The T.S.R.T.C. v. R. Neelima

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO M.A.C.M.A. NOS:557 0F 2022 AND 427 0F 2023 M.A.C.M.A. NO: 557 OF 2022 Appeal under Section 1 73 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Award and Decree dated 17-05-2022 made in M.V.o.P.No.953 0f 2016 0n the file of the court of the Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum-chief Judge, city'civil court, Hyderabad. Between:

R Neelima, W/o. Late Narender,.Aged. 32 years, Occ. Household R Lakshmi Pranathi, D/o. Late Narender, Aged 11 years, Occ. Nil R Sai Charan, S/o. Late Narender, Aged 10 years, Occ. Nil J R Ram Charan, S/o. Late Narender, Aged B years, Occ. Nil R Prashanthi, W/o. R Prasad, Aged 56 years, Occ. Household R Prasad, S/o. Ramalingam, Aged 64 years, Occ. Nil I Petitioners No 2 to 4 are minors reptd. By their Mother and Guardian, the Petitioner No. t herein l All are Rl/o. H.No. 4-9-649, Flat No G3, Sri Swathi Residency, Vinayaka Nagar Colony, Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District Presently Rl/o. H.No. 16-4-7|C, Malakpet, Hyderabad

...Petitioners

AND

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

2. The TSRTC, reptd. by its Depot fVlanager, Hayathnagar-l Depep, Hayathnagar, 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, fanOa6ur Village, Chandir lVtandal, \q1gof{a District - 543001 pielentiv nio. H. trto.i-s-+ol 1 89, P riyadarsh i ni Colo ny, H ayath nagar, R' R' District (Driver of the TSRTC Bus bearing No.AP28Z-1858)

...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants :

Sri Kota Subba Rao Counsel for the Respondent No 1 & 2 :

Sri R Anurag Standing Counsel for TSRTC M.A.C.M.A. NO: 427 OF 2023 Appeal under Section I 73 of' the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and Decree dated 17-05-2022 made in M.V.O.P.No.953 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

Between:

'1 . 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 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, Vinavakanaqar p.op1V, Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District, Presenily ruo. H.tto.t'O-+-ZlC] Malakpet, Hyderabad .. .Respondents / Petitioners Pt. Sathiah, S/o. Gandaiah, Aged about 53 years, Occ, Driver, Native of j-132, Kandapur 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 Anurag Standing Counsel for TSRTC Counsel for the Respondent No 1 to 6:

Sri P Rama Krishna Reddy The Court delivered the following Common Judgment :

a THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAI\{AVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO M.A.C.M.A.Nos.5570f 2022 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").

2.

For the sake of convenience, the parties are l-rereinaJter 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 deceasedwasproceedingonhismotorcyclebearingregistration No.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 Highway-65, one T.S.R.T.C. bus bearing registration No'AP-28Z 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,fractures The deceased was shifted and other injuries all over the body'

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 undergoing treatment at Yashoda Super Specialty Hospital' Malakpet

J 3(ii) The Police Hayathnagar registered a case in Cr.No.45 of 2O16 under Sections 337 and 304-A of IPC against the driver of the said TSI?TC bus bearing No.TS-2BZ- 1858. 4.

Before t.re Tribunal, respondents No. I and 2 by filing a counter opposed the claim petition denying the averments with respect to date, time, place, manner of occurrence ol accident, rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver ol RTC bus and the death. of the deceased due to injuries suffer:ed in the accident. Thev pleaded that the accident occurred only due to negligence an<l mistake of the deceased. Further, they denied the age, healtLL condition, income of the deceased. Further, it is pleaded that the petitioners are making attempts to take advantage of social justice scheme by impleading the bus in an accident, in which the bus is not involved, though the. deceased died due to his or.r,n fault. Accordingly, prayed to di smiss the claim petition.

5.

Respondent No.3, driver of the said bus, filed a counter denying rash and negligent driving on his part being the cause for accident arid death of the deceased. He pleaded 1.hat he is holding valid and subsisting driving license to drive a heavy passenger 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 that the petitioners have not filed aly document to prove the relationship with the deceased arrd the age, income, occupation of the deceased, as such, denied the petitioners entitlement to claim compensation of Rs. 1,O0,OO,OOO/-.

5(i) The positive case of the Respondent No.3 is that on 13.01.2016, the bus according to T.S.R.T.C. Statistical and Ticket Account Record, left the Depot at 1 4.45 p.m., and returned back to the Depot on the same day at 21.3O hours after completing the scheduled trips. The Service Conductor remitted day's collection vide Total Remittance Report on 13.01.2018 at 22.27.12 seconds at Depot Office. In the circumstances, the respondent No 3 pleaded that he is not responsible for the accident ald that the deceased himself is responsible for the accident. Lastly, he pleaded that as per police complaint given by the brother of the deceased, one driver of unknou,n RTC bus, has driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the bike of the deceased. In spite of such clear narration, it is alleged that the petitioners colluded for wrongfui enrichment and to cause wrongful loss to the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and to tarnish the career of Respondent 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 to the dismissecl r.l.ith costs.

