Partly allowed

Smt Kistapuram , R Aruna, Hyderabad and 2 Others v. the Apsrtc, Hyderabad and 1 Other

Telangana HC5 Feb 2025MACMA/2570/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the RTC's appeal regarding procedural irregularities but allowed the claim petitioners' appeal. The court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs. 9,39,000 to Rs. 12,84,600 by applying future prospects and reconsidering dependency loss calculations.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs. 12,84,600 awarded to be paid by APSRTC within two months; RTC appeal dismissed.

Smt Kistapuram , R Aruna, Hyderabad and 2 Others Vs… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI MOTORACC IDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos: 2854 0F 2015 & 2570 ol 2016

¶5

MOTOR ACCID ENT CIUL ilISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 2854 0F 2015 :

¶6

Motor Accident civil Miscellaneous Appear fired under section 173 of the Motor Y...!i:!.:^{Act,_aggrieved by the Judgmentand Decreedt,11.05.201s,p".""J} in M.V.O-P.No. 2170 0f 2013,on the fire of the court of the Motor Accide;ts Cr;ims Tribunal -cum Xlll Additional chief Judge (Fast Track court), city civil court at Hyderabad.

¶7

Between:

¶8

The Andhra Pradesh state Road rransport corporatron, Represented by its Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, naustreJrao"J, Hi.c x n.i&lly.ffi#d]

¶9

The Andhra Pradesh state Road rransport corporation, Represented bv its Depot Manager, Husnabad Depot, Medbk orsirilt. (owie* ""iin-u;p5trib Bus bearing No.Ap 152 0031)^'

¶10

AND

¶11

Smt.Kistapuram @ Ramannagari Aruna, Wo. Satheesh. aoed 20 vears occupation: Househord, R/o. H.No.3-5-246t 1or2A. Rajmoh"afla ttaii/anguoa, Hyderabad 500 029.

¶12

2 [:ftq:f E.FampnJ'pCjlri^{Sathamma,Wo Srisaitam,aged 40 years,} uccupatton.: Household, R/o.-H.No.3_5-2 461 1Ot2A. RajmoEalta Narayanguda, Hyderabad SQO 029.

¶13

Kistapuram Q.$gantlqgari^{S_righgitam,S/o Late Narsaiah, aged} 45^years,

¶14

Occupatiori I !!il,^{R/o. H.No.3-5-246l1 0/2A, RajmohartawarayinguOa,} Hyderabad 500 029.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS

¶16

t.A. NO: 1oF 2015 MAMP. NO: 5864 OF 2015)

¶17

Petition under seitioh 1s1 c.p.c., praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High cor.t m.y -ue pleased to grant stay of execution of the Judgment and Decri of ttre court or the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal -cum Xlil Additional ctrier iroge-irlst ll1c-k 99r.t),^{City Civit Court at Hyderabad, dt. i 1 05.2015, made} in M.V:O.d.N; 2170 of 2013.

¶18

¶19

: SRI R.ANURAG^{(SC FORTSRTC)} Counsel for^{the APPellants} Counsel for^{the ResPondents} :None

¶20

s APPE^{AL No.257} 0 0F 2016; MOTO^{R ACCIDENTCIVILMI}

¶21

Motor Accident^{CivilMiscellaneous Appealfiled underSection '173 of the Motor} V"ti"f". A"t,^{aggrieved OVlt"} "frag;.ri"nt^{and Decree dt.'l 1.05.2015,passedin} rr,r.v.o.p.N".^{Z 11-O oI 2o13"oi the fiti of the courtof the MotorAccidentsclaims} iiiorn"r -cum^{Xtll AdditionalChief Judge (Fast Track Court),city civil court at} Hyderabad.

