General Insurance Company Ltd.Lcmbard General Insurance Company Ltd.

17. On the other hand, learned counsel for appellant/TsRTc1n M.A.C.M.A No.427 of 2023 has vehemently contended thatthe Tribunal committed irregularity in holding that the accidentoccurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of thebus bearing No.AP-2BZ- 1B5B without there being anyacceptable evidence on record. The Tribunal ought to haveappreciated the fact that there was no such accident at alloccurred on 13.01.2016 at about 10.30 PM near Bawarchi Hotelwith bus bearing No.AP-2BZ- 1858, there is no proof to thateffect. The Tribunal ought to have appreciated the fact that thedeceased was under the influence of alcohol and died on hisown fault, there was no such accident occurred at all ald therespondents/ petitioners herein have made attempts to takeadvantage of social justice scheme by wrongfully impleading thebus in an accident.

18. Learned counsel for appellants/TSRTC further contendedthat the Tribunal ought to have appreciated the fact that thecomplaint given to the Police does not mention about the Busnumber and it mentions that the deceased brother received acall from Police that an accident occurred, therefore, implicatingthe bus bearing No.AP-2BZ- 1 858 in the accident has norelevance. The Tribunal erred in believing the evidence of PW.2

\\rho is nothing but a planted witness and [his ][evidr:nce ][cannot]be relied Lr[)on to prove the manner of the [acc ][jdent. ][The]Tribunal ouFlht to have appreciated the [fact ][that ][the ][claim ][is]made in collrrsion with police and there [are ]no [eye\\ritnesses to]prove the claim of the respondents/ petitioners herein.

19. Learne<l counsel for appellants/TSRTC further contendeclthat the Tribunal ought to have appreciated the fac1. that [as per]Statistical and Ticket Account Record [(STAR), ]the bus bearingNo.AP 2BZ- 1358 was parked into the Depot by 22.2:i hours andwhereas the accident a-lleged to be occurred at 10. 30 [P. ]M. , assuch, the ca,se registered against the appellants herein is forwrongful gain to claim compensation amount. Accordingly,prayed to dismiss the order of the Tribunal FINDINGS OF THIS COURT REGARDING NEGLENCEASPECT:

20. While ,jiscussing the issue No. 1 , the Tribunal did notconsider that PW2 is an independent eyewitness wh<.,se evidenceis that he is the proprietor of Jai Bharath Hotel, Hayathnagarand the accirlent occurred opposite to the hotel. So. his hotel isIocated just opposite to place of the accident and his presence atthe place of' accident is quite natural and his evidence is unshaken in the cross-examination by Respondents No.1 to 3.In the cross-examination he stated that hotel timings are fromIn the cross-examination he stated that hotel timings are from6.OO a.m. to I 1.30 p.m., ald that the distance between JaiBharath Hotel and Bawarchi Hotel is about 200 feet. He furtherstated that there was no public in Jai Bharath Hotel at 10.30p.m. and that he was not in Jai Bharath Hotel, but in front ofBawarchi Hotel after taking tea. PW.2 denied the suggestionthat the accident occurred due to intoxicated condition of thedeceased who himself caused the accident with his ownnegligence.Bharath Hotel and Bawarchi Hotel is about 200 feet. He furtherstated that there was no public in Jai Bharath Hotel at 10.30p.m. and that he was not in Jai Bharath Hotel, but in front ofBawarchi Hotel after taking tea. PW.2 denied the suggestionthat the accident occurred due to intoxicated condition of thedeceased who himself caused the accident with his ownnegligence.

2I . A perusal of the impugned order goes to shorrv that theTribunal had wrongly given the undue importance to Ex.Bl as itis not proved by the respondents by examining the concernedperson and RWl is not the author of Ex.Bl and he is no wayconcerned with the contents of Ex.B 1 in relation to drunkenstage. The Tribunal had wrongly given undue weightage toEx.B1 with regard to drunken stage as the same had no basis inthe absence of Breath Analyzer or Blood Test to shovr, thepresence of Alcohol in the blood or the deceased was under theinfluence of Alcohol.

22. The T'ribunal failed to see that immediateiy after theaccident, th.e deceased \rras taken to Sunrise Hospital,Hayathnagar by 108 Ambulance and there is no mention in thecausality pr,:scription dated 74.O1.2016 issued by SunriseHospital, that the deceased was in drunken stage or there is anysmell of Alcohol and also there is no mention about the drunkenstage in the rnedical record under Ex A9, death summary issuedby Yashoda Hospital, Malakpet, Hyderabad, and thus, theTribunal had wronglv held that the deceased was in drunkenstage and contributed to the accident to the extent of 5O7owithout there being any evidence.

23. As per trxhibit AI-FIR, the accident occurred when anunknown bus had hit the deceased when he u,,as proceeding onhis bike near Ban,archi Hotel on 13.01.2O16 at 22.30 p.m. Asper Exhibit 42 Charge Sheet, the driver of the RTC bus as wellas the Depot Malager are charged under Section 304 A and 2O1of 1.P.C. A irerusal of the impugned Award goes to show thataccording to the investigation done by the police, the accidentwas caused by the Respondent No.3, who has driven the bus ina rash and negligent manner and dashed the bike of thedeceased, ancl LW.4 A. Dhanraj and L.W.5 Athukuri Janardhanare the eyeu,itnesses to the accident and their evidence reveals that the bus bearing registration No.AP-282-1858 dashed thetwo-wheeler on 13.01.2018 at 22.3O hours. The Depot Managerhas given contradictory reports about the RTC buses plying inthe route and it is deemed that she has tried to suppress theevidence, therefore, charged under Section 2Ol of I.p.C.

24 . Exhibit A4 is the inquest report. wherein, the panchasopined that the deceased died due to injuries sustained in aroad traffic accident upon being hit by the RTC bus. As perExhibit A5-Postmortem Examination Report, the deceased dieddue to head injury on 15.O1.2016 at 15.5O hours. Thepostmortem report reveals presence of 30 C.C., brown colourliquid, no specific smell and mucusa normal. As per trxhibit A6-Motor Vehicles Inspector's Report, mechanical defect is not thecause of the accident.

25. The driver of the RTC bus got examined as RW1. RW1deposed that the bus driven by him i.e., AP 282-1858 was notinvolved in the accident and was not plying on the road at thetime of the accident. As per Statistical and Ticket AccountRecord (STAR), the bus was parked inside the Depot by 22.25hours. The total tickets remittance report was generated at22.21.12 seconds, whereas, the accident occurred at 22.30hours. As per 108 service record, the call about accident was received about 10.33 p.m. If the contention of the driver isbelievable, no one is prevented him to produce Statistical andTicket Account Record (STAR) belore the Court but he did notdo so. The !-ribunal only basing on the oral evidence came tothe conclusron that there is negligence of 5O% each on the partof the driver of the bus arld the deceased. In the cross-examination .RW- I stated that there is sufficient security at theentrance of Hayathnagar Depot round the clock. The SecurityGuards maintain a register noting down the date ald time ofentry and exit of all vehicles. When the vehicle is handed over,the driver gt:ts 1og sheet and the conductor wil I be givenStatistical and Ticket Account Record (STAR) ald MTD 141.Respondents did not produce any piece of evidence withreference to the above issues.

