Tejawat Gangu Bhai And Another v. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation And Another

[ 32s3 ]

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI MACMA NO: 527 OF 2020 AND CROSS-OBJECTIONS No. 1 OF 2021 MACMA NO: 527 OF 2020 Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and Decree dt. 2310412019 made in MVOP. No. 310 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge) at Nizamabad. ' Between:

'1 . Director Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Represented by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

2. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Represented by its Depot Manager, Nirmal Depot, Nirmal District. (bus bearing No. TS 18 Z 0029). ,..APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS AND 1 . Tejawath Gangu Bhai and Another, Wo. Regya or Raghunath, Aged 42 years, Occ. Household, R/o. H. No. 1-88/1, Bhairapur Village, Mugpal (Mopal) Mandal, Nizamabad District.

2. Tejawath Mohan, S/o. Regya or Raghunath, Aged 22 years, Occ. Unemployee, R/o. H. No. .1-88/1, Bhairapur Village, Mugpal (Mopal) Mandal, Nizamabad District.

...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS lA NO: 3 OF 2020 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 Court of the Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal (Principal District Judge) at Nizamabad, dt.23.04.2019, made rn IVIVOP. No 3't0 of 2018, pending disposal of the above M.A.C.M.A No 528i2019, lA NO:4 OF 2020 Between:

1. Te.lawath Gangu Bhai House-hold, R/o H No Nizamabad District Wo. Regya @ Raghunath, Agecl 43 years, Occ.

1-BB/1 , Bhairapur Village, Mugpal (Mopal) Mandat, Tejawath Mohan, S/o. Regya @ Raghumnath, Unemployed, Rio. H. No. 1-88/1 , Bhairapur Village, Nizamabad District Aged 23 years, Occ.

Mugpal (Mopal) Mandal, ... PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS AND T_elangana Stat€,Road Transport Corporation, Rep, by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Rep: by its Depot Manager, Nirmal Depot, (Nirmal District) Nizamabad.

...RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated an the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioners to withdraw the deposited amount by the respondents herein before the Cou( of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Prl Distirict Judge) at Nizamabad by vacating the interim stay granted in lA.No.3 ot 2020 in MACMA No.527 of 2020 on 10-11-2020.

Counsel for the Appellants: Sri R Anurag (SC FOR TSRTC) Counsel for the Respondents: Amrutha Sanjeeva CROSS OBJECTIONS NO 1 of 2021 Memorandum of Cross Objections filed under order 41, Rule 22 of CpC against the order and Decree dt. 2310412019 made in MVOP. No. 310 of 2018 on the file of the court of the l\4otor Accidents claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge) at N izamabad.

I l

Between:

1. Tejawath Gangu Bhai W/o. Reqva @ Raohunath, Aged 43 years. Occ. House-hold, R/o. H. No. t-BB/1. dhairi-pur V'iilage, Mugfiat (Mop'ar1 nranOlr. Nizamabad District.

2. Tejawath Mohan, S/o. Regya Unemployed, R/o H. No 1-86/i, Nizamabad District @ Raghumnath. Aged 23 years Occ Bhairapur Village. Mugpal (Mo[at1 Mandat, ...APPELLANTSRESPONDENTS/CROSS OBJECTORS AND f,efa,lSana State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

Telangana State_ Road Transport Corporation, Rep: by its Depot Manager, Nirmal Depot, (Nirmal Districtl Nizamatjad.

...RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS Counsel for the Cross-Objectors: Sri Amrutha Sanjeeva Counsel for the Respondents: Sri R. Anurag (SC FOR TSRTC) The Court delivered the following COMMON JUDGMENT

v THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI M.A.C.M.A.No.527 of 2O2O AND CROSS-OBJECTIONS No.1 of 2O21 COMMON JUDGMDNT:

1.

Aggrievec b1' the Decree and order dated 23.04.2019 passed in M.V.O.P.No.ll 10 of 2018, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Princ ipal District Judge), Nizamabad, (for short, 'the Tribunal'), M.A.C.M.A.527 of 2O2O is filed by the Appellant/TSRTC seeking to allow thc Appeal by setting aside the order of the learned Tribunzrl. Also, having not satisfied with the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal, the claim petitioners in the said M.V.O.P. filed Cross Objections No. I of 2O2 I seeking enhancement ol compensation amount.

2.

For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3.

