Telangana High Court
R. Neelima And 5 Others vs The Tsrtc And 2 Others on 31 December, 2024
* THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
+ M.A.C.M.A. No. 557 OF 2022
&
M.A.C.M.A.No. 427 OF 2023
% 31-12-2024
# R. Neelima & others
....Appellants/petitioners
Vs.
$ The TSRTC represented by its Managing Director & others
.... Respondents/Respondents
! Counsel for the Appellants : Sri Kota Subba Rao
Counsel for the Respondents : Sri R. Anurag (SC for TSRTC)
<Gist :
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1. (2017) 16 SCC 680
2. (2009) 6 SCC 121
3. (2018)18 SCC 130
4. 2022(1) ALD 10(SC)
5. Manu/SC/0480/2013
2
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
HYDERABAD
****
+ M.A.C.M.A. No. 557 OF 2022
&
M.A.C.M.A.No. 427 OF 2023
Between:
# R. Neelima & others
....Appellants/petitioners
Vs.
$ The TSRTC represented by its Managing Director & others
.... Respondents/Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 31.12.2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments? : Yes
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes
3. Whether His Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes
SUJOY PAUL,J
__________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
M.A.C.M.A.Nos.557of 2022 and 427of 2023
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(per Hon’ble Sri Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao)
These two appeals are being disposed of by way of this
common judgment 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 appellants/TSRTC, are directed against the very same
Award and decree, 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, Hyderabad (for
short, “the Tribunal”).
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter
referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-
The claim petition is filed under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, seeking a compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000/- from
respondent Nos.1 to 3, who are Managing Director, Depot
Manager and the driver of the T.S.R.T.C., on account of death of
one Rapolu Narender (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’), in a
4motor vehicle accident that occurred on 13.01.2016 at about
10.30 p.m.
3(i) On 13.01.2016 at about 10.30 p.m., near Bawarchi
Hotel, Hayathnagar, Cyberabad on National Highway-65, the
deceased was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing registration
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-28-
Z-1858 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.
The deceased sustained multiple grievous injuries, fractures
and other injuries all over the body. The deceased was shifted
to Sunrise Hospital, Hayathnagar, in 108 Ambulance for first
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.
5
3(ii) The Police Hayathnagar registered a case in Cr.No.45
of 2016 under Sections 337 and 304-A of IPC against the driver
of the said TSRTC bus bearing No.TS-28Z-1858.
4. Before the Tribunal, respondents No.1 and 2 by filing a
counter opposed the claim petition denying the averments with
respect to date, time, place, manner of occurrence of accident,
rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of RTC bus
and the death of the deceased due to injuries suffered in the
accident. They pleaded that the accident occurred only due to
negligence and mistake of the deceased. Further, they denied
the age, health 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 own fault. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss 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 and death of the deceased. He pleaded that he is
holding valid and subsisting driving license to drive a heavy
passenger bus. Further, he is holding D.L.No.248732/HYD,
valid upto July, 2019, Badge No.12385, issued by Regional
6
Transport Authority, Nalgonda District. He further pleaded that
the petitioners have not filed any document to prove the
relationship with the deceased and the age, income, occupation
of the deceased, as such, denied the petitioners entitlement to
claim compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000/-.
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 14.45 p.m., and
returned back to the Depot on the same day at 21.30 hours
after completing the scheduled trips. The Service Conductor
remitted day’s collection vide Total Remittance Report on
13.01.2018 at 22.21.12 seconds at Depot Office. In the
circumstances, the respondent No 3 pleaded that he is not
responsible for the accident and 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 unknown 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
wrongful 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
7
involvement of the bus in the accident. The Respondent No.3
pleaded that the claim petition is misconceived and deserves to
the dismissed with costs.
6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the
following issues:
Whether the pleaded accident had occurred resulting
i. in death of deceased R. Narender, due to rash and
negligent driving of TSRTC bus bearing No.TS-28Z-
1858, by its driver?
Whether the petitioners are entitled to any
ii compensation, if so, at what quantum and what is
the liability of the respondents?
iii To What relief?
7. To prove their case, petitioners got examined P.Ws.1 to 3
and got marked Exs.A1 to A25. On behalf of the respondent
Nos.1 and 2, RW.1 was examined and got marked Ex.B1.
FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL ON ISSUE No.1:
8. The Tribunal observed that as per the contents of Exhibit
A1-FIR, it is the police who informed the brother of the 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, who were gathered at the accident site. In case,
8
such is the case, there is no reason why the number of RTC bus
is not written in the FIR, which was lodged on 14.01.2016 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 A2-
charge sheet, the Station House Officer made enquiry with the
Depot Manager about the buses which were plied between
Hayathnagar-I Depot and Hayathnagar Bus-stand on
13.01.2016 between 10.00 p.m. and 10.30 p.m. In case, PW2
was an eyewitness to the accident and 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 – I Depot about the buses and the drivers who
were plying 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 material 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
9
plying at the accident site on National Highway-65. The
probability of 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 PW2, since the petitioners are claiming compensation
under social welfare legislation, where the evidence 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- 28Z-1858 is taken to be true.
10. The Tribunal further observed that the social welfare
legislation cannot be taken advantage of for wrongs committed
by individuals due to bad habits. Exhibit B1 shows when the
Ambulance reached the accident site to transport the injured to
the nearest hospital, the injured was noted to be in an
inebriated condition and in unconscious state. This fact is
confirmed by Exhibit A5 Postmortem examination report,
wherein, the doctor who conducted autopsy recorded presence
of 30 c.c. brown colour liquid in the abdomen of the deceased
that too after two days of the accident on 15.01.2016. As much
as there is doubt about the involvement of the vehicle i.e.
TSRTC bus bearing registration No. AP-28Z-1858, with a rash
10
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 50% each. Accordingly, issue No.1 is answered.
11. 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
documentary 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 A12 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.AP28Z-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
11
quite natural and his evidence is unshaken in the cross-
examination by Respondents No.1 to 3. The Tribunal had
wrongly given the undue importance to Ex.B1 as it is not proved
by the respondents by examining the concerned person and
RW1 is not the author of Ex.B1 and he is no way concerned
with the contents of Ex.B1 with regard to drunken stage. The
Tribunal had wrongly given undue weightage to Ex.B1 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.
13. Learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners further
submitted that the Tribunal failed to see that immediately after
the accident, the deceased was taken to Sunrise Hospital,
Hayathnagar by 108 Ambulance and there is no mention in the
causality prescription dated 14.01.2016 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 medical record under Ex A9, death summary issued
by Yashoda Hospital, Malakpet, Hyderabad, and thus, the
Tribunal had wrongly held that the deceased was in drunken
12
stage and contributed to the accident to the extent of 50%
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 oral evidence of independent eyewitness with
regard to involvement of crime vehicle as the respondents have
suppressed the documentary evidence and intentionally 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
submitted that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the fact that the
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 stomach 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 alcohol in the absence of FSL Report or
13
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:
1. 2009 ACJ 1725(SC) in the case of Bimla Devi and
others Vs. Himchal Road Transport Corporation
and others.
2. AIR 1972 (SC) 283 in the case of Hasib Vs. State of
Bihar.
3. 1994 ACJ 993 (SC) in the case of Haji Zainullah
Khan (dead) by LRs Vs. Nagar Mahapalika,
Allahabad.
4. 2001 AIHC 3472 (RAJ) in the case of Rajasthan
Road Transport Corporation Vs. Santosh and
others.
5. 2001ACJ 1273 (SC) in the case of Laxmibai Vs.
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation.
6. AIR 1999 (SC) 1441 in the case of Vidhyadar Vs.
Manikrao and another.
7. AIR 1966 (SC) 629 in the case of Atyam Veeraraju
and others Vs. Venkanna and others.
8. 2013 ACJ 2141 (SC) in the case of Jiju Kuruvilla
and others Vs. Kunjujamma Mohan and others.
9. 2023 ACJ 2578 (Bomb) in the case of Pratima Hari
Gaonker and others Vs. Deepak Singh and others.
10. 2019(2) ALD 390 (APDB) in the case of P. Suneela
and others Vs. Shaik Kamal and another.
11 2022 ACJ 2003(SC) in the case of Janabai Vs. ICICI
Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.
14
17. On the other hand, learned counsel for appellant/TSRTC
in 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-28Z-1858 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-28Z-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 and 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-28Z-1858 in the accident has no
relevance. The Tribunal erred in believing the evidence of PW.2
15
who is nothing but a planted witness and his evidence cannot
be relied upon to prove the manner of the accident. The
Tribunal ought to have appreciated the fact that the claim is
made in collusion with police and there are no eyewitnesses to
prove the claim of the respondents/petitioners herein.