6.

Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the foliowing issues Whether the pleaded accident had occurred resulting in death of deceased R. Narender, due to rash and negligent driving of TSRTC bus bearing No.TS-2BZ1858, by its driver? I Wtrether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, at what quantum and what is tht: liability of the respondents?

111 To What relieP 7.

To prov,: their case, petitioners got examined P.Ws.1 to 3 ald got marl-red Exs.A1 to A25. On behalf of the r:espondent Nos.1 and 2, RW. 1 was examined and got marked Ex B 1 FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL ON ISSUE No.I:

8.

The Tritrunal observed that as per the contents of Exhibit A1-FIR, it is the police vvho informed the brother of lhe deceased (complainant) that his brother met with an accident upon being hit by an RTC) bus- PW2's evidence is that he noted the number of the bus as AP 28 Z 1858, gave his details to the relatives of the injured, rvho were gathered at the aqr:irlent site. In case, I

such is the case, there is no reason why the number of RTC bus is not written in the FIR, which was lodged on 14.0i.2016 at 14.00 hours i.e. . after gap of almost 15 hours. The version of PW2 is also not believable for the reason that as per Exhibit A2charge sheet, the Station House Offrcer made enquiry with the Depot Manager about the buses which were plied between Hayathnagar-l Depot and Hayathnagar Bus-stand on 13.01.2O16 between 10.OO p.m. and 1O.30 p.m. In case, PW2 was an eyewitness to the accident ald had truly noted down the number of the bus, there would be no reason for the Station House Officer to make the enquiry with the Depot Manager of Hayathnagar - [ Depot about the buses and the drivers who were piying the buses, in the route where the accident took place.

9.

The Tribunal further observed that in this fact situation, another point to be noted is that not just the buses from Hayathnagar Depot, but buses from all the depots of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh would be plying near the accident site at the materia-l time of accident. There is no ground to believe that it is the bus, which is alleged to be involved in the accident and it is the accused driver who has caused the accident with rash and negligent driving since indefinite number of buses would be :

i

plying at the accident site on National Highwat,-65. The probability' ol- involvement of the alleged TSRTC bus is further rendered doubtful on account of the fact that as per Ex.A-1, the bus was parked in the depot when the accident took place Therefore, though this Tribunal is not inclined to believe the version of P\['2, since the petitioners are claiming cornpensation under social welfare legislation, r,vhere the evidencc has to be examined on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and not the parameter of beyond reasonable doubt, the involvement of the alleged bus i.e., AP- 282-1858 is taken to be true

10. The Tribunal further observed that the social welfare legislation cannot be taken advantage of for u,rongs committed by individuals due to bad habits. Exhibit 81 shows when the Ambulance rr:ached the accident site to transport the injured to the nearest hospital, the injured was noted to be in an inebriated ccndition and in unconscious state. This fact is confirmed b.r Exhibit A5 Postmortem examination report, u,herein, the doctor who conducted autopsy recorded presence of 30 c.c. brc,wn colour liquid in the abdomen of the deceased that too after tu'o days of the accident on 15.01.2016. As much as 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 was under the influence of alcohol in inebriated condition cannot be ruled out. Therefore, the liability for occurrence of the accident is found to be 5O% each. Accordingly, issue No.1 is answered. I 1. Pointing out the observations made by the Tribunal with regard to negligence aspect, learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners in M.A.C.M.A No.557 of 2022 vehemently argued that the Tribunal without appreciating the oral and documentar5z evidence property, had wrongly held that the accident occurred due to the contributory negligence of the deceased and driver of bus to extent of 50%. That the Tribunal failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence of the Appellants/ petitioners under Ex.Al to Al2 corroborated by the oral evidence of the independent eyewitness (PW2) which clinchingly establish that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC Bus bearing No.AP2SZ 1858

12. Learned counsel for the appellants / petitioners further submitted that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that PW2 is an independent eyewitness whose hotel is located just opposite to place of the accident and his presence at the place of accident is It

quite natural and his evidence is unshaken in the crossexamination 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

l0 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 suppressed the documenlarSr evidence and intentiona'Ily got 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]failedtoappreciatethefactthatthe contents 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

1l 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:

1725(SC) in the case of Bimlr Devi and Himchal Road Transport Oorporation 2OO9 ACJ others Vs.

and others.

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

1994 ACJ 993 (SC) in the case of Ha;i Zainullah Khan (dead) by LRs Vs. Nagar I\{ahapalika, Allahabad.

(RAJ) in the case of Rajasthan Corporation Vs. Satrtosh ald I 200t AIHC 3472 Road Transport o thers.

2001ACJ 1273 (SC) in the case of La-xmibai Vs Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation.