¶22

Between:

¶23

1 Smt.Kistapuram @^{Ramannagari Aruna,Wo} -Sg!he3s.h,^{agq! l0 years'} 6Uil;iiJr,' H;;;h;Id,^{R/". ft. No-3-5-246/ 1 0/2A, RajmohallaNaravansuda'} Hyderabad^{500 029.}

¶24

2 5'::1H',"#g.,sfsf, :ill'ffi ''ill3ltlH'ii&li1F$3fl?t"40Years' Narayanguda,^{HYderabad 500029'}

¶25

3 Kistapuram @^{Ramannagari Srishaildm,S-/o Late Narsaiah'aged45 years'} i;;il;ffi iu'r. nro.^{s.tio.t-s-z+ol1oDA, Rajmohalla Naravansuda'} Hydeiabad^{500 029.}

¶26

...APPELLANTSIPETITIONERS

¶27

AND

¶28

1 The Andhra r-,i""rii"ii'oit"ioi^{P.adesh ari state Bnrrin, Road Musheeirabad, Transport corporation. n'r'c' x Roads' Represented Hvderabadby its} 2 The Andhra^{PradeshState RoadTranspgr[--C9rp9} ration, RePresented^{bY its} Deoot Manaqer. Husnabad^{Depot, MedaK ulsmct'} (Owners of the APSRTC Bui bearing No.AP^{152 0031)}

¶29

...RESPONDENTS'RESPONDENTS

¶30

: SRI KASIREDDY^{JAGATHPALREDDY} Counsel^{for the APPellants} : SRI R.ANURAG^{(SC FORTSRTC)} Counsel^{for the Respondents} The Court^{madethe following} : COMMON^{JUDGMENTAND OECREE}

¶31

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRTYADARSII{I

¶32

M.A.C.M.A.No.2854 or 20Is AND M.A.C.M.A.No .2570 0F 2016

¶33

COMMO N JUDGMENT:

¶34

These two appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment since M.A.C.M.A.No.2854 of 2015 filed by A.p.S.R.T.C. seeking to set-aside the order passed by the learned Tribunal and M.A.C.M.A.No .2SZO of 20 16 Iiled by claim petitioners seeking enhancement of compensation, both are directed against the very same order dated I l.OS,2O15 passed in M.V.O.p.No .2170 of 2013, on the hle of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum XIII Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad

¶35

2 For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as they were arrayed before the learned Tribunal

¶36

The brief facts of the case are that the claim petitioners, who are the wife and parents of Late Kistapuram (Ramannagiri) Satheesh (hereinafter referred as .the deceased), Iiled a petirion under Section 166 of t]le Motor Vehicles Act, 19g8 and Rules 4S5 oi A.P.M.V. Rules, read with section 140 of M.V.Act, l9g9 against the respondents claiming compensation of Rs.10,OO,O0O/_ for the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident thar occurred on 25.O4 .2O 13 at the outskirts of Timmareddypalli Village on Raj iv I )

¶37

¶38

¶39

MGP) MACMA.rlot.^{285/ o! m$ & 2570 ol m16}

¶40

Rahadari,^{Medak District' It is stated by the petitioners thaton} 25.04.2013^{at abouta' 15 p'm' near Hotels at t1le outskirts of} Timmareddypa-lli^{Village on Rajiv Rahadari' MedakDistrict' when} thedeceased-satheeshwasproceedingslowlytowardsVenkatapur (PT) Village^{of ToopranMandal'Medak Districton extreme left side} of the road^{on Hero Honda Passion PIus MotorcycleBearing No'AP-} 23H-57l1^{and when reached near Hotels at the outskirts of} Timmareddyp,ally^{Village on Rajiv Rahadari' at that time' the driver} of one^{APSRTC Bus bearing No'AP-152-0031of HusnabadDepot'} which came^{f:-om Hyderabadside and proceedingtowards Siddipet} side, drove^{the said bus in a rash and negligent malner at high} speed and^{dashed the motorcycle of the deceased'As a result' the} deceased^{fell down fromhis motorcycleand sustained fatal injuries} and multiple^{fractures on headand other parts of the body and the} motorcycle^{of thedeceasedwascompletely damaged'} Immediately,^{he wasshifted to GovernmentHospital'Siddipetand} after First^{Aid, he was referredto GandhiHospital'Secunderabad} through^{Ambulance and . the Doctors ofGandhi Hospital'} SecunderabtLd,^{upon examining the deceased' declared him as} died

