Telangana High Court
Telangana State Road Transport … vs Pillala Bhoomesh on 7 March, 2025
*THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
+ M.A.C.M.A.No.12 OF 2022
% 07--03--2025
# Telangana State Road Transport Corporation,
(Prior to bifurcation known as APSRTC),
Represented by its Managing Director,
Musheerabad, Hyderabad and another
... Appellants
vs.
$ Pillala Bhoomesh ... Respondent
!Counsel for the Appellants: Mr.R.Anurag, Standing Counsel for TSRTC
^Counsel for Respondent: Mr.Sridhar Lonkala
<Gist :
>Head Note :
? Cases referred:
2015 (4) ALD 98 (SC) = (2015) 9 SCC 273
2 BRMR,J
MACMA_12_2022
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
HYDERABAD
****
M.A.C.M.A.No.12 OF 2022
Between:
Telangana State Road Transport Corporation,
(Prior to bifurcation known as APSRTC),
Represented by its Managing Director,
Musheerabad, Hyderabad and another
... Appellants
And
Pillala Bhoomesh
... Respondent
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 07.03.2025
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments? : No
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
_____________________
B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO,J
3 BRMR,J
MACMA_12_2022
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
M.A.C.M.A.NO.12 OF 2022
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act
(for short ‘the MV Act‘) by Telangana State Road Transport Corporation
(hereinafter referred to as TSRTC) challenging the Award dated
30.03.2021 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum –
Principal District and Sessions Judge at Nizamabad in MVOP.No.38 of
2015.
2. Respondent/claimant has filed M.V.O.P. claiming compensation
of Rs.3,00,000/- stating that he sustained permanent disability on
account of fracture and injuries received by him in a motor vehicle
accident which took place on 18.04.2014 at about 1.15 p.m., in the
outskirts of Ramalachakkapet at a distance of 8 kms., towards South
from PS Metpalli, Karimnagar District with Bus bearing No.AP-11-Z-
753, for which the appellant No.1/respondent No.1 is the Managing
Director and appellant No.2/respondent No.2 is the Depot Manager of
APSRTC, Metpalli Depot.
3. Respondent/claimant was travelling as a pillion rider on
18.04.2014 on a motor-cycle bearing No.AP 25Q 7424. In the said
accident, respondent/claimant sustained compound fracture of both
bones of right leg M/3, fracture of right leg, injuries on head, crush
4 BRMR,J
MACMA_12_2022
injuries to the face, fracture of skull, fracture of ribs. Immediately
after the accident, respondent/claimant was shifted to Government
Area Hospital, Metpalli, where he was treated as inpatient and for
better treatment he was shifted to Sairam Hospital, Jagtial and
underwent treatment as inpatient from 18.04.2014 to 25.04.2014.
On 18.04.2014 respondent/claimant underwent surgery to his right leg
and steel rods were implanted. At the time of accident,
respondent/claimant was aged about 29 years and was hale and
healthy, doing agriculture, vegetable and milk business, earning
Rs.20,000/- per month. On the complaint, police Metpalli has
registered a case in Crime No.105 of 2014 under Sections 304 (A) and
337 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC‘) and later on charge sheet
is filed.
4. Appellants/respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed their written
statement stating that there is no negligence on the part of the driver
of the Bus and the respondent/claimant has sustained injuries due to
the negligent driving of the driver of the motor-cycle bearing No.AP
25Q 7424 and the compensation claimed by the respondent/claimant
is excessive.
5. Respondent/claimant has amended his O.P. and prayed for a
compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- as per order in I.A.No.502 of 2016,
dated 03.11.2016.
5 BRMR,J
MACMA_12_2022
6. Basing on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed
the following issues:
1. Whether the petitioner received injury in the motor
accident with Bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 753 due to rash
and negligent driving by its driver?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation. If
so, to what extent and from whom?
3. To what relief?
7. The Tribunal, basing on the oral and documentary evidence
placed on record, has awarded a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- to the
respondent/claimant along with the interest at the rate of 7.5% per
annum from the date of filing the petition i.e., 31.12.2014 till the date
of realization.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal has
committed irregularities in holding that the accident has occurred due
to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus bearing
No.AP 11 Z 753 and the Tribunal ought to have appreciated the fact
that there is negligence on the part of the driver of the motor-cycle
when injured was travelling as a pillion rider. The respondent/claimant
did not make the owner and insurer of motor-cycle bearing No. AP 25Q
7424 as party to the claim petition and the claimant has to prove the
negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle. In absence
there of, the Tribunal ought to have drawn an adverse inference.