19. Learned counsel for appellants/TSRTC further contended
that the Tribunal ought to have appreciated the fact that as per
Statistical and Ticket Account Record (STAR), the bus bearing
No.AP-28Z-1858 was parked into the Depot by 22.25 hours and
whereas the accident alleged to be occurred at 10.30 P.M., as
such, the case 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 discussing the issue No.1, the Tribunal did not
consider that PW2 is an independent eyewitness whose evidence
is that he is the proprietor of Jai Bharath Hotel, Hayathnagar
and the accident occurred opposite to the hotel. So, his hotel is
located just opposite to place of the accident and his presence at
the place of accident is quite natural and his evidence is
16
unshaken in the cross-examination by Respondents No.1 to 3.
In the cross-examination he stated that hotel timings are from
6.00 a.m. to 11.30 p.m., and 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.
21. A perusal of the impugned order goes to show that the
Tribunal had wrongly given the undue importance to Ex.B1 as it
is not proved by the respondents by examining the concerned
person and RW1 is not the author of Ex.B1 and he is no way
concerned with the contents of Ex.B1 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 show the
presence of Alcohol in the blood or the deceased was under the
influence of Alcohol.
17
22. The Tribunal failed to see that immediately after the
accident, the deceased was taken to Sunrise Hospital,
Hayathnagar by 108 Ambulance and there is no mention in the
causality prescription dated 14.01.2016 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 medical record under Ex A9, death summary issued
by Yashoda Hospital, Malakpet, Hyderabad, and thus, the
Tribunal had wrongly held that the deceased was in drunken
stage and contributed to the accident to the extent of 50%
without there being any evidence.
23. As per Exhibit A1-FIR, the accident occurred when an
unknown bus had hit the deceased when he was proceeding on
his bike near Bawarchi Hotel on 13.01.2016 at 22.30 p.m. As
per Exhibit A2 Charge Sheet, the driver of the RTC bus as well
as the Depot Manager are charged under Section 304-A and 201
of 1.P.C. A perusal 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, and LW.4 A. Dhanraj and L.W.5 Athukuri Janardhan
are the eyewitnesses to the accident and their evidence reveals
18
that the bus bearing registration No.AP-28Z-1858 dashed the
two-wheeler on 13.01.2018 at 22.30 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 201 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 15.01.2016 at 15.50 hours. The
postmortem report reveals presence of 30 C.C., brown colour
liquid, no specific smell and mucusa normal. As per Exhibit A6-
Motor 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-28Z-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
19
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) before the Court but he did not
do so. The Tribunal only basing on the oral evidence came to
the conclusion that there is negligence of 50% each on the part
of the driver of the bus and the deceased. In the cross-
examination RW-1 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 and time of
entry and exit of all vehicles. When the vehicle is handed over,
the driver gets log sheet and the conductor will be given
Statistical and Ticket Account Record (STAR) and MTD 141.
Respondents did not produce any piece of evidence with
reference to the above issues.
26. The respondents/RTC contended that the deceased was
under the influence of alcohol and died on his own fault and
there was no such 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.B1 with 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 was under the
20
influence of Alcohol. As per PME report, when there is no
evidence with regard to Alcohol 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 (1st supra) wherein the Supreme
Court held that:
“(15) In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly
taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be
borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a
particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be
done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish
their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability.
The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have
been applied. For the said purpose, the High Court should
have taken into consideration the respective stories set forth
by both the parties.
16. The judgment of the High Court to a great extent is based
on conjectures and surmises. While holding that the police
might have implicated the respondents, no reason has been
assigned in support thereof. No material brought on record has
been referred 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
21
resulting in death of deceased R. Narender only due to rash and
negligent driving of TSRTC bus bearing No.TS-28Z-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 prove the same.
28. Learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners has relied
upon the Hasib‘s case (2nd supra) wherein the Supreme Court
held that:
“The complicity of this appellant in the crime has thus been
established beyond all reasonable doubts. Here the High
Court appears to have clearly gone wrong in law. The legal
position as to the object, value and use of first information
report is well settled. 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 first
information report, we may point out, does not constitute
substantive evidence though its importance as conveying the
earliest information regarding the occurrence cannot be
doubted. It can, however, only be used as a previous
statement for the purpose of either corroborating its make
under Section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act or for
contradicting him under Section 145 of that Act. It cannot be
used for the purpose of corroborating or contradicting other
witnesses. The High Court was, therefore, in error in seeking
corroboration of the testimony P of P.W. 10 from the F. I. R. of
which he was not the maker.”