26. The rescondents/RTC contended that the deceased wasunder the influence of alcohol and died on his own fault andthere u,as no riuch accident occurred to all. Having pleading so,they have not taken any steps to prove the same. Moreover, asstated supra, the Tribunal had wrongly given undue weightageto Ex.Bl witl-r regard to drunken stage as the same had no basisin the absence of Breath Analyzer or Blood Test to show thepresence of Alcohol in the blood or the deceased r,vas under the influence of Alcohol. As per pME report, when there is no

evidence with regard to Alcohoi in the dead body of thedeceased, how the Tribunal came to conclusion that thedeceased had in drunken condition and fix the contributorynegligency.negligency.

27. Learned counsel for the appellants/ petitioners has reliedupon the Bimladevi,sCASE(1 "t supra) wherein the SupremeCourt held that:upon the Bimladevi,sCASE(1 "t supra) wherein the SupremeCourt held that:

"(15) In a situation of this nature, the Tibunat has ightlgtaken a holisttc uietu of the matter. It taas necessary to bebome in mincl that stict proof of an accident caused bg apartianlar bus in a partianlar manner moA not be possible to bedone by the claimants. The claimants were merelg to establishtheir case on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilitg-The standard of proof begond reasonable doubt could not hauebeen applied. For the said. purpose, the High Court shoultlhaue taken into consid.erotion the respectiue stoies set forthbg both the porties.

16. The judgment of the High Court to a great extent is based.on conjectures and surunises. Wltile hotding that the policemight haue implicated the respond.ents, no rea.son hns beenassigned in support thereof. No mateial brought on record. hasbeen refened to for the said purpose."

In the case on hand, while giving a complaint, a person informed the police that the accident occurred with a bus but hedid not mention the bus number in the complaint. The evidenceon record clearly proves that the accident had occurred resulting in cle,ath of [deceased ][R. Narender ][only due ][to ][rash and]negligent driving of TSRTC bus [bearing ][No.TS-2BZ-1858 ][by ][its]driver/RW.1 and if the [contention ][of ][the respondents is ][believed]as to the negligence of the [deceased, ][there ][is ][no ][piece ][of]evidence to pr,rve the same.

28. Learned counsel for the [appellants/ ][petitioners ][has ][reiied]the Hasib's case [(2"d ][supra) ][wherein ][the ][Supreme Court]upon held that:

"The corq lcitg of this appellant in [the ][crime ][has ][thus ][been]established begond all reasonable [doubts- ][Here ][the ][High]Court appears to haue clearlg [gone ][u-trong ][in ][lau.t- ][The ][legal]position as to the object, ualue and use of first [inJbrm,t ][ti ][on.]report is tuell settled. The pincipal object of [the ]rtrstinformcttion report from the [potnt ]of uiew of [the ][infonncttion. is]to set the ciminal lotu in motion and from [the ][point ][of ][uietu ][of]the inuestigating authoities s to obtain [informotion ][cLbout ][the]alleged cnminal actiuity so as ,o [be ]able [to ][toke ][suitoble ][steps]Jor [trcLcinq ][ctnd ][bringing ][to ][book ][the ][guiltg ][pat1A. ][The ][frst]information report, ue mag point out, does [not ][cotl ][st.ilu.te]substontit'e euidence though [its ][imporlance ][as ][conuegintl ][the]earliest i,tJbrmatlon regardlng the occarrence [connoi ][be]doubted. It can, Lloueuer, onlg be [used ]as [a ][preuious]stt emeti for the purpose of either corroborating [its ][rnake]under St'ction 157 of the Indian [Euidence ][Act ot ]forcontradicti.ng hirn under Section 145 [of ][that ][Act ][It ][canrutt ][be]used Jbr the [purpose ]of coroboroting [or ][contradicting ][otlrcr]ruifnesses. T'he High Court tbas, therefore, in error in seekingcorroboratiorr of the testimony P of P.W. [1O ]from the F. I. [R. ]ofwhich he ,.ua.s tot the maker. ["]

In the case on hand, the contention of the respondents is thatthe FIR does not contain the bus number. So, involvement ofthe bus in the said accident does not arise. As per the abovejudgment, the principal object of the first information reportfrom the point of view of the information is to set the criminallaw in motion and from the point of view of the investigatingauthorities is to obtain information about the alleged criminalactivity so as to be able to take suitable steps for tracing andbringing to book the guilty party: The police after thoroughinvestigation filed charge sheet against the Bus driver. Thoughthere is no bus number in FIR, it is reflected in the chargesheetas Bus No.AP 282 1858. So, mere non mention of Bus numberin the FIR, does not vitiate the entire episode.

29. Learned counsel for the appeilants/petitioners has relieduponthe Haji's case (3.d supra) wherein the Supreme Court heldthat:

"9. The Tribunal ond the High Court rejected the uersionof AbduL Kholique pimarily on the ground that tLLere utasno corroboration to his testimonA. We are of the uieut thatthe courts belou-t were not justified in disbelieuing thetestimong of Abdul Khalique. He toas a disinteresteduitness who utas hauing tea in a restaurant ot distanceof about 15/2O feet from the place of occurrence. There isnothing on the record to shotu that he was trying to helpthe claimants in ony manner or LDos not a truthfultuitness. On the other hand, the Nagar Mahapalika I

produced before the Tibunal the diuer of the uehicle andan Assrsf ant Engineer uho u.tere its employees. Bothu-tere interested uitnesses. The Nagar Mahap ctlik ct didnot proaluce euen a single independent uitness to sllpportits uersion. The Tibunal ond the High Coutt fell intopatent effor in preferring the euidence of ttuo tuhollyinterested ruilnesses to that of Abdul Khalique uthr,t uasan independent u.titness and uthose presence on the spotcould rtc't be doubted. "

In the case on hand also, except the driver of the Bus, no independent witness was examined to support the cr>ntention ofrespondents. PW.2 was a disinterested witness who rvas in frontof a Bawarchi Hotel after having tea, ald he lvas at a distance ofrespondents. PW.2 was a disinterested witness who rvas in frontof a Bawarchi Hotel after having tea, ald he lvas at a distance ofabout 200 fe:et from the piace of occurrence altd he was anindependent witness and his presence on the spot could not bedoubtedindependent witness and his presence on the spot could not bedoubted

30. Learned counsei for the appellants/ petitioners has relied upon the Rajasthan State Road Tralsport Corporationcase(4thsupra) wh,:rein the Rajasthal High Court held that:

"Both tt\e emplogees of Corporation are interestedrultnesse,s cLnd the Tnbunal nghtlg did not rely on theireuidence."