The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioners, who are the wife and son of Late Tejavath Regra @ Raghunath (hereinafter referred as 'the deceased) filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.2O,O0,000/ - on account of the death of the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 25.03.2O18. It is steited by the petitioners that on 25.03.2018 at about 3.45 p.m., when the /

MGP../ MACM,4 5 27 oI 20 )0 an.] X'obt I ot 202 t deceased along with one Banoth Vasanth Rao were going on Motorcycle Bearing No.TS-16EP-5525 on NH-44 from their Village in order to distribute wedding cards and when reached Indalwai Village 'U'turn, one RTC Bus Bearing No.TS-182-0029 belonging to Nirmal depot and which was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, lost control over the bus and dashed the motorcycle of the deceased from its behind, due to which, the deceased and Banoth Vasanth Rao felt down from the motorcycie and sustained multiple fractures to skull, fracture of left hand, fracture of right leg and grievous injuries all over the body anf, was shifted to Government General Hospital, Nizamabad and on the way to Hospital, he died.

4.

Based on a complaint, Police of Indalwai Police Station registered a case in Crime No.43 of 2018 under Sections 3O4A and 337 IPC. It is stated by the petitioners that the deceased was aged 44 years and was doing agriculture, maintaining Dairy farm and Milk business and used to earn Rs.40,000/- per month and contribute the same towards maintenance of his family. Due to his sudden death, the petitioners lost his love and affection and became destitute and hence frled a petition claiming compensation of Rs.2O,O0,000/- against the Respondent Nos-1 & 2/TSRTC'

J MAPJ :\IACMA 5 2? oI 2020 ond X-obj tof202t 5.

Respondent Nos.l&2/TSRTC filed a joint counter denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the accident occurred due to rash and negligence on part of bike rider and that the claim petition is liabre to be dismissed on the ground oi non-joinder of owner and insurer of the bike bearing No.TS_ 16EP-5525 as necessary parties and that the compensation claimed is excess and exorbitant and hence prayed to dismiss the claim against it.

6.

Based on the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal had framed the following issues for conducting trial:_ Whether the accident took place due to rash and. negligent diuing of ?SR?C Bus Baring No.TS_|BZ_O02T bg tts diuer causing death of Tejawath Regya @ Regl,runath?

L.

Whet her the petitioners are entitled_ for compensation? If so, to Luhat extent and from tuhom?

IL IIL To tuhat relief.> 7.

Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioners, petitioner No.l was examined as pWl, got examined pW2 and got marked Exs.Al to A I 1 on their behalf. On behalf of respondents/RTC, RWI was examinecl.

M(;I-J MACMA.527 ol )0)0 ontl xabj tol202t 8.

After considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition of the petitioners by awarding compensation of Rs. 13,70,OO0/- aiong with interest @ 7 '5o/o per annum from the date of petition till date of deposit/ realization payable by Respondent Nos. 1 & 2/RTC. Aggrieved by the same' the respondents in the said M.V.O.P.No'310 of 2OI8 Iiled M.A.C.M.A.No .527 of 2O2O and the claim petitioners hled Cross Objections petition No. 1 of 2O2 1.

g.

Heard arguments of Sri R.Anurag, learned Standing Col-t""tt for Appellants-TSRTC as well as Sri Amrutha Sarrjeeva, learned counsel for the Respondents/Cross-objectors.

10. The contentions of the learned counsel for appellants/TsRTC as stated in the grounds of Appeal are that the learned Tribunal erred in believing the evidence of PW2leye witness; erred in not making the owner and insurer of the motorcycle as necessary parties to the claim petition; erred in taking the income of the deceased @ Rs. 10,000/- per month in the absence of income proof; erred in awarding 257o towards future prospects; erred in awarding excess compensation under all heads and further contended that as per Exs.Al & A2, the accident occurred only due to the \ \

'/^ MGP.J MACMA 527 o12020 @d ^'abJ I ol2o2l contributory negligence of the deceased. Hence, prayed to allow the Appeal by setting aside the order of the learned Tribunal.

11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/crossobjectors conrended that though the petitioners had established their case by cogent and convincing evidence and also by relying upon documents marked under Exs.A7 to A I 1 , but the learned Tribunal, without considering the same, had taken meager amount towards income of the deceased and calculated compensation which is inadequate and hence prayed to allow the cross-objections petition by enhancing the compensation amount.

12. Now thc points that emerge for consideration are, (i) Whether the order passed bA the leamed Tribunal requires interference of this Court?

(i) Whether the cross-objectors are entitled for enhancement of compen sation?