¶41

Based on^a complaint,^{Police of Kukunoorpally Police} Station, Merlak^{District, registereda case in Crime No'94 of 2Ol3'} under Sections^3O4-AIPC

¶42

¶43

MGP,I MACMA.No' 2AS4 oI 2OJ5 & 2570 ol 2076

¶44

I I I I t I I

¶45

It is stated by the petitioners that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged 25 years and was hale, healthy, young, energetic and was not having any bad habits and also used to earn a sum of Rs. I0,OOO/- per rnonth by working as Tractor Driver and contribute all his earnings for maintenance of his family. Due to untimely death of the deceased, the petitioners lost their bread winner and were put to dark. It is also stated by the petitioners that they have incurred huge amounts towards transportation of [he deceased from place of accident to Hospital and also spent amounts for cremation and obsequies expenses and etc. Hence, hled claim petition seeking compensation against the respondents/ RTC.

¶46

Respondent No.2/Depot Manager of APSRTC hted his counter denying the averments made in the claim petition including, manner of accident, age, avocation, earning capacity, medical expenditure incurred, involvement of RTC Bus, negligence of driver of crime bus and further contended that the claim of compensation is excess and exorbitant and hence, prayed to dismiss the claim against it.

¶47

7- Based on the above pleadings, the learned Tribunat had lramed the following issues for conducting trial:_

¶48

¶49

¶50

MGP'! MACMA.t'tos^{2854oJ 2Or5&2570olNt6}

¶51

O Whether the^{pteaded accidentlud occuted resulting in death} of de,-ased.-K.Sotheesh^{due to the rashandtegligent diuing} of RTC bearing^{No.AP-152OO31bg its driwr?}

¶52

(i, Whether the^{petitionersare entitledto the compensation and} if so.^qt utat^{quantum and. tuhot is the liabilitgof the} respctndents?

¶53

fit To wlrat relieJ?

¶54

Before the Tribunal,^{in order to substantiatetheir claim'} petitioner No.1 examined^{herself as PWl, got examinedPW2and gt} marked Exs.A I to A7^{ontheir behalf' Onbehalfof} respondents/^{RTC,no oral or documentaryevidence was adduced'}

¶55

g. The Tribunal, after^{consideringthe entireevidenceand} documents arrailable^{on record,partly-allowed the claim petition} along with interest @^{7 .5% per annum from tJ:e date of petition till} the date of rt:alization^{payableby both the RespondentNos' 1 & 2} jointly and severally. Challenging^{the same, the presentappeals} came to be filed^{by the APSRTC and the claim pelitioners} respecLively.

¶56

Heard arguments^{submittedby Sri R'Anurag, learned} Standing Counsel for^{appellants/RTC in M'A'C'M'A'No'2854 of} 2O15 and Sri Jagathpall Reddy^{Kasi Reddy,Iearned counselfor the} respondenLs/'claim^pe titioners /^{appellants in M.A.CM'A'No'2570 of} 2O16. Perust d lhe record.

¶57

¶58

MGP'I MAOqA.^tos.^{2aS4ol2O7S& 2570 oI &15}

¶59

The contentions^{of the learned counselfor Appellant/RTCin} M.A.C.M.A.No^{.2854of 2015 are ttrat the Tribunal erred in not} considering the^{fact that the ownerand insurer of motorcyclewere} not made as^{parties to the claim petition; it also failed to consider} the fact that the^{name of PW2, who is an eye witnessto the} incident, was^{not mentioned in the charge sheet,as such,charge} sheet cannot be^{relied upon to establish the negligence on part of} RTC driver; it^{also erred in taking the income of the deceased@} Rs.72,O00/-^{per annum and erred in applying multiplier 18 and} also erred in awarding^{excessarRounts under non-conventional} head and therefore^{requestedto allow the Appeal by setting-aside} the order of the^{learnedTribunal.}