In the case on hand, the driver and conductor of tl-re Bus are employees of the TSRTC and are interested lr,itnesses. Except their contentions, they have not produced any independentevidence.

31. Learned counsel for the appeltants/petitioners has reliedupon Lakshmibai's case (Str. supra) wherein the Supreme Courtheld that:

"6. The Tribunal found that the respondent did not producecopies of the log sheet ond control charts to shou that the busin question LUas not plied on thot road on th-edate of theaccident and the said bus u)as not inuolued. Thus, on a properappreciation of euidence, the Tibunal was quite justified inrecording a finding that the said bus utas inuolued in theaccident. But ue find thot the approach of the High Court uosurong in appreciating the euidence inasmuch as it uastechnical and thrust was on niceties."

In the case on hand also, to prove their case, the respondents

have not produced any document such as log-sheet or securityguard report or Statistical and Ticket Account Record (STAR)arrd MTD 141 etc. Thus, on appreciation of evidence, thearrd MTD 141 etc. Thus, on appreciation of evidence, theTribunal was not entirely justified in recording a finding thatthere was negligence on the part of the deceased as well as onRW. 1there was negligence on the part of the deceased as well as onRW. 1

32. Learned counsel for the appellants / pe titioners has reliedupon Vidhyadhar's case (6th supra) wherein the Supreme Courtheld that:

"16. Wrcre a parta to the suit does not appear into the u,itnessbox and slate.s his ou)n co.se on oath and does not. offerhimself t<> be cross-examined bg the other side, a presuntptiontlould arbe that the case set up bg him is not coffect os hasbeen hel,7 in a scies of decisions passed by uaious HighCourts. ['Ihe ]Allahabad High Court in Arjun Singh u. VirenderNath, AII? 1971 Allahabad 29 held that tf a partg abstainsfrom [ent\?ing ]the Luitness box, it tuould giue ise io anin"ference aduerse against him. Similartg, a Di.uision Bench ofthe Punjc.b ond Haryana High Court in Bhaguan Da.ss u.Bhishan Chand, AIR 1974 htnj and Har 7, riretu apresumptrcn underSection 114 of the Euid.ence Act rrgoinst apartA Luhc did not enter into uitness box."

In the czrse on hand, RW-2 did not enter into u.itness boxfor the reasons best known to her and her evidence waseschewed.

J.fLearned counsel for the appeUants/ petitioners has reliedupon Jiju Kuruvilla,s case (Bth supra) wherein the SupremeCourt held thatupon Jiju Kuruvilla,s case (Bth supra) wherein the SupremeCourt held that "5- The a-fcresaid euidence, Exh- A5, clearlg suggests that thedeceased ltad taken liquor but on the basis of tlrc same. nodefinite ftruling can be gtuen that the deceased u.,as iiuing thecar rashlu and negligently at tlte time of accid_ent. Ttte n.,eresuspicion Lased. on [,scene ]mahqzar', ExIt. 82, and the post_suspicion Lased. on [,scene ]mahqzar', ExIt. 82, and the post_mortem repoft, Exh. A5, cannot take the place of euiderrce,parttcalarlg uthen the direct euidence like indepenclentegewitness. PW.3, F.l.R., Exh.Aj, charge_sheet, Exh. 44. ttndF.[. statenLent, Dxh. Bl, are on record."F.[. statenLent, Dxh. Bl, are on record."

In the case on hand also, Doctor said that there was 3O CC ofbrown color liquid with no specific smell and mucous of normalconsistency in the stomach of the deceased. Doctor did notexpress that the said iiquid is related to the alcohol or someother drug. There is no FSL Report or any other recordregarding contents of alcohol or some other drug. Even if it isassumed that the deceased had taken liquor but on the basis ofthe same, no definite hnding can be given that the deceased wasdriving the motorcycle rashly and negligently in drunkencondition at the time of accident. As such, the Tribunal erred inarriving that the deceased was also negligent in driving hismotorcycle.

34. Learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners has reliedupon Pratima Hari Gaonker's case (9th supra) wherein theBombay High Court held that:

" 17. Insofar as the second point for d.etermination isconcerned, at the outset, it is necessary to note that the burdenis on the insurance compana to establish breach of the term_sis on the insurance compana to establish breach of the term_sancl conditions of the insurance policg. As regards the diuerbeing under the influence of atcohol, there is no euid,ence tosuslain lhrs contention. The F.l.R. does rekr to the diuer beingunder the inJluence of alcohol. Houteuer, thot, bA itse$ is notsufficient to dis charge the burden. No ttitnesses tueresuslain lhrs contention. The F.l.R. does rekr to the diuer beingunder the inJluence of alcohol. Houteuer, thot, bA itse$ is notsufficient to dis charge the burden. No ttitnesses tuereexamined, and no elfort LUas made to establish that thealcohol limits exceeded the prescibed limits. Based_ on such aalcohol limits exceeded the prescibed limits. Based_ on such acasual stotement in the F I,! . fundamental [breach ][of ][the]"the "the teflrls ct,1d condittons of theinferrecl. '

tnsurance policy cannot [be]

In the case on hand, though it is [pleaded ]by the [respondents]that the decr:ased was in drunken [.condition, ]but they [failed ][to]establish the same. No [witnesses were ][examined, ]and [no effort]was made Lo prove that the alcohol limits exceeded theprescribed lirnits. As such, the contention of the respondentsdoes not hold water.

35. Learnecl counsel for the appellants/ petitioners has [relied]upon P. Suneela's case (loth supra) wherein the High Court ofTelangana arld Andhra Pradesh held that:

"21. The reasonfor disbeLieuing the lncident appears to Lte thotif reolly .PW2 lns seen the incident, he utould haue deJlnitelginfonned the police about the uehicle number and the sameu-.'ould hcLue found place in the First Information Repoft, whichu)as senl three dctgs after the incident. But it is to be notedLrcre that though there is a delag of about three doys insending the F.I.R., to the Court, but the First InfonnationRepotl utas giuen on the next dag at 2.OO p.m. The.fantlgmembers of the injured utould haue been more concented tuiththe health d the injured rather than informing the police aboutlhe accident. In cases of tl'Lis nature, one cannot Jlnd fctult Luithtlle deldlt in lodging the report, tuhich in our uietu is also notabnormal. Since the infonnant, uho lodged the report, is noton ege u'itness to the incident and his source of information isthe infttnnation gathered from the scene, non-me,ntioning of theouto nurtber cannot be found fault. The auennents [;n ]thechctrge sl-teet, indicate that PW2 was examined ktnq ctfterlodging of the report, i.e., uhen theA uent to the scene of , offence after registeing the cime. When the anstuers elicitedin the cross examination of PW2, Luere to the effect that henoted down the auto number and informed the same to thein the cross examination of PW2, Luere to the effect that henoted down the auto number and informed the same to thepolice, one cannot find fault witll the police in tracing out theuehtcle.uehtcle.

