High Court dismissed appeal by T.S.R.T.C. challenging Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award of Rs. 45.03 lakhs. Court upheld Tribunal's liability for rash and negligent driving, 15% addition for future prospects per Supreme Court precedent, and 9% interest.
Appellants directed to deposit compensation amount of Rs. 45.03 lakhs awarded by Tribunal within six weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
.-' :*f,,, E"Ss?l' *$.,4i-i . .t'i'+ :-' t
L I
. ,i r_:-.r, l I
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
TUESDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
M.A C.M.A. NO:9 26 0F 2023
Appeal Under Section. j73_of M V.Act aggrieved by the judgment and Decree dated o2-o5-2o22 in M.v.o.p.No. 111s of 2oii on tn" or tn" rrrotJ. n".io.nt Claims Tribunat - cum- the Court of the Chief Judge, City Civif Corrt , ilO"rrirJ-'
-ii
Between:
AND
lA NO: 3 OF 2023
Petition under section'r51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, ine Hign court may o" pr.ri"J io grant stay of execution of the Judgment and Decree of the Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum-The court of the chief Judge, city civir court, Hyderabad, dated 02.05.2022 made in MVOP. No.1718 of 2O11.
lA NO: 4 OF 202 3
Ll '- . ,^& -1. ' i.tfIJsm r: ' )",:ffihisL, ' .it'',' :
f*;j, '{rl{
Petition under section 151 cpc praying that an the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to pass order to vacate the lnterim stay order passed in l.A.No.3 of 202i in M.A.C.M.A.No. 926 of 2023 dated 14-08-2023, in the interest of justice.
Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. THOOM SRIN|VAS (SC FOR TSRTC) Counsel for the Respondents: SRI J. PRAMOD GOUD
The Gourt delivered the following Judgment
'.1 .)'_ffi
.+i '!E
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYAITA ALISHETTY
M.A.C.M.A.NO.926 0F 2023
JUDGMENT:
Heard learned counsel Sri Thoom Srinivas learned standing counsel for TSRTC for the appellants and rearned counsel Sri. J.Pramod Goud for respondents.
The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is as under.
4 On Ol.l2.20l6, while the deceased i.e., J.Kumara Swamy returning to his residence after completing his duty as Technician -C (trngg. Supp) at National Institute of Nutrition Hyderabad, on his motor cycle Hone Neo bearing registration No.TS-08-EC-O95O and when he reached Tilaknagar cross_roads 'tigtrat, RTC bus bearing registration No.Ap_ 1 1_Z-SZO| came in
LNA'I MA,MANa926 of 2023
2
samedirection in rash and negligent manner at high speed and suddenlyswerved to the left side without horn or indicationand dashedthedeceased.Asaresuit,thedeceasedfelldownfrom the twowheeler and the bus ran over him' causing gnevous injuries andthe motorcycle was badlydamaged lmmcdiately' he was shiftedin 108 Ambulance to Yashoda Hospital and then to NIMSHospital, Panjagutta and whiie undcrgoingtreatment he died on13.12.2O16'The Police' AmberpetP S'' registered a case in CrimeNo 483/2O16under Sections337 IPC and the same hasbeen subsequently altered to Section304-A of IPC after thedeath of the deceased and filed chargesheet against the driverof the crime vehicle'
LNA.J MACMA No.926 of m23
3
\
LNA,I MACI\IaNo.926oJ 2023
4
foltowing issued:
il Whether thepleaded accident had occurred ."""f,i"gin death of deceased J Kumara SwTny' a"r?'io-'.r.f,and negligent driving -of .RTC Bus i."ri"g ,.gi"t.rtio.tNo.aF t lZ-57 09 by its driver? Whether the Petitionersare entitled to any ii) antum andwhat is CO mpensation,if so, at what qu the liabilitv of theresPondents?
i ii) To whatrelieP
(). ln order to substantiate the case'on behalf of the claimants,P.Ws. tto P'W'3 were examined and Exs'Al to A6 On behalfof appellants, and Exs.X1 and X2 weremarked nor anydocumentu'as neithe r anywitnesswas examined markcd
lO. The Tribunalon due consideration of the evidence and materialplacedon record,came to conclusion that the accident took place dueto rash and negligent driving of the RTCBus bearing registrationNo'AP-1 l-Z-s7oq and awarded compensaLionof Rs.45,O3,544 /-alongwith interest(d' 9ok per annum fromthe date of petitiontill the date of realization'The
LNA.! MACMA No 926 oJ 2023
5
respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were held tobe jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation.