¶60

On the^{other hand, the contention of the learned Counsel for} respondents/ appellants^{in M.A.C.M'A.2570of 2016 is that the} learned Tribunal^{failed to award futureprospectsto the incomeof} the deceased^{by loltowing the judgmentsof the Honble Apex Court} in the case between^{Santoshideui Vs'NationalInsuraruceCo'l and} Rajan Soni^V. Subhashchandra^{2 and therefore requestedfor} enhancement o[^{comPensation.}

¶61

13 Now the points that^{emerge for determinationare,}

¶62

l- Whether tle order passed^{by the Trtbunal} suffers from ong inegulaitg?

¶63

{20r^{2 ACJsc 2oo2} t 2t{ s e.c.t sc z+ t t

¶64

¶65

MGP) MACMA.N'S. 2854 ol 2015 & 2570 ol 2016

¶66

tt. Whether the appellants/ claim petitioners are entitled for^{enhonementof compensation?}

¶67

PTOINTS:-

¶68

A perursal of the record discloses that petitioner No.I was examined as PWl and reiterated the contents made in the claim petition. As she is not an eye-witness to the incident, she got examined PV/2. PW2 in his evidence deposed that on 25.05.2013 when he was proceeding from Siddipet to Venkatapur Village on his motorcycle and when reached outskirts of Timmareddypally Village on R:rjiv Rahadari, at that time, he noticed one RTC Bus bearing No.A.P-152-OO31 coming in opposite direction and driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashing the motorcycle of the deceased due to which, the rider of the motorcycle fell down from the motorcycle and sustained grievous injuries and was shifted to Government Hospital, Siddipet by 1O8 Ambulance and later, he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital where the Droctors declared him as brought dead. He further stated that the said accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime APSRTC Bus bearing No.APl5Z-OO3l and there is no negligence on part of the deceased. He a,lso stated that Kukunoorpally Police Station registered a case in Crime NO.9z of 2013, under Section 304-A of IPC against the dr$pr of crime RTC bus and recorded his statement. \

¶69

¶70

MGP,J MACMA.NoS. 2tE4 ol ZO75 & 2570 oJ 2016

¶71

Coming to the documentary evidence, Ex.Al is the FIR registered by Kukunoorpally Police Station, Medak District, in Crime No.94 of 2013, under Section 3O4-A of IpC, conducted investigation and filed charge sheet under Ex.A2 against the driver of RTC Bus bearing No.AP- l5Z-O03 1 . Ex.A3 is the spot panchanama. Ex.A4 is the inquest report. Ex.AS is the postmortem examination report wherein the cause of death of the deceased was due to Head injury. Ex.A6 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector report which discloses that the accident had not occurred due to any mechanical defect in the vehicle. Ex.A7 is the Driving license of the deceased.

¶72

Therefore, from the evidence of PW2-eye witness to the incident coupled with the documentary evidence marked under Exs.Al to A6, it is clear that the death of the deceased was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of RTC Bus bearing No.Ap152-OO31.

¶73

L7. Learned counsel for the appellant/RTC contended that the name of PW2, who is an eye wirness to the incident, was not mentioned in the charge sheet. As such, Ex.A2-charge sheet cannot be relied upon to establish the negligence on part of RTC driver.