22
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-28Z-1858. So, mere non-mention of Bus number
in the FIR, does not vitiate the entire episode.
29. Learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners has relied
upon the Haji‘s case (3rd supra) wherein the Supreme Court held
that:
“9. The Tribunal and the High Court rejected the version
of Abdul Khalique primarily on the ground that there was
no corroboration to his testimony. We are of the view that
the courts below were not justified in disbelieving the
testimony of Abdul Khalique. He was a disinterested
witness who was having tea in a restaurant at distance
of about 15/20 feet from the place of occurrence. There is
nothing on the record to show that he was trying to help
the claimants in any manner or was not a truthful
witness. On the other hand, the Nagar Mahapalika
23produced before the Tribunal the driver of the vehicle and
an Assistant Engineer who were its employees. Both
were interested witnesses. The Nagar Mahapalika did
not produce even a single independent witness to support
its version. The Tribunal and the High Court fell into
patent error in preferring the evidence of two wholly
interested witnesses to that of Abdul Khalique who was
an independent witness and whose presence on the spot
could not be doubted.”
In the case on hand also, except the driver of the Bus, no
independent witness was examined to support the contention of
respondents. PW.2 was a disinterested witness who was in front
of a Bawarchi Hotel after having tea, and he was at a distance of
about 200 feet from the place of occurrence and he was an
independent witness and his presence on the spot could not be
doubted.
30. Learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners has relied
upon the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation case
(4thsupra) wherein the Rajasthan High Court held that:
“Both the employees of Corporation are interested
witnesses and the Tribunal rightly did not rely on their
evidence.”
In the case on hand, the driver and conductor of the Bus are
employees of the TSRTC and are interested witnesses. Except
24
their contentions, they have not produced any independent
evidence.
31. Learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners has relied
upon Lakshmibai‘s case (5th supra) wherein the Supreme Court
held that:
“6. The Tribunal found that the respondent did not produce
copies of the log-sheet and control charts to show that the bus
in question was not plied on that road on thedate of the
accident and the said bus was not involved. Thus, on a proper
appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal was quite justified in
recording a finding that the said bus was involved in the
accident. But we find that the approach of the High Court was
wrong in appreciating the evidence inasmuch as it was
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)
and 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/petitioners has relied
upon Vidhyadhar’s case (6th supra) wherein the Supreme Court
held that:
25
“16. Where a party to the suit does not appear into the witness
box and states his own case on oath and does not offer
himself to be cross-examined by the other side, a presumption
would arise that the case set up by him is not correct as has
been held in a series of decisions passed by various High
Courts. The Allahabad High Court in Arjun Singh v. Virender
Nath, AIR 1971 Allahabad 29 held that if a party abstains
from entering the witness box, it would give rise to an
inference adverse against him. Similarly, a Division Bench of
the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Bhagwan Dass v.
Bhishan Chand, AIR 1974 Punj and Har 7, drew a
presumption underSection 114 of the Evidence Act against a
party who did not enter into witness box.”
In the case on hand, RW-2 did not enter into witness box
for the reasons best known to her and her evidence was
eschewed.
33. Learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners has relied
upon Jiju Kuruvilla‘s case (8th supra) wherein the Supreme
Court held that:
“5. The aforesaid evidence, Exh. A5, clearly suggests that the
deceased had taken liquor but on the basis of the same, no
definite finding can be given that the deceased was driving the
car rashly and negligently at the time of accident. The mere
suspicion based on ‘scene mahazar’, Exh. B2, and the post-
mortem report, Exh. A5, cannot take the place of evidence,
particularly when the direct evidence like independent
eyewitness, PW.3, F.I.R., Exh.A1, charge-sheet, Exh. A4, and
F.I. statement, Exh. B1, are on record.”