AIR 1999 (SC) 144 1 in the case of Vidhvadar Vs Nlanikrao and another.

AIR 1966 (SC) 629 in the case ol Atyam Veeraraju and others Vs. Venkanna ald others.

2013 ACJ 2141 (SC) in the case of Jijtt Kuruvilla and others Vs. Kunjujamma Mohan and others.

2023 ACJ 2578 (Bomb) in the case of Platima Hari Gaonker and others Vs. Deepak Singh and others. lO. 2Ol9(2) ALD 390 (APDB) in the case of P. Suneela and others Vs. Shaik Kamal and another.

2022 ACJ 2OO3(SC) in the case of Janabai Vs. ICICI Lcmbard General Insurance Company Ltd.

t2

17. On the other hand, learned counsel for appellant/TsRTc 1n M.A.C.M.A No.427 of 2023 has vehemently contended that the Tribunal committed irregularity in holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing No.AP-2BZ- 1B5B without there being any acceptable evidence on record. The Tribunal ought to have appreciated the fact that there was no such accident at all occurred on 13.01.2016 at about 10.30 PM near Bawarchi Hotel with bus bearing No.AP-2BZ- 1858, there is no proof to that effect. The Tribunal ought to have appreciated the fact that the deceased was under the influence of alcohol and died on his own fault, there was no such accident occurred at all ald the respondents/ petitioners herein have made attempts to take advantage of social justice scheme by wrongfully impleading the bus in an accident.

18. Learned counsel for appellants/TSRTC further contended that the Tribunal ought to have appreciated the fact that the complaint given to the Police does not mention about the Bus number and it mentions that the deceased brother received a call from Police that an accident occurred, therefore, implicating the bus bearing No.AP-2BZ- 1 858 in the accident has no relevance. The Tribunal erred in believing the evidence of PW.2

li \\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 contendecl that the Tribunal ought to have appreciated the fac1. that as per Statistical and Ticket Account Record (STAR), the bus bearing No.AP 2BZ- 1358 was parked into the Depot by 22.2:i hours and whereas the accident a-lleged to be occurred at 10. 30 P. M. , as such, the ca,se registered against the appellants herein is for wrongful gain to claim compensation amount. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the order of the Tribunal FINDINGS OF THIS COURT REGARDING NEGLENCE ASPECT:

20. While ,jiscussing the issue No. 1 , the Tribunal did not consider that PW2 is an independent eyewitness wh<.,se evidence is that he is the proprietor of Jai Bharath Hotel, Hayathnagar and the accirlent occurred opposite to the hotel. So. his hotel is Iocated just opposite to place 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.1 to 3. In the cross-examination he stated that hotel timings are from 6.OO a.m. to I 1.30 p.m., ald that the distance between Jai Bharath Hotel and Bawarchi Hotel is about 200 feet. He further stated that there was no public in Jai Bharath Hotel at 10.30 p.m. and that he was not in Jai Bharath Hotel, but in front of Bawarchi Hotel after taking tea. PW.2 denied the suggestion that the accident occurred due to intoxicated condition of the deceased who himself caused the accident with his own negligence.

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

I5 22.

The T'ribunal failed to see that immediateiy after the accident, th.e deceased \rras taken to Sunrise Hospital, Hayathnagar by 108 Ambulance and there is no mention in the causality pr,:scription dated 74.O1.2016 issued by Sunrise Hospital, that the deceased was in drunken stage or there is any smell of Alcohol and also there is no mention about the drunken stage in the rnedical record under Ex A9, death summary issued by Yashoda Hospital, Malakpet, Hyderabad, and thus, the Tribunal had wronglv held that the deceased was in drunken stage and contributed to the accident to the extent of 5O7o without there being any evidence.

23. As per trxhibit AI-FIR, the accident occurred when an unknown bus had hit the deceased when he u,,as proceeding on his bike near Ban,archi Hotel on 13.01.2O16 at 22.30 p.m. As per Exhibit 42 Charge Sheet, the driver of the RTC bus as well as the Depot Malager are charged under Section 304 A and 2O1 of 1.P.C. A irerusal of the impugned Award goes to show that according to the investigation done by the police, the accident was caused by the Respondent No.3, who has driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the bike of the deceased, ancl LW.4 A. Dhanraj and L.W.5 Athukuri Janardhan are the eyeu,itnesses to the accident and their evidence reveals

t6 that the bus bearing registration No.AP-282-1858 dashed the two-wheeler on 13.01.2018 at 22.3O hours. The Depot Manager has given contradictory reports about the RTC buses plying in the route and it is deemed that she has tried to suppress the evidence, therefore, charged under Section 2Ol of I.p.C. 24 . Exhibit A4 is the inquest report. wherein, the panchas opined that the deceased died due to injuries sustained in a road traffic accident upon being hit by the RTC bus. As per Exhibit A5-Postmortem Examination Report, the deceased died due to head injury on 15.O1.2016 at 15.5O hours. The postmortem report reveals presence of 30 C.C., brown colour liquid, no specific smell and mucusa normal. As per trxhibit A6Motor Vehicles Inspector's Report, mechanical defect is not the cause of the accident.