6 BRMR,J
MACMA_12_2022
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the
Tribunal has not awarded Just compensation to the
respondent/claimant.
10. I have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the
record.
11. The following points arise for consideration:
1) Whether the claimant has proved the negligence on the part
of the driver of the crime vehicle?
2) Whether the owner and Insurer of the motor cycle bearing
No.AP 25 Q 7424 are necessary parties to the claim
petition?
3) Whether the compensation amount awarded to the claimant
is just a fair compensation?
12.1. So far as the first point is concerned, father of the
respondent/claimant has lodged a complaint at PS Metpalli on
18.04.2014 that his son has sustained injuries due to the rash and
negligence driving of the driver of the APSRTC Bus. Basing on the said
complaint, PS Metpalli has registered Ex.P1/FIR against Mondi Praveen
Kumar driver of APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 753. Ex.A2 is the
charge sheet filed by the police under Sections 337 and 338 of IPC
holding that the investigation reveal that on 18.04.2014 at about
13.15 hours, the accused (Driver) drove the APSRTC Bus with high
speed in negligent manner and dashed against Hero Honda Splendor
plus motor-cycle bearing No.AP 25Q 7424 at the out skirts of
Ramalachakkapet village. Ex.A3 is the crime detail form dated
7 BRMR,J
MACMA_12_2022
18.04.2014, which goes to show that the accident occurred due to rash
and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle.
12.2. Appellants have examined the conductor of the Bus as RW1,
wherein he admitted in his cross-examination that complaint is lodged
against the driver of the Bus, FIR is registered and and charge sheet is
also filed agianst him (driver of the crime vehicle). The Tribunal
basing on the evidence of PW1, RW1 and Exs.A1 to A3 arrived at a
conclusion that it is the driver of the APSRTC Bus who drove the same
in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident.
12.3. Claimant (PW1) has proved the negligence on the part of the
driver of the crime vehilce, hence point is answered accordingly.
13.1 So far as Second point is concerned: It is one of the grounds in
the appeal that the claimant did not make the owner and insurer of the
motor cycle bearing No.AP 25 Q 7424 as parties to the claim petition.
On careful reading of the written statement filed by the appellants in
the MVOP, no such defence is taken by them. Even otherwise the Apex
Court in:
Khenyei v. New India Assurance Company Limited, 2015
(4) ALD 98 (SC) = (2015) 9 SCC 273, held that it is open for
the claimant to claim compensation either from the
owner/driver and insurer of both the vehicles or any one of
them. The relevant Paras 11 to 14 read as under:
8 BRMR,J
MACMA_12_2022” 11. A Full Bench in Karnataka SRTC v. Arun, AIR 2004 Kar.
149, while answering the aforesaid questions has observed that
it was a case of composite negligence and the liability of
tortfeasors was joint and several. Hence, even if there is non-
impleadment of one of the tortfeasors, the claimant was entitled
to full compensation quantified by the Tribunal. The Full Bench
referred to the decision of a Division Bench of the Gujarat High
Court in Hiraben Bhaga v. Gujarat SRTC, 1981 SCC OnLine Guj.
68, in which it has been laid down that it is entirely the choice
of the claimant whether to implead both the joint tortfeasors or
either of them. On failure of the claimant to implead one of the
joint tortfeasors, contributory liability cannot be fastened upon
the claimant to the extent of the negligence of non-impleaded
joint tortfeasors. It is for the joint tortfeasors made liable to pay
compensation to take proceedings to settle the equities as
against other joint tortfeasors who had not been impleaded. It
is open to the impleaded joint tortfeasor to sue the other
wrongdoer after the decree or award is given to realise to the
extent of others’ liability. It has been laid down that the law in
Ganesh V. Syed Munned Ahamed, 1998 SCC OnLine Kar. 603,
has been rightly laid down and it is not necessary to implead all
joint tortfeasors and due to failure of impleadment of all joint
tortfeasors, compensation cannot be reduced to the extent of
negligence of non-impleaded tortfeasors. Non-impleadment of
one of the joint tortfeasors is not a defence to reduce the
compensation payable to the claimant. In our opinion, the law
appears to have been correctly stated in Karnataka SRTC v.
Arun (supra).