22. The argument of the leamed Coun-sel for the InsuranceCompang is that when the euidence of pW2 in the crossexaminatton is to the effect that the auto dashed ogainst themotorcycle and uanished from the accident site, it uould. bedfficult for him to remember the auto number- It b urged tltotsince the First lnformation Report is silenl as to theinuoluement of the auto and hauing regard to the fact that theauto wos not damaged, pleads that auto as a cime uehicleuas set up at a later point of time-

23. It ts to be noted that hauing elicited an ansu.ter from pW2that the auto got uanished from the site afier the incid.ent,there uas no necessitg for the Counsel for the In_suranceCompang to ask him os to u.thether he noted doun the autonumber. To the question as to uthether he noted down the autonumber, the uitness positiuelg stotes that he has noted dounthe auto number and intimated the same to the police- Hehotueuer ightLg states that he does not remember whether theauto number tuas mentioned in the statement, since the FirstInformation Report uas not giuen bg PW2, but the brother ofthe deceased, uLLto lodged the report basing on the informattonfurntshed. [bg ][PW2- ][Euen ][in ][the charge-sheet, ]the brother of thedeceased, who lodged the report, u)as not shoutn as an eAe-u.titness to the incident- Onlg PW2 and ttuo others namely Md.Ishaq Ali and Md. Azmoth u-tere shotun as an eye-witnesses fothe incident. Therefore, the presence of PW2 at the site and hewitnessing the incident cannot be doubted. Hence, ue holdthat the euidence on record omply establish the inuoluement ofthe auto in the accidenL

24. With regard to the ftnding of the Tribunal [thctt ][if ][reallg ][PW2]has mentioned the number of [the ][auto ]in [his ][161 ][Cr ][P ][C.]statement, the claimants ought to haue [produced ][the ][state'nent]in support of their case tltat the aDerments [in ][the ][chorge-sheet]do not refer to examlnation of PW2 as LW3 [in ][the charge slteet,]on the date of occident or on anA other dag shortlg [much ][Less]before 04.11.2010 on u-'hiclt date tLrc driuer of the auto [u.tas]anested, it is to be noted thot these findings on [the ]face of itare incorrect. Firstlg, if the uersion of PW2 ruith [regard ][to ][he]noting doutn the uehicle number ond infonning the same [trt ]thepoltce is doubted, nothtng preuented the Insurance Compartg toconfront PW2 tuith his earlier statement. The [In-suronce]Company couLd haue obtained a copg of the statement andconfront tLrc uersion therein to PW2. On the other hand, lheiroun CounseL in the cross-examination of PW2, etit:itedansLuers uthich establish the case of the claimants tuith reqardto inuoluernent of the Auto No.AP 28 TB 3035. Hauing eli<:itedthe onsuters, one cannot notu go bock and doubt the uersion ofPW2. Further, as heLd bg us eailier, Ex.Al u.tas not giuen bgPW2. So, non-mentioning of the auto number in the .trirstInformat[on Report in our uieut cannot be giuen much ueight todoubt the cose of the claimants, more so, tuh.en th.e cl.oimantshaue to pn.tue their cdse on the toucLtstone of [preJ:onderan<:e ]ofprobabiliti<ls .

In the case orL hand also, the complaint does not mention thebus number, whereas PW.2 noted down the bus number andinformed the same to the police. Under the circumstances, non-finding of vehicle number in the FIR itself cannot be hnd faultwith the police for proving the Bus number. As such, thecontention of the respondents is not accepted.

36. Learned counsel for the appellants/ [petitioners ]has [relied]upon Jalabai's case [(1 ]1th supra) wherein the [Supreme Court]

held that:

"9. On the other hand, the outner has appeared as [a ][uitness.]He admitted that he had taken the uehicle on supurdai [and]that he has not fled ang proceedings to [quash ]F.I.R. againstSanjag, diuer of the car. He admitted that bail [applicotion]He admitted that he had taken the uehicle on supurdai [and]that he has not fled ang proceedings to [quash ]F.I.R. againstSanjag, diuer of the car. He admitted that bail [applicotion]form [and ][suretg bond (Exhs. ][68, ][69 ][and ][7O) ][shout ][that ][he has]stood suretA for the diuer uherein he has [mentioned ][the]accwsed as diuer of his uehicle. It hz.s also [come ][on ][record]that the ou.tner has not made any complotnt [in ][respect ][of ]falseimplication of his uehicle or the diuetstood suretA for the diuer uherein he has [mentioned ][the]accwsed as diuer of his uehicle. It hz.s also [come ][on ][record]that the ou.tner has not made any complotnt [in ][respect ][of ]falseimplication of his uehicle or the diuet 1O- We find that the ntle of euidence to [proue ][charges ][in ][a]ciminal tial cannot be used u.thile deciding [an ][application]under section 166 of the Motor Velicles Act, [1988 ][which ][is]summary in nature. There k no [reason to ][doubt the ][uerocit! ][of]ihe statement of appetlant No. 1 tuho sulfered injiies [in ][the]accident. The applicotion under the Act has [to ][be decided ][on]the basis of euidence led before lt and not [on the ][basis ][of]euidence uhich should houe been or [could haue ][been ][led in ][a]ciminal tial. We find that the entire [approach ][of ][the ][High]Court is cleorlg not sustainable."ciminal tial cannot be used u.thile deciding [an ][application]under section 166 of the Motor Velicles Act, [1988 ][which ][is]summary in nature. There k no [reason to ][doubt the ][uerocit! ][of]ihe statement of appetlant No. 1 tuho sulfered injiies [in ][the]accident. The applicotion under the Act has [to ][be decided ][on]the basis of euidence led before lt and not [on the ][basis ][of]euidence uhich should houe been or [could haue ][been ][led in ][a]ciminal tial. We find that the entire [approach ][of ][the ][High]Court is cleorlg not sustainable."

In the above case it is observed that [the ][rule ][of ][evidence ][to]prove charges in a criminal trial [cannot ][be used ][while ][deciding]an application under section [166 ][of ][the ][Motor ][Vehicles ][Act,]1988 which is summar5r in nature. [There ][is ][no reason ][to doubt]the veracity of the statement [of ][appellant ][No. ][1 ][who ][suffered]injuries in the accident. The [appiication under ][the Act has to ][be]decided on the basis of [evidence ][led ][before ][it ][and ][not ][on ][the]

basis of evidence u,hich should [have been ][or ][could ][have ][been]led in a criminai trial.