25. The driver of the RTC bus got examined as RW1. RW1 deposed that the bus driven by him i.e., AP 282-1858 was not involved in the accident and was not plying on the road at the time of the accident. As per Statistical and Ticket Account Record (STAR), the bus was parked inside the Depot by 22.25 hours. The total tickets remittance report was generated at 22.21.12 seconds, whereas, the accident occurred at 22.30 hours. As per 108 service record, the call about accident was

t7 received about 10.33 p.m. If the contention of the driver is believable, no one is prevented him to produce Statistical and Ticket Account Record (STAR) belore the Court but he did not do so. The !-ribunal only basing on the oral evidence came to the conclusron that there is negligence of 5O% each on the part of the driver of the bus arld the deceased. In the crossexamination .RW- I stated that there is sufficient security at the entrance of Hayathnagar Depot round the clock. The Security Guards maintain a register noting down the date ald time of entry and exit of all vehicles. When the vehicle is handed over, the driver gt:ts 1og sheet and the conductor wil I be given Statistical and Ticket Account Record (STAR) ald MTD 141. Respondents did not produce any piece of evidence with reference to the above issues.

26. The rescondents/RTC contended that the deceased was under the influence of alcohol and died on his own fault and there u,as no riuch accident occurred to all. Having pleading so, they have not taken any steps to prove the same. Moreover, as stated supra, the Tribunal had wrongly given undue weightage to Ex.Bl witl-r regard 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 r,vas under the

l8 influence of Alcohol. As per pME report, when there is no evidence with regard to Alcohoi in the dead body of the deceased, how the Tribunal came to conclusion that the deceased had in drunken condition and fix the contributory negligency.

27.

Learned counsel for the appellants/ petitioners has relied upon the Bimladevi,s CASE (1 "t supra) wherein the Supreme Court held that:

"(15) In a situation of this nature, the Tibunat has ightlg taken a holisttc uietu of the matter. It taas necessary to be bome in mincl that stict proof of an accident caused bg a partianlar bus in a partianlar manner moA not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merelg to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilitgThe standard of proof begond reasonable doubt could not haue been applied. For the said. purpose, the High Court shoultl haue taken into consid.erotion the respectiue stoies set forth bg both the porties.

16. The judgment of the High Court to a great extent is based. on conjectures and surunises. Wltile hotding that the police might haue implicated the respond.ents, no rea.son hns been assigned in support thereof. No mateial brought on record. has been 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 he did not mention the bus number in the complaint. The evidence on record clearly proves that the accident had occurred

t9 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 upon the Hasib's case (2"d supra) wherein the Supreme Court 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 rtrst informcttion 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 for contradicti.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 seeking corroboratiorr of the testimony P of P.W. 1O from the F. I. R. of which he ,.ua.s tot the maker.

In the case on hand, the contention of the respondents is that the FIR does not contain the bus number. So, involvement of the bus in the said accident does not arise. As per the above judgment, the principal object of the first information report from the point of view of the information is to set the criminal law in motion and from the point of view of the investigating authorities is to obtain information about the alleged criminal activity so as to be able to take suitable steps for tracing and bringing to book the guilty party: The police after thorough investigation filed charge sheet against the Bus driver. Though there is no bus number in FIR, it is reflected in the chargesheet as Bus No.AP 282 1858. So, mere non mention of Bus number in the FIR, does not vitiate the entire episode. Learned counsel for the appeilants/petitioners has relied 29.

upon the Haji's case (3.d supra) wherein the Supreme Court held that:

"9. The Tribunal ond the High Court rejected the uersion of AbduL Kholique pimarily on the ground that tLLere utas no corroboration to his testimonA. We are of the uieut that the courts belou-t were not justified in disbelieuing the testimong of Abdul Khalique. He toas a disinterested uitness who utas hauing tea in a restaurant ot distance of about 15/2O feet from the place of occurrence. There is nothing on the record to shotu that he was trying to help the claimants in ony manner or LDos not a truthful tuitness. On the other hand, the Nagar Mahapalika I

ll a produced before the Tibunal the diuer of the uehicle and an Assrsf ant Engineer uho u.tere its employees. Both u-tere interested uitnesses. The Nagar Mahap ctlik ct did not proaluce euen a single independent uitness to sllpport its uersion. The Tibunal ond the High Coutt fell into patent effor in preferring the euidence of ttuo tuholly interested ruilnesses to that of Abdul Khalique uthr,t uas an independent u.titness and uthose presence on the spot could 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 of respondents. PW.2 was a disinterested witness who rvas in front of a Bawarchi Hotel after having tea, ald he lvas at a distance of about 200 fe:et from the piace of occurrence altd he was an independent witness and his presence on the spot could not be doubted

30. Learned counsei for the appellants/ petitioners has relied upon the Rajasthan State Road Tralsport Corporation case (4thsupra) wh,:rein the Rajasthal High Court held that: "Both tt\e emplogees of Corporation are interested rultnesse,s cLnd the Tnbunal nghtlg did not rely on their euidence."