I i l

I ilI i

MGP,I MACMA-N1,- 28s4 oJ 2015 & 257ool²⁰¹⁵

¶78

In this regard, it is pertinent to refer^{to the judgmentof the} Honble Supreme Court in the case between Sun,lttr^{Vs, RaJasthan} Stntc Transport Corporation3 wherein,^{when the testimony of} an eyewitness was sought to be^{impeached,inter alia, on the} gror:nd that his name did not find mention in the list of witnesses in the charge-sheet, the^{Honl:leApex Court} held as under:-

¶79

"There Ls nothing in the Act to^{preclude citing of} a^{u.titness in} notor accident claim wln hos not been named in the list of tuitnesses in the ciminal case.^Whatr-s essential^rb thot the opposite partg should get a fair opportunitA to cross examine th.e concented uitness- Once that is done, it tuill not be open to them to complain about ang^prejudice cansed to them- If there utas anA doubt to be cast on the ueracitg of the uitness, the same should hnue^come out in cross examinatiory for uhich opportunitA u.tas^granted to^the respondents bg the Tibunal.^"

¶80

From tl.e above decision, it is clear that the respondents should be given a fair opportunity to cross examine the witness. In the present case, though PW2, eye witness to the accident, was cross-examined at length, nothing adverse was elicited to disbelieve his testimony. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellan t/ RTC that as the name of PW2, an e1'e witness to the incident, was not mentioned in the charge sheet, as such, charge sheet cannot. be relied upon, is not tenable.

¶81

'(2019)^sCC Online^S:19s

¶82

¶83

MGP) MAOTA. Nos. 2854 ol A1S & Em ol 2Ot6

¶84

The other contention of the learned counsel for

¶85

appellant/RTc is that the Tribuna-l erred in taking the income of the decea.sed @ Rs.72,OOO I -.

¶86

In this regard, it is relevant to mention that though the petitioners stated that the deceased used to e€un a sum of Rs. 1O,0OO/- per month by working as Tractor Driver, but they failed to hle any documentary proof evidencing the incorhe of the deceased and failed to examine any person describing his occupation and earning capacity Hence, the learned Tribunal, taking into consideration the age and occupation of tl.e deceased, fixed his monthly income @ Rs.6,0OO/- which this Court finds the same to be reasonable and is not inclined to interfere with the S INC

¶87

On the other hand, the contention of the learned Counsel for respondents/claim petitioners / appe[ants in M.A.C.M.A.2S7O of 2016 is that the learned Tribunal failed to award future prospects to the income of the deceased.

¶88

A perusal of quantum of compensation in the impugned judgment shows that the learned Tribunal without granting future prospects to the established income, directly deducted 1/3ra and applied relevant multiptier and calculated compensation. This Court, by relying upon the decision of the Hon,ble Apex Court in

¶89

¶90

MGP'] MACMA.N}S-^{2854 ol?015& 2570 oI2015}

¶91

the case between^{l{atTonatInsuranceCo' Ltd' v'Pranag Sethla} ' is inclined to^{add 4Oo/otowards future prospects to the income of} thedeceasedfort}redeceasedbeingbelow40yearsofage.Then the net future^{income of the deceasedcomesto Rs'8'400/-'As the} number of dependents^{are 3, if 1/3ra is deductedtowards the Iiving} and^{personalexpenses of the deceased' then the net monthly} income comes^{to Rs.5,6O0/- and the annual incomecomesto} Rs.67,2OO/-.^{After applyingmultiplier'18' as the deceased being} 25 years at^{the time of accident, then the total loss of dependency} on account^{of the death of the deceased comes to Rs'12'O9'600/-'} Besides this, the^{learned Tribunal had awarded an amount of} Rs.75,O0O/-^{under the Head of non-pecuniarydamages' which this} Court finds^{fhe same to be reasonableand is not inclinedto} interfere with^{the same. Hence, the petitioners are awarded with a} total compensation^{whichis calculatedas under:-}

¶92

S.l{o.	Nameofthe^Eead	AEount^awarded byTribuoal	Amoutrt^awarded bythisCourt
1	Monthlyincome	Rs.6,0O0/-
2	4ooz'otowards^future prospects		Rs.8,4O0l
3	Deductionof^1/3'o to$-ards Personal^and livingexpenses	Rs.2,000	Rs.5,600/^-
4	l,oss after ^ofdependency applicationof	Rs.8,64,O00/	Rs.12,09,6O0/-.