26
In the case on hand also, Doctor said that there was 30 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 liquid 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 finding 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 determination is
concerned, at the outset, it is necessary to note that the burden
is on the insurance company to establish breach of the terms
and conditions of the insurance policy. As regards the driver
being under the influence of alcohol, there is no evidence to
sustain this contention. The F.I.R. does refer to the driver being
under the influence of alcohol. However, that, by itself, is not
sufficient to dis- charge the burden. No witnesses were
examined, and no effort was made to establish that the
alcohol limits exceeded the prescribed limits. Based on such a
casual statement in the F.I.R.. the fundamental breach of the
27terms and conditions of the insurance policy cannot be
inferred.”
In the case on hand, though it is pleaded by the respondents
that the deceased was in drunken condition, but they failed to
establish the same. No witnesses were examined, and no effort
was made to prove that the alcohol limits exceeded the
prescribed limits. As such, the contention of the respondents
does not hold water.
35. Learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners has relied
upon P. Suneela‘s case (10th supra) wherein the High Court of
Telangana and Andhra Pradesh held that:
“21. The reason for disbelieving the incident appears to be that
if really PW2 has seen the incident, he would have definitely
informed the police about the vehicle number and the same
would have found place in the First Information Report, which
was sent three days after the incident. But it is to be noted
here that though there is a delay of about three days in
sending the F.I.R., to the Court, but the First Information
Report was given on the next day at 2.00 p.m. The family
members of the injured would have been more concerned with
the health of the injured rather than informing the police about
the accident. In cases of this nature, one cannot find fault with
the delay in lodging the report, which in our view is also not
abnormal. Since the informant, who lodged the report, is not
an eye-witness to the incident and his source of information is
the information gathered from the scene, non-mentioning of the
auto number cannot be found fault. The averments in the
charge-sheet, indicate that PW2 was examined long after
lodging of the report, i.e., when they went to the scene of
28offence after registering the crime. When the answers elicited
in the cross-examination of PW2, were to the effect that he
noted down the auto number and informed the same to the
police, one cannot find fault with the police in tracing out the
vehicle.
22. The argument of the learned Counsel for the Insurance
Company is that when the evidence of PW2 in the cross-
examination is to the effect that the auto dashed against the
motorcycle and vanished from the accident site, it would be
difficult for him to remember the auto number. It is urged that
since the First Information Report is silent as to the
involvement of the auto and having regard to the fact that the
auto was not damaged, pleads that auto as a crime vehicle
was set up at a later point of time.
23. It is to be noted that having elicited an answer from PW2
that the auto got vanished from the site after the incident,
there was no necessity for the Counsel for the Insurance
Company to ask him as to whether he noted down the auto
number. To the question as to whether he noted down the auto
number, the witness positively states that he has noted down
the auto number and intimated the same to the police. He
however rightly states that he does not remember whether the
auto number was mentioned in the statement, since the First
Information Report was not given by PW2, but the brother of
the deceased, who lodged the report basing on the information
furnished. by PW2. Even in the charge-sheet, the brother of the
deceased, who lodged the report, was not shown as an eye-
witness to the incident. Only PW2 and two others namely Md.
Ishaq Ali and Md. Azmath were shown as an eye-witnesses to
the incident. Therefore, the presence of PW2 at the site and he
witnessing the incident cannot be doubted. Hence, we hold
that the evidence on record amply establish the involvement of
the auto in the accident.
29
24. With regard to the finding of the Tribunal that if really PW2
has mentioned the number of the auto in his 161 Cr.P.C.
statement, the claimants ought to have produced the statement
in support of their case that the averments in the charge-sheet
do not refer to examination of PW2 as LW3 in the charge-sheet,
on the date of accident or on any other day shortly much less
before 04.11.2010 on which date the driver of the auto was
arrested, it is to be noted that these findings on the face of it
are incorrect. Firstly, if the version of PW2 with regard to he
noting down the vehicle number and informing the same to the
police is doubted, nothing prevented the Insurance Company to
confront PW2 with his earlier statement. The Insurance
Company could have obtained a copy of the statement and
confront the version therein to PW2. On the other hand, their
own Counsel in the cross-examination of PW2, elicited
answers which establish the case of the claimants with regard
to involvement of the Auto No.AP 28 TB 3035. Having elicited
the answers, one cannot now go back and doubt the version of
PW2. Further, as held by us earlier, Ex.Al was not given by
PW2. So, non-mentioning of the auto number in the First
Information Report in our view cannot be given much weight to
doubt the case of the claimants, more so, when the claimants
have to prove their case on the touchstone of preponderance of
probabilities.
