M/s. The T.S.R.T.C. Vs Kethavath Hunny and Another

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

¶4

NOs:593 &482OF2021

¶5

Both the Appeals filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims TribunalCum-Court of the Xll Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, dt. 0410212021 in MVOP. No. 89 of 2019.

¶6

Between

¶7

M/s. The T.S.R.T.C., Rep by its Regional Manager, Jubilee Bus Station, Gandhi Nagar, Nehru Nagar Colony, West Marredpally, Secunderabad, T.S. 500026.

¶8

APPELLANT/Respondent

¶9

AND

¶10

'1. Kethavath Hunny, Wo- Denya Naik, Age 50 years, Occ. Labour, R/o. H. No. 1 2-8-430/10, Lothukunta, Secunderabad.

¶11

RespondenUPetitioner

¶12

B. Satynarayana @ Satyam, S/o. B. Bandigaiah, Age Major, Occ. Driver, R/o. Thotapally, Kalwakurthy, Nagar Kurnool District, Telangana - 508324.

¶13

(Respondents No.2 herein is not necessary party in this Appeal as no relief is claimed against him.)

¶14

RESPONDENT'RESPNDENT

¶15

lA NO: 2 OF 2O2'l

¶16

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 Chairman, Motor

¶17

Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-Court of the Xll Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil court, at secunderabad, dt. o4lozt2o21, made in tvlVop. No. Bg of 2019.

¶18

counsel for the Appellant : sRl. R ANURAG (sc FoR TSRTC)

¶19

Counsel for the Respondents : NONE APPEARED

¶20

Between:

¶21

Kethavath Hunny, wo. Denya Naik, aged 50 years, occ. Labour R/o. H No. 12-8430 I 10, Lothukunta Secunderabad

¶22

PETITIONER/APPELLANT

¶23

AND

¶24

B. s.atyana(?-yana., Sgtyam, S/o. B. Bandigaiah, aged major, occ. Driver R/o. Thotapally, Kalwakurthy, Nagarkurnool Dislrict^"

¶25

2- M/s. The TSRTC, Rep by its Regional Manager, Jubilee Bus Station Gandhi Nagar, Nehru Nagar colony, west Marredpa-ily, secunderabad 500 016

¶26

(R1 Not necessary party)

¶27

RESPONDENTS

¶28

Counsel for the Appellant : SRI. AJAY KUMAR MADISETTY

¶29

Counsel for the Respondents : NONE APPEARED

¶30

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶31

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVIEADA c .A.N

¶32

ENT

¶33

Both these appeals arise out of the Order and Decree dated 04.02.2021 in M.V.O.p.No.g9 of 2019 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Xll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Cou( Secunderabad (for short.the Tribunal").

¶34

For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

¶35

The case of the petitioners before the Tribunal was that on 17.12.2018 at about 14:30 hours, the petitioner was going by walk near Burgula Gate main road, Cyberabad and while going to Shadnagar, suddenly, one TSRTC Bus bearing No.TS_082_0040 going towards Ananthapuram from Hyderabad being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came at a high speed, dashed the petitioner due to which the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. lmmediately, she was shifted to shadnagar Hospitar and was treated there initially, and then she was shifted to Continental Hospital, Hyderabad. lt is her case that she sustained fracture injuries and suffered a lot and was bedridden for a period of six months, that she

¶36

ETO,J MACMA tios.593_482_202 1

¶37

2

¶38

incurred huge medical expenses and was permanently, disabled.

¶39

Therefore, she claimed compensation of Rs.12,00,0001.

¶40

The respondent No.1 remained ex-parte.

¶41

The respondent No.2 is the owner of the vehicle, denying the. averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the petitioner. !t is further contended that the claim of the petitioner is excessive and that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the petitioner and that there is no negligence of the bus driver.

¶42

Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the

¶43

following issues for consideration:-

¶44

"1 Whether the accident occurred was due to rash and negligence driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No.1 ?

¶45

Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation? lf so, at what quantum and from whom?

¶46

To what reliet?"