'2017(6)^r70 sc

,dGP)

MACMA_NoS. 26s4 oI 2o1s & 25ZO oJ fr10

¶97

	multiplier'18'
5	ConventionalHeads	Rs.75,00O/-
6	Totalcompensation	Rs.9,39,(X)O/-	Rs.12,84,600/-

¶98

¶99

¶100

Since the compe nsation arrived is more than the claim amount, this Court, by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case between Nagappa Vs.Gurudayal Singh and otherss deems fit and proper to allow the Appeal by awarding compensation of Rs.12,84,6O0/-, which is more than the claim amount.

¶101

As far as interest is concerned, the learned Tribunal awarded interest @ 7.5o/o per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. This Court hnds the same to be reasonable and is not inclined to interfere with the same.

¶102

In the result, M.A.C.M.A.No.28S4 of 2015 hled by the appellants / RTC is dismissed and M.A.C.M.A.No.257O of 2016 frted by the appellants/claim petitioners is allowed by enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.9,39,0OO/- to Rs. 12,84,6OO/- which shall carry interest @ Z.So/o p.a. as awarded by the Tribunal from the date of petition till the date of realization. The appetlants/ RTC are directed to pay the enhalced compensation within a period of two months from the

¶103

'AIR^{2oo3 sc 6z+}

¶104

¶105

MGP,I MAcMA.Nos- 285a ol2015 & 2570 ol 2016

¶106

date of recelpt of a copy of this order. Upon such deposit, the respondents,/claim petitioners are entitled to withdraw the same as per the apportionment made by the learned Tribunal by paying deficit Court fee. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶107

27 Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed

¶108

SD'- N. SRIHARI PUTY REGISTRAR /TTRUE COPYII

¶109

CTION OFFICER

¶110

To,

¶111

1 . The Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum Xlll Additional Chief Judge(Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad.(with records if any)

¶112

One CC to SRI R ANURAG (SC FOR TSRTC) Advocate tOpUCI

¶113

One CC to SRI KASIREDDY JAGATHPAL REDDY, Advocate tOpUCl

¶114

Two CD Copies

Pcsd/gh

HIGH COURT

DATED:0S102l,2025

-:-<br>i:. i-, i i'.i -,...'.,-
f,
'.: .,i'
-,' ]
i1,] 2ist-?16

¶120

COMMON JUDGMENT^{AND DECREE}

¶121

MACMA.No.2854^{OF 2015 &} MACMA.No.2570^{OF 2016}

¶122

DISMISSING THE^{MACMA NO.2854 OF 2015 AND} ALLOWING THE MACMA^{No.2570of 2016}

¶123

Gcf}-
tr-t'

¶124

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶125

WEDNESDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF FEARUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENryFME

¶126

PRESENT

¶127

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSIN] MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOU S APPEAL Nos: 284{ OF 2015 & 2570o1 2O16

¶128

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLAN EOUS APPEAL No. 2854 OF 2015:.

¶129

Between:

¶130

1 The Andhra Pradesh State Road -Transport Corporation, Represented by its Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, Mushedrabad, fi.t.C. X Roats, Hyderabid-

¶131

The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. Reoresented bv its Depot Manager, Husnabad Depot, Medak District. (Owners^'of the ApSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 152 0031)

¶132

...APPELLANTS'RESPON DENTS

¶133

AND

¶134

Smt.Kistapuram @ Ramannagari Aruna, W/o. Satheesh, aqed 20 vears. Occupation:_Household, R/o. Ft.No.3-5-2461^,lOl2A, Ralmoniala Naiayanguda, Hyderabad 500 029.

¶135

Kistapuram @_Ramannag_ari Sathamma, Wo. Srisailam, aged 40 years, 9ccupation^{: Household,R/o.H. No. 3-5-2 46 I 1 0 l2A, Rajmo-hallaNirayang} uda, Hyderabad 500 029.