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 independent evidence.

31. Learned counsel for the appeltants/petitioners has relied upon Lakshmibai's case (Str. supra) wherein the Supreme Court held that:

"6. The Tribunal found that the respondent did not produce copies of the log sheet ond control charts to shou that the bus in question LUas not plied on thot road on th-edate of the accident and the said bus u)as not inuolued. Thus, on a proper appreciation of euidence, the Tibunal was quite justified in recording a finding that the said bus utas inuolued in the accident. But ue find thot the approach of the High Court uos urong in appreciating the euidence inasmuch as it uas technical 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 security guard report or Statistical and Ticket Account Record (STAR) arrd MTD 141 etc. Thus, on appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal was not entirely justified in recording a finding that there was negligence on the part of the deceased as well as on RW. 1

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

-J "16. Wrcre a parta to the suit does not appear into the u,itness box and slate.s his ou)n co.se on oath and does not. offer himself t<> be cross-examined bg the other side, a presuntption tlould arbe that the case set up bg him is not coffect os has been hel,7 in a scies of decisions passed by uaious High Courts. 'Ihe Allahabad High Court in Arjun Singh u. Virender Nath, AII? 1971 Allahabad 29 held that tf a partg abstains from ent\?ing the Luitness box, it tuould giue ise io an in"ference aduerse against him. Similartg, a Di.uision Bench of the Punjc.b ond Haryana High Court in Bhaguan Da.ss u. Bhishan Chand, AIR 1974 htnj and Har 7, riretu a presumptrcn underSection 114 of the Euid.ence Act rrgoinst a partA Luhc did not enter into uitness box."

In the czrse on hand, RW-2 did not enter into u.itness box for the reasons best known to her and her evidence was eschewed.

J.f Learned counsel for the appeUants/ petitioners has relied upon Jiju Kuruvilla,s case (Bth supra) wherein the Supreme Court held that "5- The a-fcresaid euidence, Exh- A5, clearlg suggests that the deceased ltad taken liquor but on the basis of tlrc same. no definite ftruling can be gtuen that the deceased u.,as iiuing the car rashlu and negligently at tlte time of accid_ent. Ttte n.,ere 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 indepenclent egewitness. PW.3, F.l.R., Exh.Aj, charge_sheet, Exh. 44. ttnd F.[. statenLent, Dxh. Bl, are on record."

In the case on hand also, Doctor said that there was 3O CC of brown color liquid with no specific smell and mucous of normal consistency in the stomach of the deceased. Doctor did not express that the said iiquid is related to the alcohol or some other drug. There is no FSL Report or any other record regarding contents of alcohol or some other drug. Even if it is assumed that the deceased had taken liquor but on the basis of the same, no definite hnding can be given that the deceased was driving the motorcycle rashly and negligently in drunken condition at the time of accident. As such, the Tribunal erred in arriving that the deceased was also negligent in driving his motorcycle.

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

" 17. Insofar as the second point for d.etermination is concerned, at the outset, it is necessary to note that the burden is on the insurance compana to establish breach of the term_s ancl conditions of the insurance policg. As regards the diuer being under the influence of atcohol, there is no euid,ence to suslain lhrs contention. The F.l.R. does rekr to the diuer being under the inJluence of alcohol. Houteuer, thot, bA itse$ is not sufficient to dis charge the burden. No ttitnesses tuere examined, and no elfort LUas made to establish that the alcohol limits exceeded the prescibed limits. Based_ on such a casual stotement in the F I,! .

"the fundamental breach of the

l5 teflrls ct,1d condittons of the tnsurance policy cannot be inferrecl. '

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 the prescribed lirnits. As such, the contention of the respondents does not hold water.

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

"21. The reasonfor disbeLieuing the lncident appears to Lte thot if reolly .PW2 lns seen the incident, he utould haue deJlnitelg infonned the police about the uehicle number and the same u-.'ould hcLue found place in the First Information Repoft, which u)as senl three dctgs after the incident. But it is to be noted Lrcre that though there is a delag of about three doys in sending the F.I.R., to the Court, but the First Infonnation Repotl utas giuen on the next dag at 2.OO p.m. The.fantlg members of the injured utould haue been more concented tuith the health d the injured rather than informing the police about lhe accident. In cases of tl'Lis nature, one cannot Jlnd fctult Luith tlle deldlt in lodging the report, tuhich in our uietu is also not abnormal.