Points13. This Court has perused the entire evidence and documents filed by both sides. Petitioner No.1, wife of the deceased, was examined as PW 1 and Iiled an affidavit in lieu of her chief_ examination reiterating the contents made in the claim application and also deposed about the manner of accident, injuries sustained by her husbancl and death of the deceased. She also stated that I

MGPJ MACMA.527.f2020atul x'obi t o[ 202 t she incurred an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards transportatlon of dead body and funeral expenses' She further deposed that prior to accident, the deceased was aged 44 years, used to do Agriculture by raising paddy, maize and other commercial crops and was also having buffaloes and sold Milk of about 30 liters per day and used to earn Rs.40,O00/- per month' As she is not an eye witness to the incident, she got examined PW2, who accompanied thedeceasedonthedateofaccidentonMotorcyclebearingNo.TSl6EP-5525. He deposed that on the date of accident, when himself and deceased were going on motorcycle bearing No'TS-16EP-5525 on NH44 and when reached Indalwai Village U turn, an RTC Bus came in a rash and negligent manner from backside and dashed the motorcycle of the deceased. As a result, himself and the deceased fell down and the deceased died on the way to Hospitai'

14. During his cross-examination, he admitted that on the date of accident, the motorcycle was driven by the deceased and he also denied the suggestion that the accident took place due to the negligence of the deceased as he suddenly took 'U' turn without any indicator.

15. In support of oral evidence, the petitioners got marked Exs.Al to A11 on their behalf. Dx.Al- FIR discloses that Police of Indalwai Police Station registered a case in Crime No'43 of 2Ol?

L{GP.J ntA(:MA i27 of 2020 and X-obJ I of 2021 under Sections 304-A and 337 IPC, conducted investigation and filed charge sheet under Ex.A2 against the driver of the TSRTC Bus bearing No.TSl8ZOO29. Ex.A3 is the inquest panchanama. Ex.A4 is the Post-mortem examination report wherein, the cause of death of the deceased is shown as "Head Injury with subdural Hemorrhage Brain." Ex.AS is the Crime details form. Ex.A6 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector report which discloses that the occurrence of accident was not due to any mechanical defects in the vehicle. Ex.A7 is the Pattedar pass book of the deceased. Ex.A8 is the Form 1-B issr-red by Tahsildar of Mugpal Mandal, Nizamabad District showing that the deceased is the owner of the lands to an extent of Ac.0.2000 gts in Sy.No.73/vuP2, Ac.0.2OO0 gts in Sy.No.92/EPl and Ac. 1.0300 gts in Sy.No.94 . Ex.A9 are the cash receipts issued by Palde Narsaiah and Pasi Gangaiah & Company, Nizamabad. Ex.A 10 is the letter issued by Gram Panchayat, Bhairapur, declaring that the deceased is having 7 Buffaloes.

16. On the oLher hand, the respondents/TSRTC got examined the driver of crime RTC Bus bearing No.TS- 182-0029 as RWl. During his cross-examination, he deposed that he gave an application against the rider of motor bike stating that he took 'U' turn without any indication, but he did not hle copy of the said application before the Court below.

MGI''J MA(:MA 527 of 2020 ottj X-oU I of)021

17. Therefore, from the evidence of PW2, an eye witness to the incident, coupled with the documentary evidence under Ex.A2charge sheet, it is made clear that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of RTC Bus bearing No.TSl8Z-OO2g which resulted into the death of the deceased. Therefore, the contention of the learned Standing counsel for appellants that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the motorcycle and the claim petition is liabie to be dismiSsed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties to the petition, is unsustainable as there is no contribltory negligence on part of the rider of the motorcycle. in the alleged accident. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the finding arrived at by the learned Tribunal in this regard.

18. Coming to the quantum of compensation, it is the contention of the learned counsel for appellants/RTC that the learned Tribunal erred in taking the income of the deceased @ Rs. 10,000/- per month in the absence of income proof.

19. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/cross-objectors contended that though the claim petitioners had established their case by adducing necessary documentarlr evidence under Exs.A7 to A 1 1, but the learned Tribunal, without considering the same, had taken meager amount

I MCP.J tUcMA r; oI2020ond x-oht I ol )D I towards the income of the deceased. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention that the petitioners, being the legal heirs of the deceased, can cultivate the land even after the death of the deceased. Moreover, the petitioners have not filed any evidence sirowing the monthly income of the deceased @ Rs.40,OO0/-. Hence, the Tribunal, taking into consideration the agricultural land which is in the name of deceased and considering the fact that the deceased used to do Milk business with the 7 buffaloes which he had in possession of, fixed his monthly earnings @ Rs. IO,OOO/- per month. This Court considers the same to be reasonable and L not I inclined to inte r fere with the same \ \ 20.

A perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the learned Tribunal, considering the age of deceased as 46 years as per Bxs.A3 & 44, awarded 25o/o towards future prospects as the deceased is self-employed, applied relevant multiplier and calculated loss of dependency which arrived at Rs. 13,O0,00O/-. Apart from this, the learned Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.40,0OO/- towards consortium, Rs. 15,000/- toward s funeral expenses and Rs. i5,000/- towards loss of estate, which this Court finds it reasonable and requires no interference. Hence, the petitioners were awarded with a total compensation of Rs. 13,7O,000/- along with interest @ Z.So/o per annum payable by I

IO MGPJ MA(L|A i27 of 2020 ond X obt I of202t both the respondents 1 & 2/TSRTC. This Court do not find any reason to interfere with the said finding of the learned Tribunal which is in proper perspective.