¶47

To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PWs 1 to 4

¶48

and Exs.A1 to A10 were marked. On behalf of the respondents no

¶49

oral evidence was adduced

¶50

Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.'l 1,96,960/-. Aggrieved by the said order and

¶51

ETD,.l MACMA Nos.593_it82_2021

¶52

3

¶53

decree, MACMA.No.S93 ot 2021 is preferred by TSRTC, while MACMA.No.482 ot ZO21is preferred by the claimant.

¶54

Heard the submissions of Sri R. Anurag, learned Standing Counsel for TSRTC. No representation on behalf of the respondents.

¶55

Learned counsel for RTC has submitted that the tribunal was wrong in awarding huge amounts under various heads and has granted huge compensation. He further submitted that the petitioner has not filed any income proof, but the Tribunal has taken it as Rs.8,000/- per month which is excessive. He further submitted that the disability certificate relied upon by the petitioner is not issued by the District Medical Board and hence, it does not fall for consideration. But the tribunal has relied upon the same and awarded huge amounts. He further submitted that no medical bills are filed by the petitioner, but still the tribunal has awarded Rs.5,00,000/- towards the final bill of the petitioner. lt is his contention that future prospects cannot be considered in this case as the petitioner has been working as a labourer. He therefore, prayed to reduce the compensation.

¶56

Based on the above submissions, this Court frames the following points for determination:

¶57

ETD,J MACMA Nos.593-482-202¹

¶58

4

¶59

1 Whetherthe compensation^granted by the^{Tribuna! is} just and reasonable?

¶60

Whetherthe order and decree of the^{Tribunal need} any intefference?

¶61

To what relief?

¶62

Point No.1:

¶63

a) The petitioner stated to have sustained injuries in the^accident and has undergone treatment under various heads and^incurred huge expenditure. ln support of her case, she^got examined^PW2 and 3, apart from examining herself. PW1 has asserted^{from her} evidence about the injuries sustained by her and the^treatment undenruent by her.

¶64

b) A perusal of the evidence of PW2/Dr. K. R.athnakar^Rao, discloses that he worked as a Consultant Orthopedic Surgeonⁱⁿ Continental Hospitals and that the^petitioner was admitted^{in their} hospital from 17.12.2018 to 27.12.2018 and during the^{said period,} she was treated for the following injuries:- 1) Commutated^{fracture of} middle third shaft right clavicle, 2) Swelling, tenderness^{over right} lateral chest wall, 3) Right sided subcurcneous emphysema,^{4) Right} leg externally roated, 5) Right femur neck fracture,^{6) Subcutaneous} emphysema of right chest wall ribs fracture^2nd &^{gth 7) D-2, 5, 6} Vertebra fractures. He deposed that they have^{issued Ex.A3 to.A6}

¶65

ETD,J MACMA Nos.593_482_2021

¶66

5

¶67

and A8. He also deposed about the nature of treatment given to the petitioner in their hospital.

¶68

c) PW3/Shubham Sharma/Billing Executive of Continental Hospital, his evidence also discloses that the petitioner has undergone treatment in their hospital from 17.12.20,1g to 22.12.201g. He further deposed that she has paid an amount of Rs.5,00,000r towards inpatient treatment and Ex.A6 is the l.p bill issued by their hospital. He further deposed that some of the continental pharmacy outpatient bills were issued by their hospital under Ex.A9. Nothing materiar courd be ericited from the cross examination to disrodge the evidence of these two witnesses. Thus, the evidence of pW2 and 3 proves the treatment underwent by the petitioner and that she paid a bill of Rs.S,00,000/-. By adding the bifls under Ex.A9 it amounts to Rs.34,673/- which is also proved by the evidence of pW3. Hence, the same are also considered while awarding medical expenses. Thus, an amount of Rs.34,673 is awarded in addition to Rs.5,00,000/- for inpatient treatment. Further, the petitioners are entitled to the incidental expenses such as attendant charges_ Rs'10,000/-, transportation-Rs.1o,ooo/-, extra-nourishmentRs.l0,000/-, incidental expenses_Rs.1O,OOO/_, a total amount of Rs.40,000/- is awarded under the above heads.