I 1. During the course of hearing ofthe appeal, learned counsel for appellants-TsRTcsubmittedthat the Tribunal erred in awarding the compensation amountagainst the facts of the case and evidence on record. TheTribunal ought to have appreciated the fact that noindependent eye witnesswas examined to prove the mannerof accident and Tribunal erred in adding 157o towards futureprospects cventhough the deceased is going to retire in anotherfour years. The Tribunalalsoerred in awarding amounts towardsfuneral expenses, lossof love and affection and loss of estate andloss of consortiumand also interest and hnally, submitted thataward passedby the Tribunal is liable to be set aside.
Consideration:
')
LNA,! MACMA No-925 al2023
6
who deposed that he witnessed the accident and also the charge sheet, as per u,hich, the police have examined four eye witnesses and have found that the driver of RTC bus was guilty of the offence punishable u nder Section 304-4 IpC. The Tribunal came to conclusion held that the driver of RTC Bus is responsible for causing the accident with rash and negligent driving and there is no contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.
(2017) r6 SCC 6E0
FW
LNA,I MACMANo.926of 2023
7
Conclusion:
-:
'zozs(tl er-o roz(sc)
LNA./ MACMANo.g26 ol2023
8
I9 Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand close d
SD/. A.V.S.PRASAD ASSISTANT GIS //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunat _ cum- The court of rhe Chief Judoq, eity civit c;1{ iliiirl'dio. ( wirh recordsr 2. one cc to SRr. rHooilr sniiirves t-sl"ib'd'i5RtiiA}i,illi;i5'p1ltr 3. One CC to SRt. J. PRAMOD GOUD, Advocare [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies {x-
/
I
, '. 1iF
i,l*,!
ffi,
HIGH COURT
DATED:12t12t2023
JUDGMENT + DECREE
MACMA.No.926 of 2023
t :lI
-,Y':,pi-.. _f 'ifi:$' 1;t1.7;..,. ,:' i
1 i{E Sl4f
e
z _t-
oo 1 5 l{AR 2!24 I.
,iiT
ii
W,';ifr it,
* * it({'i l
;5 c L'rc ,.i(-!:J i
DISMISSING THE MACMA
WTHOUT COSTS
) '?u
t:.&.-Y
l.rYSltl
,. 1{E{l
:i 'rF
tt
!.. ,#$.
#.iI, ffi#,ry'ri.!
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
TUESDAY,TfIE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMAER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRt JUSTICE LAXMT NARAYANA ALTSHETW
M. c.M.A. NO: 9260F m23
Between:
l|. I i.
AND
i,,
Appeal Under Section 173 of M.V.Act aggrieved by the judgment and Decree dated o2-o5-2o22 in M.v.o.p.No. 1t1B ot 2071on the of ttre rr,l"t6r. n""ioeni claims Tribunal - cum- the court of the chief Judge, city civil court , Hyderabad ORDER :This appeal coming on for hearing and upon p€ruslng the grounrts of appeal, the Judgnent and Decree of the l-ower court and the material papen in tbe MVop and upon hearing the arguments of Sri THOOM SRINWAS Advocate for the Appellans and of Sri J. PRAMOD GOUD , advocate for the Respondents.
tr
This Court doth Order ar:d Decree as follows :
l. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and heneby is dismissod
,c
SD/-AV.S.PRASAD ASSISTANT REGIS
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER,.,
To
"'..t--
l
i1
I
H+16
i:. 'i', {: .i,,..
HIGH COI'RT
DATED:1211212O23
'!-.. ,l 't-
DECREE
MACMA.No.926 ot ZO23
DIST{ISSING THE MACMA
WITHOUT COSTS
F.,t .ro
@ eA
2P
1
,t
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the award of compensation by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal should be set aside due to alleged errors in fact-finding and quantum of damages.
Whether 15% addition to actual income for future prospects is legally sustainable for a deceased employee between 55 to 60 years of age.
Whether the interest awarded at 9% per annum is just and proper in light of recent Supreme Court precedents.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Anjali and others vs Lokendra Rathod and othersFollowed¶68
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and othersApplied¶63
(2017) 16 SCC 680 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
The T.S.R.T.C., Rep., by its Managing Director
J.Jhansi Rani
J.Shashank
J.Kamalamma (deceased)
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