21. In the result, M.A.C.M.A.No.527 of 2O2O- frled by TSRTC, as well as X-Objections petition No.1 of 2021- filed by the claimants, shall accordingly stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

22. Miscelianeous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed Sd/- P. CH. NAGABHUSHAMBA ASSI T NT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII I / ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Motor Accidents claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge) at Nizamabad (with records. if anv) 2 bne CC to S;i R Anuras (SC for TSRTC) IO?qC]

5. One CC to Sri Amrutha -sinjeeva' Advocate [OPUC]

4. Two CD Copies VtI/gh Hr

HIGH COURT DATED: 24112t2024 1 HE sjrar ( t> f,oo 05 ilrfl 2ffi vza Ko.,v jl ^* COMMON JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.No.52'7 of 2020 AND CROSS-OBJ trlo. 1 OF 2021 DISMISSING BOTH MACMA AND X-OBJECTIONS WITHOUT COSTS G.da \i-_ iffi /

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR

AT HYDT#EABIITE OF TELANGANA TUESDAY, THE TWENTY F.q-UJ]H DAY OF DECEMBER TWo THoUSAND AND rwe,rr"?o"u-*"-','"

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI MACMA NO:5 27 0F 2020 AND SS-OBJECTI oNS No.10F cRo MACMA NO:527 0F 2020 Between:

' flf:H|rrl",,f,[t*%;:f ,?S:i,J#nsport corporation, Represented by 1s

2. Telangana State Road rr,r,nad",,rviimlioffi Nll;,:?rD:3t.,:i8?!"x3i;,["ft ::]T,is jJri,3,r"ro, AND ...APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS f Tejawath Ganqu E 'il":lj#&,.#!i:[tL,Iiif lfr 'i"i:,[i',:,[:fl :;,ru,E'iifi i$;"ii^is,Xfr a Tejawath Mohan - Hdil,,,,lsi,$,,t n "f; ff 31i,,?!,,5i,?l$llfl?; flflEi,, ii,"l3i'."n " fl""?

,.. RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS Appear fired under section 173 0f Motor Vehicles Act against the order and Decree dt' 23/04/2019 made in Mvop. No 310 of 20180n the fire of the court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (principal Dlstrict Judge) at Nizamabad cRO SSOBJEC TIONs NO. 1ot2 Between:

s t;jf#:&,5ffi fi Ifl .y.,;,;,1.gil:,,$,1fl9,1,?"1,,ij,,ig:i,fl,,"J".,i1i:,"o0?i:

-/ Regya @ Raghumnath. Aged 23 years, Occ 1-88/1, Bhairapur Village, Mugpal (Mopal) Mandal, Q Tejawath Mohan Unemployed, R/o Nizamabad District S/o.

H. No ...APPELLANTSRESPONDENTS/CROSS OBJECTORS AND Q. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Rep: by its Managing Direclor, ' Musheerabad Hyderabad.

4. Telanqana State Road Transport Corporation, Rep: by its Depot Manager, - t Nrrmal Depot, rNirmal District) Nizamabad. ...RESPONDEN'I-S/APPELLANTS Memorandum of Cross Objections filed under order 41 . Rule 22 of CPC against the order and Decree dt. 2310412019 made in MVOP No. 310 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidehts Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge) at Nizamabad.

This appeal and Cross Ob.lections coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal and Cross Objections the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the case and upon hearing.the arguments of Sri K.Anurag, Advocate for the Appellants in MACMA and Respondents in Cross Objections and of Sri Amrutha Sanjeeva, Advocate for the Respondent in MACtvlA and Cross Objectors in Cross Objections This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No 527 of 2020 filed by the TSRTC be and hereby is dismissed;

2. That the Cross Objections filed by the Claimants be and hereby are dismissed; and

3. That there shalr be no order as to costs in this appeal. Sd/. P. CH. NAGABHUSHAMBA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR N.h,,;i ICER //TRUE COPY// ---.----...- To,

1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge) at Nizamabad

2. Two CD Copies w

HIGH COURT DATED: 24111t12024 COMMON DEI3REE MACMA.No.5127 ot 2020 AND CROSS-OBJ No. 1 OF 2021 DISMISSING BOTH MACMA AND X.OBJECTIONS WITHOUT COSTS Lt CrP(<o S.@ L