In the case on 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, non-
finding of vehicle number in the FIR itself cannot be find fault
with the police for proving the Bus number. As such, the
contention of the respondents is not accepted.
30
36. Learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners has relied
upon Janabai‘s case (11th supra) wherein the Supreme Court
held that:
“9. On the other hand, the owner has appeared as a witness.
He admitted that he had taken the vehicle on supurdari and
that he has not filed any proceedings to quash F.I.R. against
Sanjay, driver of the car. He admitted that bail application
form and surety bond (Exhs. 68, 69 and 70) show that he has
stood surety for the driver wherein he has mentioned the
accused as driver of his vehicle. It has also come on record
that the owner has not made any complaint in respect of false
implication of his vehicle or the driver.
10. We find 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
summary in nature. There is no reason to doubt the veracity of
the statement of appellant No. 1 who suffered injuries in the
accident. The application under the Act has to be decided on
the basis of evidence led before it and not on the basis of
evidence which should have been or could have been led in a
criminal trial. We find that the entire approach of the High
Court is clearly 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 summary in nature. There is no reason to doubt
the veracity of the statement of appellant No. 1 who suffered
injuries in the accident. The application under the Act has to be
decided on the basis of evidence led before it and not on the
31
basis of evidence which should have been or could have been
led in a criminal trial.
In the present case also, whether vehicle is involved or not
in the accident is the question and deciding the issue, more
particularly, as M.V. Act is a beneficial legislation and also
under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, need not follow as it is done
in criminal case. 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 also noted down by
PW.2/eyewitness. But, the Tribunal did not consider the same
and attributed the negligence of 50% each on the deceased and
on the driver of the bus, and the same is not accepted.
37. A perusal of the impugned Award reveals that there is a
dispute between the petitioners and the respondents about the
involvement of the RTC bus in the accident for the reason that
the number of the RTC bus is not mentioned in the FIR. As per
FIR, one unknown RTC bus has hit the bike of the deceased and
caused the injuries. Subsequently, the police have written a
letter to the Depot Manager of the Hayathnagar Depot,
enquiring about the buses which were plying between
Hayathnagar Bus Depot and Hayathnagar Bus-stop between
10.00 p.m., and 10.30 p.m., on 13.01.2016. On the basis of
32
evidence given by the Depot Manager 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 on 22.21.12 seconds. The bus was
parked in the bus-depot by 10.25 p.m., while so, the call to the
Ambulance Was made at 10.33 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 bus-
depot 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
all 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 141 Register and Security Guard Register and such
33
evidence is withheld since contents of said documents would go
against their case, and therefore, an adverse inference has to be
drawn against the respondents under Section 114 (g) of the
Indian Evidence Act. So, for all the reasons mentioned supra,
the Tribunal failed to attribute 100% negligence on the part of
the driver of the RTC bus bearing No.AP-28Z-1858.
39. For the foregoing reasons and the principles laid down in
the above referred decisions, this Court is of the considered view
that the pleaded accident had occurred resulting in death of
deceased R. Narender, only due to rash and negligent driving of
TSRTC bus bearing No.TS-28Z-1858 by its driver/RW.1 and
there was no negligence on the part of the deceased. In this
aspect the Tribunal wrongly came to the conclusion without
there being any proper evidence.
QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION:
40. Learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners submitted
that the Tribunal had taken the future prospects on lower side
and the Tribunal had wrongly taken the age of the deceased on
higher side and applied the incorrect multiplier. He further
submitted that the Tribunal had wrongly granted less
compensation towards conventional heads to the
appellants/petitioners towards loss of consortium, loss of love
34
and affection, loss of estate, funeral expenses, parental
consortium, filial consortium etc., He further submitted that the
Tribunal 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:
1. 2020 ACJ 526 (SC) in the case of Malarvizhi Vs.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd., and another
2. 2021 ACJ 2683 in the case of Rukmani Jethani and
others Vs. Gopal Singh and othersAccordingly, 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 40% future prospects without there
being any proof. He also claimed that the Tribunal erred in
awarding Rs.70,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.1,20,000/-
towards parental consortium to respondents/petitioners No. 2
35
to 4, Rs.80,000/- towards filial consortium to
respondents/petitioners No.5 and 6. Accordingly, prayed to
dismiss the order of the Tribunal.