In the plesent case also, [whether ][vehicle ][is invoived or ][not]

in the accident is the [question ][and ][deciding ][the ][issue, ][more]particularly, zts M.V. Act is a benehcial [legislation ][and ][also]under Section 166 of the [M.V. ][Act, ][need ][not ][follow ][as ][it ][is ][done]in criminal czLse. It is not a [criminal ][case ][and basing ][on ][the]evidence of witnesses, it is [proved ]that [the bus is involved ][in ][the]accident and the bus number [was ][a-lso ][noted down ][by]PW.2/eyewitness. But, the Tribunal did [not ][consider ][the ][same]and attributerl the negligence of [SOYo ][each ][on ][the ][deceased ][and]on the driver of the bus, and [the ][same ][is ][not ][accepted.]

37 . A perus,el of the impugned Award [reveals ][that ][there ][is ][a]

dispute bet'u.een the petitioners and the [respondents ][about ][the]involvement of the RTC bus in the [accident ][for ][the ][reason ][that]the number o i the RTC bus is not [mentioned ][in the FIR. ][As ][per]FIR, one unkrLown RTC bus has hit the [bike ][of ][the ][deceased ][and]caused the injuries. Subsequently, [the ][police ][have ][u'ritten ][a]ietter to the Depot Malager of the [Hayathnagar ][Depot,]enquiring at,out the buses which [r ][rere ][plying ][between]Hayathnagar Bus Depot and Hayathnagar Bus-stop between1O.00 p.m., and 1O.30 p.m., on 13.01.2016. On tl're basis of evidence given by the Depot Malager of the Hayathnagar- 1Depot, the respondent No.3/driver of the bus was implicated inthe case as accused, whereas, the documentary evidencemarked under Exhibit-B1 shows that the Conductor submittedthe Total Remittance Report on22.21.12 seconds. The bus wasDepot, the respondent No.3/driver of the bus was implicated inthe case as accused, whereas, the documentary evidencemarked under Exhibit-B1 shows that the Conductor submittedthe Total Remittance Report on22.21.12 seconds. The bus wasparked in the bus-depot by 10.25 p.m., while so, the call to theAmbulance Was made at 1O.33 p.m., about the occurrence ofthe accident there is a gap of about ten minutes between theclaim of the petitioners alleging the accident and the claim ofthe respondents alleging that the bus was parked in the bus-Ambulance Was made at 1O.33 p.m., about the occurrence ofthe accident there is a gap of about ten minutes between theclaim of the petitioners alleging the accident and the claim ofthe respondents alleging that the bus was parked in the bus-depot at the material time of the accident. The number ofoffending vehicle not being mentioned in FIR, is not a reason tooffending vehicle not being mentioned in FIR, is not a reason todoubt the involvement of the vehicle in the accident since thepolice investigation establishes the same. With regard to time ofoccurrence of accident also, one cannot say exact time becausea1l watches do not show the correct time. Based on the timings,one cannot decide the case. Even otherwise also, there is noproper evidence to prove the exact time.occurrence of accident also, one cannot say exact time becausea1l watches do not show the correct time. Based on the timings,one cannot decide the case. Even otherwise also, there is noproper evidence to prove the exact time.

38. The evidence of RW1 cannot be believed as he is accusedNo.1 in the criminal case for the offence under Section 304-A ofI.P.C. The respondents failed to produce Log Register, STARMTD 14 1 Register and Security Guard Register and such I

evidence is r.r ithheld since contents of said documen[s would [go]against their case, and therefore, an adverse inferen<;e has to bedrawn again st the respondents under Section 1 la (g) of theIndian Evide;rce Act. So, for all the reasons mentioned supra,the Tribunal failed to attribute 1OO% negligence on the part ofthe driver of l:he RTC bus bearing No.AP-282-1858

39. For the foregoing reasons ald the principles laid down inthe above refr:rred decisions, this Court is of the considered viewthat the pie:tded accident had occurred resulting in death ofdeceased R. Narender, only due to rash and negligent driving ofTSRTC bus bearing No.TS-282-1858 by its driver,i RW.1 andthere was nc negligence on the part of the deceased. In thisaspect the Tribunal wrongly came to the conclusion withoutthere being any proper evidence QUANTUM [qF ][COMPENSATION:]

40 . Learnec counsel for the appellants/ petitioners submitted that the Tribrrnal had taken the future prospects on iower sideand the Tribtrnal had wrongly taken the age of the deceased onhigher side zLnd applied the incorrect multiplier. He furthersubmitted tl-rat the Tribunal had wrongly granted lesscompensatior.. towards conventional heads to theappellants/ pr:titioners towards loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, loss of estate, funeral expenses, [parental]consortium, frlial consortium etc., He further submitted that [the]Tribuna-l had wrongly taken the contribution on lower [side ][and]wrongly deducted the personal expenses on higher side. [He]further submitted that the Tribunal failed to [grant]compensation towards pain and suffering as the [deceased ][died]after two days of the accident. Lastly, he submitted that [the]Tribunal granted less medical expenses, and failed [to ][grant]compensation towards attendant charges, transportation, [extra]nourishment etc.,

41. Learned counsel for the appellants/ [petitioners ][has ][relied]

upon the following [judgments]

l. 2O2O ACJ 526 (SC) in the case of Malarvizhi [Vs.]United India Insurance Co. Ltd., and arotherUnited India Insurance Co. Ltd., and arother

2. 2O2l ACJ 2683 in the case of [Rukmani ][Jethani ][and]others Vs. Gopal Singh and othersothers Vs. Gopal Singh and others Accordingly, prayed to allow the appeal

42. Per contra, learned counsel for [appellants/ ][RTC ][contended]that the Tribunal erred in determining the [deceased ][income ][as]Rs.5,10,454/- by adding 407o future [prospects ][without ][there]being any proof. He also claimed that the [Tribunal ][erred ][in]awarding Rs.7O,OOO/- towards funeral [expenses, ][Rs. ][1,2O,00O/-]towards parental consortium to respondents/ [petitioners ][No.2]

JJ

to 4, Rs.80,OO0/- towards filia-l consortium torespondents/'petitioners No.5 and 6. Accordingly. prayed todismiss the order of the Tribuna,l.

43 . After considering the oral and documentary evidenceavaiiable on record, the Tribunal held that the tiabilify foroccurrence of the accident is 5O% each, and accordinglyawarded an amount of Rs.32,62,009/- with interest r@ 7.Soh perannum from [he date of petition till the date of reatization.awarded an amount of Rs.32,62,009/- with interest r@ 7.Soh perannum from [he date of petition till the date of reatization.