Since the infonnant, uho lodged the report, is not on ege u'itness to the incident and his source of information is the infttnnation gathered from the scene, non-me,ntioning of the outo nurtber cannot be found fault. The auennents ;n the chctrge sl-teet, indicate that PW2 was examined ktnq ctfter lodging of the report, i.e.

offence after registeing the cime. When the anstuers elicited in the cross examination of PW2, Luere to the effect that he noted down the auto number and informed the same to the police, one cannot find fault witll the police in tracing out the uehtcle.

22. The argument of the leamed Coun-sel for the Insurance Compang is that when the euidence of pW2 in the cross examinatton is to the effect that the auto dashed ogainst the motorcycle and uanished from the accident site, it uould. be dfficult for him to remember the auto number- It b urged tltot since the First lnformation Report is silenl as to the inuoluement of the auto and hauing regard to the fact that the auto wos not damaged, pleads that auto as a cime uehicle uas set up at a later point of time23. It ts to be noted that hauing elicited an ansu.ter from pW2 that the auto got uanished from the site afier the incid.ent, there uas no necessitg for the Counsel for the In_surance Compang to ask him os to u.thether he noted doun the auto number.

To the question as to uthether he noted down the auto number, the uitness positiuelg stotes that he has noted doun the auto number and intimated the same to the police- He hotueuer ightLg states that he does not remember whether the auto number tuas mentioned in the statement, since the First Information Report uas not giuen bg PW2, but the brother of the deceased, uLLto lodged the report basing on the informatton furntshed. bg PW2- Euen in the charge-sheet, the brother of the deceased, who lodged the report, u)as not shoutn as an eAeu.titness to the incident- Onlg PW2 and ttuo others namely Md. Ishaq Ali and Md. Azmoth u-tere shotun as an eye-witnesses fo the incident. Therefore, the presence of PW2 at the site and he witnessing the incident cannot be doubted.

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 it are incorrect. Firstlg, if the uersion of PW2 ruith regard to he noting doutn the uehicle number ond infonning the same trt the poltce is doubted, nothtng preuented the Insurance Compartg to confront PW2 tuith his earlier statement. The In-suronce Company couLd haue obtained a copg of the statement and confront tLrc uersion therein to PW2.

On the other hand, lheir oun CounseL in the cross-examination of PW2, etit:ited ansLuers uthich establish the case of the claimants tuith reqard to inuoluernent of the Auto No.AP 28 TB 3035. Hauing eli<:ited the onsuters, one cannot notu go bock and doubt the uersion of PW2. Further, as heLd bg us eailier, Ex.Al u.tas not giuen bg PW2. So, non-mentioning of the auto number in the .trirst Informat[on Report in our uieut cannot be giuen much ueight to doubt the cose of the claimants, more so, tuh.en th.e cl.oimants haue to pn.tue their cdse on the toucLtstone of preJ:onderan<:e of probabiliti<ls .

In the case orL hand also, the complaint does not mention the bus number, whereas PW.2 noted down the bus number and informed the same to the police. Under the circumstances, nonfinding of vehicle number in the FIR itself cannot be hnd fault with the police for proving the Bus number. As such, the contention 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. against Sanjag, 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 false implication 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."

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

l9 a 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 between 1O.00 p.m., and 1O.30 p.m., on 13.01.2016.

t0 - evidence given by the Depot Malager of the Hayathnagar- 1 Depot, the respondent No.3/driver of the bus was implicated in the case as accused, whereas, the documentary evidence marked under Exhibit-B1 shows that the Conductor submitted the Total Remittance Report on22.21.12 seconds. The bus was parked in the bus-depot by 10.25 p.m., while so, the call to the Ambulance Was made at 1O.33 p.m., about the occurrence of the accident there is a gap of about ten minutes between the claim of the petitioners alleging the accident and the claim of the respondents alleging that the bus was parked in the busdepot at the material time of the accident. The number of offending vehicle not being mentioned in FIR, is not a reason to doubt the involvement of the vehicle in the accident since the police investigation establishes the same. With regard to time of occurrence of accident also, one cannot say exact time because a1l watches do not show the correct time. Based on the timings, one cannot decide the case. Even otherwise also, there is no proper evidence to prove the exact time.

38. The evidence of RW1 cannot be believed as he is accused No.1 in the criminal case for the offence under Section 304-A of I.P.C. The respondents failed to produce Log Register, STAR MTD 14 1 Register and Security Guard Register and such I

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

39. For the foregoing reasons ald the principles laid down in the above refr:rred decisions, this Court is of the considered view that the pie:tded accident had occurred resulting in death of deceased R. Narender, only due to rash and negligent driving of TSRTC bus bearing No.TS-282-1858 by its driver,i RW.1 and there was nc negligence on the part of the deceased. In this aspect the Tribunal wrongly came to the conclusion without there 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 side and the Tribtrnal had wrongly taken the age of the deceased on higher side zLnd applied the incorrect multiplier. He further submitted tl-rat the Tribunal had wrongly granted less compensatior.. towards conventional heads to the appellants/ 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 arother

2. 2O2l ACJ 2683 in the case of Rukmani Jethani and others 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 to respondents/'petitioners No.5 and 6. Accordingly. prayed to dismiss the order of the Tribuna,l.