43. After considering the oral and documentary evidence
available on record, the Tribunal held that the liability for
occurrence of the accident is 50% each, and accordingly
awarded an amount of Rs.32,62,009/- with interest @ 7.5% per
annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.
44. A perusal of the impugned order goes to show that the
Tribunal did not take into consideration Ex.A17- the Income
Tax returns for the assessment year 2016-17 is for a sum of
Rs.11,58,220/- as the same was filed after the death of the
deceased. Further, the Tribunal observed that Ex.A17 shows
that the petitioners did not suffer any financial set-back due to
death of the deceased since the income has increased from
Rs.9,92,210/- in the years 2015-16 to Rs.11,58,220/- in the
year 2016-17. PW.1 did not examine any witness to prove the
contents of Ex.A15 to A17. The income tax returns are filed by
individuals online and therefore, there is no means to ascertain
the truth in the contents of income tax returns submitted by the
individuals. The Tribunal took the income tax submitted under
Ex.A15 during the lifetime of the deceased at Rs.3,64,610/-
36
leaving aside Ex.A16 and A17 since they are filed after the death
of the deceased.
45. Learned counsel for the appellants/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:
“10. The Tribunal proceeded to determine the agricultural
income arising from 36.76 acres of land on the basis of two
judgments of the High Court The Tribunal arrived at two
different figures by applying the decisions and proceeded to
determine the agricultural income on an average of the two
amounts. The Tribunal superimposed a possible value of
income from agricultural land despite a clear indication in the
income tax returns of the income from agricultural land. The
method adopted by the Tribunal is not sustainable in law. On
the other hand, the High Court has proceeded on the basis of
the income reflected in the income tax return for the
assessment year 1997-1998. The relevant portion of the return
reads:
“Income from house property Rs. 1,920
Business profit (other than 14.b) Rs. 1,21,071
Net agricultural income – Rs. 88,140”
The tax return indicates an annual income of
Rs.2,11,131/- in the relevant assessment year. Mr. Jayanth
Muth Raj, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants, contended that other documents were marked with
37
the which reflected the income of the deceased. We are in
agreement with High Court that the determination must
proceed on the basis of the income tax return, where available.
The income tax return is a statutory document on which
reliance may be placed to determine the annual income of the
deceased. To the benefit of the appellants, the High Court has
proceeded on the basis of the income tax return for the
assessment year 1997-1998 and not 1999-2000 and 2000-
2001 which reflected a reduction in the annual income of the
deceased.”
In view of the above, the Income Tax Return is a Statutory
document on which reliance may be placed to determine the
annual income 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 A17 and that the income tax returns are
filed by individuals online and therefore, there is no means to
ascertain the truth in the contents of income tax returns
submitted by the individuals, is negatived.
46. Learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners submitted
that the Tribunal did not consider the income shown in Ex.A17-
Income Tax Returns for the assessment year 2016-17 as it was
filed after the death of the deceased. In support of his
contention, he relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in
Rukmani Jethani‘s case (2nd supra) wherein it was held as
follows:
38
“3. The appellants filed a claim application seeking
compensation of Rs.25,62,000/-, Motilal Jethani was aged 40
years at the time of death and had a monthly income of
Rs.7,000/- from bardana and dairy business. According to the
appellants, Income tax returns (ITR) for the financial years
2002-2003, 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 were produced before
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) which were marked
as Exs.14, 13 and 12, respectively. Exh. 12 was not taken into
consideration by the MACT on the ground that it was filed
after the death of Motilal Jethani on 14.09.2005. The income of
deceased Motilal Jethani was determined as Rs.54,150/- on
the basis of the ITR for the financial year 2003-2004.
9. After careful consideration of the submissions made on
behalf of the parties, we are of the opinion that the MACT
committed an error in not taking into account the ITR filed on
behalf of the deceased for the financial year 2004-2005.
Taking into account the ITR filed on behalf of the deceased for
the financial year 2004-2005, we hold that the appellants are
entitled for an amount of Rs.8,40,735/- towards compensation
on the basis of yearly 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.A17/ITR
filed on behalf of the deceased for the assessment year 2016-17.
47. In view of the above discussion, as per Ex.A17/ITR filed on
behalf of the deceased for the assessment year 2016-17, the
annual income of the deceased was Rs.11,58,220/-.