41. A perus;al ol the impugned order goes to show that theTribunal did not take into consideration Ex.A 17- the IncomeTax returns lbr the assessment year 2016-17 is for a sum ofRs.l1,58,220l- as the same was filed after the death of thedeceased. Further, the Tribunal observed that Ex.A17 showsthat the petit.oners did not suffer any financial set back due todeath of the deceased since the income has increased fromRs.9,92,2101 in the years 2015-16 to Rs. 11,58,220 1- in theyear 2016 L7 PW.1 did not examine any witness to prove thecontents of E:<.A15 to Al7. The income tax returns .rre filed byindividuals or-.line and therefore, there is no means to ascertainthe truth in thLe contents of income tax returns submitted by theindividuals- 'I'he Tribunal took the income tax submitted underEx.A15 during the lifetime.,o,{ the deceased at Rs.1i,64,6 1Ol leaving aside Ex.A16 and A17 since they are hled aJter the deathof the deceased

45. Learned counsel for the appellalts/ petitioners submitted that the Income Tax Return is a Statutory document on whichreliance may be placed to determine the annual income of thedeceased. In support of his contention, he relied uponMalarvizhi's case (1st supra) wherein the Supreme Court held asfollows:

"1O. The Tibunal proceeded to detertnine the agriculturutlincome arising from 36.76 acres of land on the basis of tu.tojudgments of the High Court The Tibunal anriued at tuodtJferent ftgtres bg applging the decisions and proceeded todetermine the agicultural income on an auerage of the tuoamounts. The Tribunal superimposed a possible ualue ofdetermine the agicultural income on an auerage of the tuoamounts. The Tribunal superimposed a possible ualue ofincome from agicttltural land despite a clear indiccttion in theincome ta-x returns of tLrc income from agicttltural land. Themethod. adopted by the Tribunol is not sustainabLe in law. Onthe other hand, the Higlt Court has proceeded on the basis ofthe income reJTected in the income tax return for theassessment gear 1997-1998. The releuant porlion of tLrc returnread.s:the other hand, the Higlt Court has proceeded on the basis ofthe income reJTected in the income tax return for theassessment gear 1997-1998. The releuant porlion of tLrc returnread.s:

"lncome from house propertg Rs. 1,920

Business profit (other than 14.b) Rs. 1,21,071

Net agicttltural income -Rs.88,140"

The tax retuflL indicates an annual income ofRs.2,11,131/- in the releuant assessme/Lf year. Mr. JayanthMuth Raj, leamed sentor counsel appeaing on behctlf of theappellants, contended that other documents Luere marked Luith the tuhi<:h reflected the income of the deceased. We tre inagreem.ent with High Court that the determination mustproceed tn the basis of the income tax return, uthere auoilable.The lncome tox retunr is a statutory doa)ment on tuhichreliance mag be placed to detennine the annual income of thedecea-sed. ['lo ]the benefit of the appellants, the High Court hasproceecled on the basis of the income tax retun-L ft,r theas-sessm,?nl year 1997 1998 and not j999 2OO0 and 2OOO-2OO1 uthich reJTected a reduction in the onnual ncome cf thedeceasect.."

In view of the above, the Income Tax Return is a Statutorydocument on urhich reliance may be placed to determine theannual inconre of the deceased. Therefore, the findings of theTribunal that PW. 1 did not examine any witness to prove thecontents of Ex.A15 to Al7 and that the income tax returns areIiled by indivrduals online and therefore, there is nc, means toascertain the truth in the contents of income tax returnssubmitted b-v the individuals, is negatived.

46. Learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners submitted that the Tribunal did not consider the income shown in Ex.Al7_Income Tax Returns for the assessment year 2076 17 as it wasIiled after the death of the deceased. In support of hiscontention, hr: relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court inRukmani Jethani's case (2nd supra) wherein it was held asfollorn s:

"3. The appellants filed a claim opplictation seekingcompensation of Rs.25,62,OOO/ -, Motilol Jethani tuas aged 4Ogears at the time of death and had a montltly income ofRs.7,0OO/ - from bardana and dairy bzsiness. According to theappellants, Income tax retums (ITR) for the financial gears2OO2 2003, 2003-2004 and 2OO4-2005 uere produced beforeMotor Accidents Claim.s Tribunal (MACT) uhich utere markedas Dxs.14, 13 and 12, respectiuelg. Exh. 12 uas not taken intoconsideration bg the MACT on tLrc ground that it uas fileclafter the death of Motilal Jethani on 14.O9.2005. The income ofdeceased Motilal Jethani was detennined as Rs.54,150/- onthe bosis of the ITR for the financial gear 2003-2004.

9. After careful consideration of the submrssions mode onbehalf of the parties, we are of the opinion that the MACTcommitted an etror in not taking into account tlrc tTR fiIed onbehalf of the deceo.sed for the financial gear 2OO4-20O5.Taking into account the ITR filed on behalf of the deceased. forthe fnancial year 2OO4-2005, u.te hold thot the appellants areentitled for an amount of Rs.8,40,735/ - toutards compensationon the bosis of AearlA income of the deceased applying themuLtiplier of 15."

In view of the principle laid down by the Supreme Court inthe above case, we are of the view that the Tribunal hadcommitted an error in not taking into account the Ex.Al7/lTRfiled on behalf of the deceased for the assessment vear 2076-17

47. In view of the above discussion, as per Ex.A17/lTR filed onbehalf of the deceased for the assessment year 2016-17, theannual income of the deceased was Rs. I 1,58,220/-.

i

48. The Tricunai has rightly considered the [age ][of ][the]deceased as li2 years in view of [Ex.A20/ SSC ][certificate. ][The]Tribunal has rightly taken the future [prospects ]@ [4Ook ][of ][the]established income. In terms of the [decision of ][the ][Apex Court]in National Insurance Cornpang Ltd. [Vs. ]Pranag Sethir, [the]future prospe<:ts of the deceased shali be computed aI [4O%o, ][and]accordingly, lhe annual income comes to [Rs. ][16,21,508/-]l. [There ][are six ][dependents.][Rs.11,58,220l-+Rs.4,63,2881 Therefore, tak ing 1 l 4tn of the deceased's income towards hispersonal ancl living expenses, the contribution of the deceasedwould be Rs. 12,16,131/-[Rs. 16,21,5O81- [(minus)]Rs.4,O5,377 l-. Further, considering the age of the deceased atthe time of the accident, the Tribunal rightly considered [the]multiplier as '16' as per the decision of the Apex Court reportedin Sarlcr Venna Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation2. [Adopting]a multiplier of '16', the total loss of dependency comes toRs. 12,16,131/- x 16 - Rs. 1,94,58,096l-.

49. Learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners'r'ehementlyargued that the Tribunal failed to grant [compensation ]towardspain and suffering as the deceased died after two days of theaccident. The Tribunal has rightly awarded al amount of ' 1zo [tz.1 ][16 ][scc ][cto]t (u oog) o scc t: r.t (u oog) o scc t: r.