¶69

ETD.J MACMA Nos.593-482_202i

¶70

6

¶71

d) PW4/Dr. Sulapani who was a consultant^{orthopedic surgeon} and managing director of Rajya Lakshmi^{Hospital at} Vanasthalipuram, he has issued the disability certificate^underEx.A7 stating that the petitioner sustained 60% disability^whichis permanent and partial in nature. ln his cross examination, he has admitted that he has not treated the^petitioner. A^{perusal of Ex.A7} reveals that the petitioner is suffering with 60%^{partialpermanent} disability and it is simply mentioned that the^petitioner has difficultyⁱⁿ sitting, squatting and stiffines of right shoulder.

¶72

e) in view of the injuries sustained by the^{petitioner and the} treatment underwent by her Rs.'l ,00,000/- is awarded towards^pain and suffering

¶73

f) ln Jeyarani & Another Vs. The Manager Baiai Allianz General;1 the Apex Court has held that, in case of a mason,^no docunnentary evidence can be expected. However, taking^into consideration the avocation of the deceased and the^year of^the accident being 2013, the monthly income of the deceased^couldbe reckoned at Rs.g,000/- and has also added future^{prospects. ln the} present case, the accident occurred in 2018 and since the^petitioner is aged t0 years, it is opined that Rs.9,000/- can be^{taken as the} '^{Civil Appeal Nos.43 t0-43 I t of2023}

¶74

ETD,J MACMA Nos.593 482 2027

¶75

7

¶76

income of the injured. Therefore, on a reasonabte hypothesis, her income is assessed to be Rs.9,000/- per month.

¶77

g) She has undergone inpatient treatment for a period of 10 days, she might have been taken another two months to recover. Therefore, for recovery three months is taken into consideration and thus loss of earnings is awarded for three months i.e., Rs.27,000 (Rs.9,0004 x 3).

¶78

h) with regard to loss of future earnings, the disability as deposed by PW4 and from Ex.A7 it is elicited to be GOo/o.ln view of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar2, 60% of disability as disclosed from Ex.A7 is scared down to 25olo with regard to whole body and the loss of earnings is scaled down to 10%. The petitioner is aged about 50 years. Therefore, after adding future prospects of 10o/o, monthly income would be Rs.9,800/- and the loss of future earnings is arrived at Rs.g,g00/- x 12 = 1,18,800 x10% x 13 which comes up to Rs. 1 ,54,4401-.

¶79

i) ln all, the petitioner is entitled to the following compensation

¶80

amounts:

¶81

1	Compensation underthehead 'injuries, shock,Painand suffering	1,00,000/-
2.	Lossofearnings	27000/-

¶82

2 zo r t 1ro scc l+:

¶83

d

¶84

ETO,J MACMA Nos.593_482_202 1

¶85

8

¶86

3.	Loss of future	1 54 440-
	Compensation under theheadof expenses, transport, attendant charges, extra-nourishment and other incidental	5,74,
	Total	1t3/-

¶87

j) Therefore, the compensation to which the petitioner is entiled is calculated as Rs.8,56,113/-, while the Tribunal has granted Rs.11,96,960/-.

¶88

Hence, point No.1 is answered accordingly.

¶89

Point No.2:-

¶90

ln view of the finding arrived at point No.1 , the order and decree of the Ti"ibunai need to be mociifieci reciucing the compensation from Rs.1 1,96,960/- to Rs.8,56,113t_

¶91

Point No.2 is answered accordingly.

¶92

Point No.3:-

¶93

ln the result MACMA.No.4g2 of 2021 filed by the claimant is dismissed, whiie MACMA.No.S93 ot 2021 filed by TSRTC is parUy allowed, modifying the order and Decree dated 04.02.2021 in M.v.o.P.No.Bg of 2019 passed by the chairman, Motor Accident claims Tribunat-cum-Xll Additional chief Judge, city civit court, secunderabac, by reducing the compensation from 11,g6;g60/- to 8,56,1131- urith interest @ z.s% per annum from the date of clairn r

¶94

\

¶95

ETD,' MACMA Nor.593 482 2021

¶96

9

¶97

petition till realization. However, the interest for the period of delay, if any, is forfeited. The TSRTC is directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after deducting the amount if any already deposited. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security. No costs.