39
48. The Tribunal has rightly considered the age of the
deceased as 32 years in view of Ex.A20/SSC certificate. The
Tribunal has rightly taken the future prospects @ 40% of the
established income. In terms of the decision of the Apex Court
in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi 1, the
future prospects of the deceased shall be computed at 40%, and
accordingly, the annual income comes to Rs.16,21,508/-
[Rs.11,58,220/-+Rs.4,63,288/-]. There are six dependents.
Therefore, taking 1/4th of the deceased’s income towards his
personal and living expenses, the contribution of the deceased
would be Rs.12,16,131/-[Rs.16,21,508/- (minus)
Rs.4,05,377/-. 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 Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation 2. Adopting
a multiplier of ’16’, the total loss of dependency comes to
Rs.12,16,131/- x 16 = Rs.1,94,58,096/-.
49. Learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners vehemently
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 an amount of
1
(2017) 16 SCC 680.
2
(2009) 6 SCC 121.
40
Rs.1,28,570/- 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 after 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 appellants/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 in Pranay Sethi
(supra), petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs.36,300/-
(Rs.15,000/- +Rs.15,000/- +10%+10%) towards loss of estate
and funeral expenses. Further, in view of the judgment of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company
Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others 3, the
petitioners are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards spousal
consortium, filial consortium and parental consortium. In view
3
(2018) 18 SCC 130
41
of the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in N.
Jayasree and others V. Cholamandalam MS General
Insurance Co. Ltd., 4wherein at para No.34, it was held as
under:
“A three Judge Bench of this Court in United India Insurance
Co. Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and Ors, 2020(6)
ALD 39 (SC) = 2020 SCC Online SC 410 = AIR 2020 SC 3076,
after considering Pranay Sethi‘s case (supra), has awarded
spousal consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/ (Rupees forty
thousand only) and towards loss of parental consortium to each
child at the rate of Rs.40,000/ (Rupees forty thousand only).
The compensation under these heads also needs to be
increased by 10%. Thus, the spousal consortium is awarded at
Rs.44,000/ (Forty four thousand only), and towards parental
consortium at the rate of Rs.44,000/ each (Total Rs.88,000/-) is
awarded to the two children.”
51. Therefore, referring the above said judgments and also
considering the arguments of both sides, the order dated
17.05.2022 passed by the Tribunal in M.V.O.P.No.953 of 2016
is modified as follows:-
S.No. Particulars Amount
1. Total Loss of Dependency Rs.1,94,58,096/-
2. Add : Conventional Heads Rs. 36,300/-
(Funeral Expenses and Loss
of Estate)
(Rs.15,000/- + Rs.15,000/-
+10% + 10%)
3. Add: Loss of spousal Rs. 48,400/-
4
2022(1) ALD 10(SC)
42
consortium (Rs.40,000/-+
10% + 10%) to petitioner
No.1
4. Add: Loss of parental Rs. 1,45,200/-
consortium to petitioner
Nos.2 to 4 (Each Rs.40,000/-
+ 10% + 10% three years
Rs.48,400/-)
5. Add: Loss of filial consortium Rs. 96,800/-
to petitioner Nos.5 & 6 (Each
Rs.40,000/- + 10% for every
three years Rs.48,400/-)
6. Medical expenses Rs.1,28,570/-
Total Compensation Rs.1,99,13,366/-
52. Though the claimed amount is Rs.1,00,00,000/-, invoking
the principle of just compensation, and in view of the law laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajesh vs. Rajbir
Singh 5 and in a catena of decisions, this Court is empowered to
grant compensation beyond the claimed amount.
53. The Tribunal has rightly awarded the interest @ 7.5% 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.1,99,13,366/- (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
5
MANU/SC/0480/2013
43
date of realization. Petitioners are directed to pay the deficit
Court fee. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are 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. On such deposit, the
petitioners are permitted to withdraw the said amount in the
same manner and apportionment as determined by the
Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.
M.A.C.M.A.No.427 of 2023
55. In view of the judgment passed in M.A.C.M.A. No.557 of
2022, this M.A.C.M.A. filed by the appellants/TSRTC is hereby
dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending,
shall stand closed.
________________
SUJOY PAUL, J
_____________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
31st day of December 2024
BDR
Note:
LR copy to be marked