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

41. A perus;al ol the impugned order goes to show that the Tribunal did not take into consideration Ex.A 17- the Income Tax returns lbr the assessment year 2016-17 is for a sum of Rs.l1,58,220l- as the same was filed after the death of the deceased. Further, the Tribunal observed that Ex.A17 shows that the petit.oners did not suffer any financial set back due to death of the deceased since the income has increased from Rs.9,92,2101 in the years 2015-16 to Rs. 11,58,220 1- in the year 2016 L7 PW.1 did not examine any witness to prove the contents of E:<.A15 to Al7. The income tax returns .rre filed by individuals or-.line and therefore, there is no means to ascertain the truth in thLe contents of income tax returns submitted by the individuals- 'I'he Tribunal took the income tax submitted under Ex.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 death of the deceased

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

"1O. The Tibunal proceeded to detertnine the agriculturutl income arising from 36.76 acres of land on the basis of tu.to judgments of the High Court The Tibunal anriued at tuo dtJferent ftgtres bg applging the decisions and proceeded to determine the agicultural income on an auerage of the tuo amounts. The Tribunal superimposed a possible ualue of income from agicttltural land despite a clear indiccttion in the income ta-x returns of tLrc income from agicttltural land. The method. adopted by the Tribunol is not sustainabLe in law. On the other hand, the Higlt Court has proceeded on the basis of the income reJTected in the income tax return for the assessment gear 1997-1998. The releuant porlion of tLrc return read.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 of Rs.2,11,131/- in the releuant assessme/Lf year. Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj, leamed sentor counsel appeaing on behctlf of the appellants, contended that other documents Luere marked Luith \

the tuhi<:h reflected the income of the deceased. We tre in agreem.ent with High Court that the determination must proceed tn the basis of the income tax return, uthere auoilable. The lncome tox retunr is a statutory doa)ment on tuhich reliance mag be placed to detennine the annual income of the decea-sed. 'lo the benefit of the appellants, the High Court has proceecled on the basis of the income tax retun-L ft,r the as-sessm,?nl year 1997 1998 and not j999 2OO0 and 2OOO2OO1 uthich reJTected a reduction in the onnual ncome cf the deceasect.."

In view of the above, the Income Tax Return is a Statutory document on urhich reliance may be placed to determine the annual inconre of the deceased. Therefore, the findings of the Tribunal that PW. 1 did not examine any witness to prove the contents of Ex.A15 to Al7 and that the income tax returns are Iiled by indivrduals online and therefore, there is nc, means to ascertain the truth in the contents of income tax returns submitted 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 was Iiled after the death of the deceased. In support of his contention, hr: relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Rukmani Jethani's case (2nd supra) wherein it was held as follorn s:

"3. The appellants filed a claim opplictation seeking compensation of Rs.25,62,OOO/ -, Motilol Jethani tuas aged 4O gears at the time of death and had a montltly income of Rs.7,0OO/ - from bardana and dairy bzsiness. According to the appellants, Income tax retums (ITR) for the financial gears 2OO2 2003, 2003-2004 and 2OO4-2005 uere produced before Motor Accidents Claim.s Tribunal (MACT) uhich utere marked as Dxs.14, 13 and 12, respectiuelg. Exh. 12 uas not taken into consideration bg the MACT on tLrc ground that it uas filecl after the death of Motilal Jethani on 14.O9.2005. The income of deceased Motilal Jethani was detennined as Rs.54,150/- on the bosis of the ITR for the financial gear 2003-2004. 9.

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

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

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

tt

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/- [Rs.11,58,220l-+Rs.4,63,2881 l. There are six dependents. Therefore, tak ing 1 l 4tn of the deceased's income towards his personal ancl living expenses, the contribution of the deceased would be Rs. 12,16,131/-[Rs. 16,21,5O81- (minus) Rs.4,O5,377 l-. Further, considering the age of the deceased at the time of the accident, the Tribunal rightly considered the multiplier as '16' as per the decision of the Apex Court reported in Sarlcr Venna Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation2. Adopting a multiplier of '16', the total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 12,16,131/- x 16 - Rs. 1,94,58,096l-.