¶136

Kistapuram @.fganlqgar! Srighqltam, S/o. Late Narsaiah, aged 45 years, Occupation ; Nil, Rl/o. H.No.3-5-2461 10/2A, Rajmohalla Narayingudaj Hyderabad 500 029.

¶137

...RESPONDENTS'PETITIONERS

¶138

Motor Accident civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dt.1 1.OS.201S,passed in M.V.O.P.No. 2170 of 2013,on the fite of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum Xlll Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court at Hyderabad.

¶139

This Appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of the appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and ttre material papers in the Suit and upon hearing the arguments of Sri R.ANURAG, SC for TSRTC, Counsel for Appellants and none Appeared for Respondents.

¶140

MOTOR ACCIDEN^{T CtVtLM]SCELI-ANEOUSAPPEALN o-2570 OF 2016:}

¶141

Between:

¶142

'l ' Smt.Kistaouram @ Ramannaqari Aruna, Wo. Satheesh'^{aged 20 years'} oicupaticjn: Houd6ho6,^{R/o. H.No.3-5-24611Ol2A,Raimohalla Narayanguoa,} Hyderabad 500 029.

¶143

z. kLiiprram @ Ramannagari^{Sathamma,Wo' Srisailam,aged 40 years'} - ci."rbrtion lHousehold.-R/o. H.No.3-5-246/ 1 0/2A, Raimohalla Narayanguda, HYderabad^{500 029.}

¶144

Kistaouram @ Ramannagari^{Srishailam, S/o. LateNarsaiah, aged45 years'} " bfib;iid Ixit, nyo. H.No.3-5-246l 10/2A, Rajmohalla Naravansuda' Hyderabad 500 029.

¶145

...APPELLANTS'PETITIONERS

¶146

AND

¶147

The Andhra Pradesh^{State Road Transpo(} 9oPg"]iT'^Req1e-s9n-!9!-pyits tvtanaging Diiectoi;'Bus,^{Bhavan, Musheerabad'R T C X Roads, Hyderabad'}

¶148

The Andhra Fradesh^{state RoadTranspo(corporation,Representedblits} - o"poir"llnager, Husnibio Depot, Med'ak District. (owners of the APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP^{152 0031)}

¶149

..RESPONDENTS'RESPONDENTS .

¶150

Motor Accident.Civii^{MiscellaneousAppeal filedunderSection 173 of the Motor} V.t Lf"" Act, aggiieVed^{by the Judgmentand Decreedt.'11 .05.2015,passedin} Ir4.V.O.p.ruo.2f ft-of^{2O13,-bnthe file of the Courtof the MotorAccidents Claims} Tribunal -cum Xlll Additional^{chief Judge (Fast Track court), city civil court at} Hyderabad.

¶151

ThisAppealcomingbnforhearinganduponperusingthegrounds of the ajpeal, the Juigment^{and Decreeof the Lower Court and the material} p"p"r. in the suit aid upon^{hearing the arguments ofSri KASIREDDY} JA.GATHPAL REDDY,^{Advocate for the Appellants and Sri R.ANURAG,SC for} isnic, counsel for^{Respondentsthis courtdoth common Judgment and} Decree as follows:-

¶152

That the MACMA^{No. 2854 oI 2015,filedby the Appellants/RTC} be and here bY is^Dismissed.

¶153

2.ThattheMACMSNo.25T0of20l6filedbytheAppellants/Claim Petitioners be and. here^{by is Allowed.}

¶154

That the Compensation^{amount awarded by the Tribunalbe and} here by is enhancing from^{Rs. 9,39,000/- to Rs. 12,84,600L} which shall carry interest @^{7.5o/o p.a. as awardedby the} Tribunal from the date of^{petition till the date of realization.}

¶155

That the Appellants/RTC are directed to pay the enhanced compensation within a period of two months irom the date of receipt of a copy of this order,

¶156

That on such deposit the Respondents/craim petitioners are entitled to withdraw the same as per the apportionment made by the Tribunal by paying deficit Court fee.

¶157