¶98

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed.

¶99

SD/- MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUW REGISTRAR

/,TRUE COPY'/

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1 . The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tibunal-Cum-Xll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.

¶104

One CC to SRl. R ANURAG (SC FOR TSRTC) Advocate IOPUCI

¶105

3 One CC to SRI AJAY KUMAR MADDISETW, Advocate [OPUCI

¶106

Two CD Copies

4t,

PS1,

HIGH COURT

DATED:13/08/2025

JUDGMENT

1 ir,E s]4
t
()c
1 2 [tr tiiii
* J-
PftTr'

¶113

MACMA.No.S93 of 2A21

¶114

DTSMISSING THE MACMA.No.482/2021

¶115

PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA.No.593/Z0ZL

¶116

1
t\ d
t0

¶117

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶118

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶119

PRESENT

¶120

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

¶121

MOTOR ACCIDENT C lVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NOs^{593 & 482 0F 2021}

¶122

No. 592 OF

¶123

Between:

¶124

M/s. The T.S.R.T.C., Rep by its Regional Manager, Jubilee Bus Station, Gandhi Nagar, Nehru Nagar Colony, West Manedpally, Secunderabad,^T.S. 500026.

¶125

APPELLANT/Respondent

¶126

AND

¶127

Kethavath Hunny, Wo. Denya Naik, Age 50^years, Occ. Labour, R/o.^H. No.12-8-430/10, Lothukunta, Secunderaba

¶128

RespondenUPetitioner

¶129

B. Satynarayana @ Satyam, S/o. B. Bandigaiah, Age Major, Occ. Driver,^R/o. Thotapally, Kalwakurthy, Nagar Kurnool District, Telangana - 508324.

¶130

(Respondents No.2 herein is not necessary party in this Appeal as no relief is claimed against him.)

¶131

DENT/RESPNOENT

¶132

LANEOU

¶133

Kethavath Hunny, Wo. Denya Naik, aged 50^years, Occ. Labour R/o. H No. 12-84301 1 0, Lothukunta Secunderabad

¶134

PETITIONER/APPELLANT

¶135

AND

¶136

'l . B. Satyanarayana , Satyam, S/o. B. Bandigaiah, aged major, Occ. Driver R/o. Thotapally, Kalwakurthy, Nagarkurnool District

¶137

M/s. The TSRTC, Rep by its Regional Manager Jubilee Bus Station Gandhi Nagar, Nehru Nagar Colony, West Marredpally, Secunderabad 500 026

¶138

(Rl Not necessary party)

¶139

RESPONOENTS

¶140

. Both the Appeals filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicres Act, aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree of the chairman, Motor Accidents claims irlbunalCum-Court of the Xll Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, dt. 0410212021 in MVOP. No. 89 of 2019. ORDER: These appeals coming on for hearing, upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Appellate court and the material papers in the lult and upon hearing the arguments of sri R. Anurag, Standing counsel for TSRTC., in MACMA.No.S% 2Or1 and of Sri Ajay Kumar Maddisetty for the Appellant in MACMA.No.482 ot 2021and none appeared for the respondents in both the appeals.

¶141

That this court doth Order and Decree as follows:

¶142

1 . That the appeal MACMA.No.4B2 ot 2021filed by the claimants is be and hereby dismissed;

¶143

That the appeal MACIvlA.No.593 ot 2021 tited by the TSRTC is be and hereby partly allowed modifying the Order and Decree d|.O4.OZ.2OZ1 in MVOp.No.Sd ot 2019 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Xll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.

¶144

That the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is be and hereby reduced from Rs.1'1,96,960/- to Rs.8,56,113/- with interest @7.5o/o perannum from the date of claim petition till realization.

¶145

That the interest for the period of delay, if any is be and hereby forfeited.

¶146

That the TSRTC is directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after deducting the amount if any already deposited.

¶147