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

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

50. Learned counsel for appellarrts/petitioners further contended that the Tribunal had wrongly awarded Rs.70,000/- towards funeral expenses, loss of love and affection, loss of estate and loss of consortium. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for petitioners, the Tribunal had wrongly awarded the amounts under conventional heads. It is pertinent to 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 estate ald funeral expenses. Further, in view of the judgment of the Honble Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others3, the petitioners are entitled to Rs.40,000 f - each towards spousal consortium, filial consortium and parental consortium. In view r(2018) rs scc r.io I

of the decisi,cn rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in .lV. Jagasree q.nd others V. Cholamandalam il4S General Insurance Co. Ltd.,awherein at para No.34, it u,as held as under:

"A th.ree Judge Bench of this Courl in Llnited lndia Ins:uronce Co. 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 anuarded spousal consortium at the rate of Rs.4),OOO/ (Rupees fortg thousanct. onlg) and tou.tards loss of parentaL consortium ro each child ot lhe rate of Rs.4O,OOO/ (Rupees fortg thousantl only). The corrpensation under these heads also needs to be increasecl by look. Thus, the spousal consortium is atuarded at Rs.44,OO0/ (Fortg four thousand onlg), and toLL)ards porental consortium at the rate of Rs.44,OOO/ eaclT (Total Rs.BB,OO1/ -) ts au,arded to the tu.to children. "

51. Therefore, referring the above said judgments and also considering '-he arguments of both sides, the order dated 17.O5.2022 passed by the Tribunal in M.V.O.P.No.953 of 2016 is modified as follows:

S.No.

Particulars Amount Total Loss of Dependency Rs. 1,94,58,096/- I Rs. 36,300/- Add : Conventional Heads (Funeral Expenses and Loss of Estate) (Rs;. 15,OOO/- + Rs.15,OOO/- +)t)ok + \Oo/o Add: Loss of spousal Rs. 48 'u o::( t) aLo tu(sc ,

f l l consortium (Rs.4O,OOO/ + l0% + l0%) 1o petitioner No. 1 Add: Loss of Parental consorti.um to Petitioner Nos.2 to 4 (trach Rs.4O,OOO/ - + IOok + 10%o three years Rs. 1,45,200/- Rs.48 400 Add: Loss of filial consortium to petitioner Nos.5 & 6 (Each Rs.40,O00/- + 107o for every three years Rs.a8,a00l -) Rs. 96,8OO/ Rs.1,28,570/ Medical expenses Rs.1,99,13,366/- Total ComPensation

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 Singhs and in a catena of decisions, this Court is empowered to 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 only) with interest @ 7.5 % p.a. from the date of petition till the ' MANU/sc0480/20 t3 ,-'tt*:r.}t&i4..

\ t 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) To,

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge' City Civil 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:lhi

\ I

4. The Secretary, Advocates Association Library, High Court for the State of Telangana, High Court Buildings at Hyderabad

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

-lt.'7/) HIGH COURT DATED:31 t1212024 t 2, .i I .s u .o ii I tl tl as \\ oi s)lH + I I ) ,,., 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 2O2t

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEfuIBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO M.A.C.M.A. NOS:557 oF 2022 &427 0F 2023 M.A.C.M.A. NO: 557 OF 2022 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, the Petitioner No. t herein l All are Ryo. H.No. 4-9-649, Flat No G3, Sri Swathi Residency, Vinayaka Nagar Colony, Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District Presently R/o. H.No. 16-4-7|C, Malakpet, Hyderabad

...Petitioners

AND

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

2. The 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 1132, Kandapur Village, Chandur Mandal, Najoonda District - 543001 ilu..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 and Decree dated 17-05-2022 made in M.V.O.P.No.953 of 2016 on the file of the Court of 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, Hyderabad

2. The T.S.R.T.O, nep pV its Depot Manager, Hayathnagar-l Depot, Hayathnagar, 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. Vrnavakanaoar 9ptolY, 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 001 !ie.s91tly Rt/o. H.No.4-9-40l .189, priyadarshini Cotony, Hayathnagar, R.R. District (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 the Judgment and Decree dated '17-05-2022 made in M.V.o.p.No.953 of 2016 on the file of the court of the lr/otor Accident claims Tribunal-cum-chief Jurige, city civil Court, 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 case and upon hearing the arguments of sri Kota subba Rao, Advocate for the Appellants in MACMA No.557 of 12022 and of sri R Anurag, standing counsel for TSRTC for Respondent No. '1 & 2 in MACMA No.ssr of 2022 & Appeilants in MACMA No.427 of 2023, and Sri P Ram;r Krishna Reddy, Advocate for Respondent No. I to 6 in 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 and hereby is dismissed;

3. That the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from 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.syo 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 said amount with interest after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment;

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

7. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal; i Sd/- K. AMMAJI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// S CTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad

2. Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT DATED:31 11212024 L.i ':...

<v s s o o \ ,l rtJ ltl "i s t-- /,/ C.

+ i;9iH COMMON DECREE MACMA.Nos,557 ot 2022 & 427 ot 2023 ALLOWING THE MACMA.No.SS7 ot 2022 & DISMISSING THE MACMA.N0.427 of 2023 rd5