Rs.l,2E,57Ol- towards medical expenses without granting anycompensation towards pain and suffering since thecompensation towards pain and suffering is awarded to thosepersons who suffered the injuries and who are alive. In theinstant case, the deceased though died a-fter two days of theaccident, the petitioners are not entitled any amount towardspain and suffering as they are not sufferers of any injuries.

50. Learned counsel for appellarrts/petitioners furthercontended that the Tribunal had wrongly awarded Rs.70,000/-towards funeral expenses, loss of love and affection, loss ofestate and loss of consortium. As rightly contended by thelearned counsel for petitioners, the Tribunal had wronglyawarded the amounts under conventional heads. It is pertinentto mention here that as per the judgment rn Pranag Sethi(supra), petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs.36,30O/-(Rs. 15,000/- [+Rs. ]15,000/- +lO%o+1Oo/o) towards loss of estateald funeral expenses. Further, in view of the [judgment ]of theHonble Apex Court in Magma General Insurance CompanyLimited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others3, thepetitioners are entitled to Rs.40,000 f - each towards spousalconsortium, filial consortium and parental consortium. In view r(2018) rs scc r.io of the decisi,cn rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in .lV.Jagasree [q.nd ]others V. Cholamandalam il4S GeneralInsurance Co. Ltd.,awherein at para No.34, it u,as held asunder:

"A th.ree Judge Bench of this Courl in Llnited lndia Ins:uronceCo. Ltd. us. Sctttnder Kaur r.ii, Satuincler Kuur and Ors, -l.lo20(6)ALD 39 (SC) = 2O2O SCC Online SC 410 = AIR 2020 S('3076,afier cor,.sideing Pranag Setht's case (supra), hc-s anuardedspousal consortium at the rate of Rs.4),OOO/ (Rupees fortgthousanct. onlg) and tou.tards loss of parentaL consortium ro eachchild ot lhe rate of Rs.4O,OOO/ (Rupees fortg thousantl only).The corrpensation under these heads also needs to beincreasecl by look. Thus, the spousal consortium is atuarded atRs.44,OO0/ (Fortg four thousand onlg), and toLL)ards porentalconsortium at the rate of Rs.44,OOO/ eaclT (Total Rs.BB,OO1/ -) tsau,arded to the tu.to children. "

51. Therefore, referring the above said judgments and alsoconsidering '-he arguments of both sides, the order dated17.O5.2022 passed by the Tribunal in M.V.O.P.No.953 of 2016

is modified as follows:

'u [o::( ][t) ][aLo ][tu(sc ][,]

52. Though the [claimed ][amount ][is ][Rs' ][1 ][,00,O0 ][,OOO ][I ][- ]' [invoking]the principle of [just ][compensation, ][and ][in ][view ][of ][the ][law ][laid]down by the Hon'ble [Supreme ][Court ][in ][Ro,iesh ][tts' ][Raibit]in [a catena ][of ][decisions, ][this ][Court ][is ][empowered to]Singhs and grapt compensation [beyond ][the ][claimed ][amoullt']

53. The Tribunai [has ][rightl5r ][awarded ][the interest ][@ ][7 ]['5o/o ][p'a']which requires [no ][interference ][from ][this ][Court']

54. Accordingly, [M.A.C.M-A. ][No.557 ][of ][2022 ][is ][allowed ][by]enhancing the compensation [awarded ][by ][the ][Tribunal ][from]Rs.32,62,009/- to [Rs.1,99,Lg,3l661- ][(Rupees ][One ][Crore' ][Ninety]nine Lakhs, Thirteen thousand, [Three ][hundred ][and ][sixty ][six]with interest 7.5 [% ][p.a. from ][the ][date ][of ][petition ][till ][the]only) @ ' MANU/sc0480/20 [t3]

f

l

\

t

To,

date of realization. [Petitioners ][are ][directed ][to ][pay the ][dehcit]Court fee. [Respondent Nos.1 ][to ][3 ][are directed ][to ][deposit ][the]said amount [u.ith interest after ][giving due ][credit ][to ][the ][amount]already deposit,ed, [if ][any, ][u'ithin ][a ][period ][of two ][months ][from ][the]date of receipt [of ][a ][copy of ][this ][judgment' ][On ][such deposit' ][the]petitioners are [permitted ][to ][withdraw ][the ][said ][amount ][in ][the]sarrle mannel' [and. ][apportionment ][as ][determine<l ][by ][the]Tribunal. There [shall ][be ][no order ][as ][to costs']M.A.C.M.A.No.427 [of ][2023]

55. In [vier.r' ]:f [the ][judgment ][passed ][in ][M'A'C ][M'A' ][No'557 ][of]2022, tltis [M.,\.C.M.A. ][filed ][by ][the ][appellants/TSRTCl ][is ][hereby]dismissed. Thr:re [shall ][be ][no ][order ][as ][to costs']

As a set1uel, [miscellaneous ][petitions, ][if ][any ][are ][pending']shall stald closed.

Sd/. K. AMMAJI

ASSISTANT [REGISTRAR]

//TRUE COPY//

lvI

UecrION OFFICER

One Fair Copy [to ][the Hon'ble Sri Justice ][S.uioy ][Paul](f or.His LordshiP's [Kind ][Perusal)]One Fair Copy [to ][the ][Hon'ble Sri ][Justice ][Namavarapu Rajeshwar ][Rao](For His LordshiP's [Kind ][Perusal)]

1. The Chairman, [Motor ][Accident ][Claims ][Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge' City ][Civil]Court, Hyderabad [(with records, ][if any)]Court, Hyderabad [(with records, ][if any)]

2. I1 LR Copies

3. The Under Secretary, [Union ][of lndia ][lr4inistry ][of Law, Justice ][and ][Company]Affairs, New Dr:lhiAffairs, New Dr:lhi \

4. The Secretary, Advocates Association Library, High Court for the State ofTelangana, High Court Buildings at HyderabadITelangana, High Court Buildings at HyderabadI

5. One CC to Sri Kota Subba Rao, Advocate [OPUC]

6. One CC to Sri R Anurag, Standing Counsel for TSRTC [OPUC]

7. One CC to Sri P Rama Krishna Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]

8. Two CD Copies

VA/gh

tI

-lt.'7/)

HIGH COURT

DATED:31 t1212024

2, [.i].sItlutl.oiiasI\\I4) ,,.,s)lH +oi COMMON JUDGMENT +.COMMON DECREE

( 2 DRAFTS )

MACMA.Nos.557 ot 2022 & 427 ot ZO23

I,

ALLOWING THE MACMA.No.SS7 of 2OZ2 &DISMISSING THE MACMA.N 0.427 of 2O2tDISMISSING THE MACMA.N 0.427 of 2O2t

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEfuIBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAULANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAOM.A.C.M.A. NOS:557 oF 2022 &427 0F 2023

Between:

1. R Neelima, W/o. Late Narender, Aged. 32 years, Occ. Household

2. R Lakshmi Pranathi, D/o. Late Narender, Aged 11 years, Occ. Nil

3. R Sai Charan, S/o. Late Narender, Aged 10 years, Occ. Nil

4. R Ram Charan, S/o. Late Narender, Aged B years, Occ. Nil

5. R Prashanthi, W/o. R Prasad, Aged 56 years, Occ. Household

6. R Prasad, S/o. Ramatingam, Aged 64 years, Occ. Nil I [Petitioners No 2 ]to 4 are minors reptd. By their Mother and Guardian, thePetitioner No. t herein lPetitioner No. t herein l All are Ryo. H.No. 4-9-649, Flat No G3, Sri Swathi Residency, Vinayaka NagarColony, Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy DistrictPresently R/o. H.No. 16-4-7|C, Malakpet, HyderabadColony, Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy DistrictPresently R/o. H.No. 16-4-7|C, Malakpet, Hyderabad

...Petitioners

AND

1. The TSRTC, reptd. by its fVlanaging Director, RTC X Roads, Musheerabad,HyderabadHyderabad

2. The TSRTC, reptd. by_its Depot Manager, Hayathnagar-l Depep,Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy DistrictThe TSRTC, reptd. by_its Depot Manager, Hayathnagar-l Depep,Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District (Owners of the TSRTC Bus bearing No.AP2BZ-1 858)

3. D 9athaiah, S/o. Gandaiah, Aged about 59 years, Occ. Driver, Native of 1-132, Kandapur Village, Chandur Mandal, Najoonda District - 543001ilu..gltty [R/o.H.No.4-9-40/ ][1 ][89, ][Priyadarshini Cotony, Hayathnagar, ][R.R.]District132, Kandapur Village, Chandur Mandal, Najoonda District - 543001ilu..gltty [R/o.H.No.4-9-40/ ][1 ][89, ][Priyadarshini Cotony, Hayathnagar, ][R.R.]District (Driver of the TSRTC Bus bearing No.AP28Z-1858)

...Respondents

Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 19BB against the Award andDecree dated 17-05-2022 made in M.V.O.P.No.953 of 2016 on the file of the Courtof the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

kt ta i'

M.A.C.M.A. NO:427 OF 2023

Between:

1. The T.S.R-T.C., Rep. by its Managing Director RTC X Road, I\,4usheerabad,HyderabadHyderabad

2. The T.S.R.T.O, nep pV its Depot Manager, Hayathnagar-l Depot,Hayathnagar, F anga Reddy DistrictHayathnagar, F anga Reddy District

...Appellants / Respondents

AND

1. R. Neelima, W/o. Late Narender, Aged 26 years, Occ. Household

2. R. Lakshmi Prarathi, D/o. Late Narender, Aged about 5 years, Occ. NIL

3. R. Sai Charan, [.S/o. ]Late Narender, Aged about 4 years, Occ. NIL

4. R. Ram Charan, S/o. Late Narender, Aged about 2 years, Occ. \lL

5. R. Prashanthi. W/o. R. Prasad, Aged about 50 years, Occ. House Hold

6. R. Prasad, S/o. Ramalingam, Aged about 58 years, Occ. NIL

All are Rt/o. H.No.4-9-649, Flat No. G3, Sri Swathi Resrdencv. Vrnavakanaoar9ptolY, [Hayathnagar, ][Ranga ][Reddy District, Presenfly ][Ryo.'H ][No.i'6:q-tii,-]Malakpet, Hyde'abad9ptolY, [Hayathnagar, ][Ranga ][Reddy District, Presenfly ][Ryo.'H ][No.i'6:q-tii,-]Malakpet, Hyde'abad

...Respondents / [petitioners]

7. 9. Sathiah, S/o. Gandaiah, Aged.about 53 yeals, Occ. Driver, Native of 1-132,Kandapur Village, Chandur IVlandal, Nalgorida District_ S08 001Kandapur Village, Chandur IVlandal, Nalgorida District_ S08 001

!ie.s91tly [Rt/o. ][H.No.4-9-40l ][.189, ][priyadarshini Cotony, Hayathnagar, ]R.R.DistrictDistrict (Respondent Nc.7 is not necessary party to this case)

...Respondents / Respondent No 3

Appeal under Section 1 73 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against theJudgment and Decree dated '17-05-2022 made in M.V.o.p.No.953 of 2016 on thefile of the court of the lr/otor Accident claims Tribunal-cum-chief Jurige, city civilCourt, Hyderabad.

This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appear,the Judgment and Decree of the Lower court and the material papers in the caseand upon hearing the arguments of sri Kota subba Rao, Advocate for the Appellantsand upon hearing the arguments of sri Kota subba Rao, Advocate for the Appellantsin MACMA No.557 of 12022 and of sri R Anurag, standing counsel for TSRTC forRespondent No. ['1 ]& 2 in MACMA No.ssr of 2022 & Appeilants in MACMA No.427 ofRespondent No. ['1 ]& 2 in MACMA No.ssr of 2022 & Appeilants in MACMA No.427 of2023, and Sri P Ram;r Krishna Reddy, Advocate for Respondent No. I to 6 inMACMA No.427 of 2023.MACMA No.427 of 2023.

This Court doth Order and decree as follows:-

1. That the MACMA No.557 of 2022 be and hereby is allowed;

2. That the MACMA No.427 of 2023 tited by the appellants/TSRTC be andhereby is dismissed;hereby is dismissed;

3. That the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced fromRs. 32,62,009/- to Rs. 1,99,13,366/- ( Rupees One Crore, Ninety Nine Lakhs,Rs. 32,62,009/- to Rs. 1,99,13,366/- ( Rupees One Crore, Ninety Nine Lakhs,Thirteen Thousand, Three Hundred and sixty Six onry ) with interest @ 7.syop.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization;p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization;

4. That the petitioners be and hereby directed to pay the deficit Court fee;

5. That the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 be and hereby directed to deposit the saidamount with interest after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, ifany, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of thisjudgment;amount with interest after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, ifany, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of thisjudgment;

6. That on such deposit, the petitioners be and hereby permitted to withdraw thesaid amount in the same manner and apportionment as determined by theTribunal; andsaid amount in the same manner and apportionment as determined by theTribunal; and

7. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal; //TRUE COPY//

Sd/- K. AMMAJI

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

S CTION OFFICER

To,

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City CivilCourt, HyderabadCourt, Hyderabad

2. Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:31 11212024

L.i[':...]o<v\,l srtJsltlot--4"isC./,/3i;9iH+

COMMON DECREEMACMA.Nos,557 ot 2022 & 427 ot 2023

ALLOWING THE MACMA.No.SS7 ot 2022 &DISMISSING THE MACMA.N0.427 of 2023

rd5