12. A Full Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Smt. Sushila
Bhadoriya & others v. M.P. State Road Transport Corpn. And
another, 2005 (1) MPLJ 372 has also laid down that in case of
composite negligence, the liability is joint and several and it is
open to implead the driver, owner and the insurer one of the
vehicles to recover the whole amount from one of the joint
9 BRMR,J
MACMA_12_2022
tortfeasors. As to apportionment also, it has been observed that
both the vehicles will be jointly and severally liable to pay the
compensation. Once the negligence and compensation is
determined, it is not permissible to apportion the compensation
between the two as it is difficult to determine the
apportionment in the absence of the drivers of both the vehicles
appearing in the witness box. Therefore, there cannot be
apportionment of the claim between the joint tort-feasors.
13. The relevant portion of decision of Full Bench is extracted
hereunder:
“25. When injury is caused as a result of negligence of two
joint tort- feasors, claimant is not required to lay his finger on
the exact person regarding his proportion of liability. In the
absence of any evidence enabling the Court to distinguish the
act of each joint tort-feasor, liability can be fastened on both
the tort-feasors jointly and in case only one ofthe joint tort-
feasors is impleaded as party, then entire liability can be
fastened upon one of the joint tort-feasors. If both the joint
tort-feasors are before the Court and there is sufficient evidence
regarding the act of each tort-feasors and it is possible for the
Court to apportion the claim considering the exact nature of
negligence by both the joint tort-feasors, it may apportion the
claim. However, it is not necessary to apportion the claim when
it is not possible to determine the ratio of negligence of joint
tort-feasors. In such cases, joint tort-feasors will be jointly and
severally liable to pay the compensation.
26. On the same principle, in the case of joint tort-feasors
where the liability is joint and several, it is the choice of the
claimant to claim damages from the owner and driver and
insurer of both the vehicles or any one of them. If claim is made
against one of them, entire amount of compensation on account
of injury or death can be imposed against the owner, driver and
insurer of that vehicle as their liability is joint and several and
10 BRMR,J
MACMA_12_2022the claimant can recover the amount from any one of them.
There cannot be apportionment of claim of each tort-feasors in
the absence of proper and cogent evidence on record and it is
not necessary to apportion the claim.
27. To sum up, we hold as under:-
(i) Owner, driver and insurer of one of the vehicles can be sued
and it is not necessary to sue owner, driver and insurer of both
the vehicles. The claimant may implead the owner, driver and
insurer of both the vehicles or anyone of them.
(ii) There can not be apportionment of the liability of joint tort-
feasors. In case both the joint tort-feasors are impleaded as
party and if there is sufficient material on record, then the
question of apportionment can be considered by the claims
Tribunal. However, on general principles of Jaw, there is no
necessity to apportion the inter se liability of joint tort-feasors.
28. Reference is answered accordingly. Appeal be placed before
appropriate Bench for hearing.”
14. In our opinion, the law laid down by the Madhya Pradesh
High Court in Sushila Bhadoriya v. M.P. SRTC, 2004 SCC OnLine
MP 360, is also in tune with the decisions of the High Court of
Karnataka in, Ganesh v. Syed Munned Ahamed, 1998 SCC
OnLine Kar. 603 and Karnataka SRTC V. Arun, 2003 SCC OnLine
Kar. 715. However, at the same time, suffice it to clarify that
even if all the joint tortfeasors are impleaded and both the
drivers have entered the witness box and the Tribunal or the
Court is able to determine the extent of negligence of each
driver that is for the purpose of inter se liability between the
joint tortfeasors but their liability would remain joint and several
so as to satisfy the plaintiff/claimant.”
13.2. I do not find force in the submissions of the learned counsel for
the appellants that owner and insurer of Motor Cycle are necessary
11 BRMR,J
MACMA_12_2022
parties to the O.P., it is the prerogarative of the respondent/claimant
that it is open for the claimant to claim compensation either from the
owner/driver and insurer of both the vehicles or any one of them, such
submission is rejected.
14.1. So far as the third point is concerned: Respondent/claimant
stated in the O.P. that his monthly income is Rs.20,000/- per month
on agriculture, vegetable and milk business but no document is filed to
prove the same and the Tribunal has arrived that the
respondent/claimant is earning Rs.6,000/- per month assuming that he
worked as a labourer and was hospitalized for a period of two months.
Rs.12,000/- is awarded towards temporary loss of employment. Ex.A4
is the medical report of the respondent/claimant dated 18.04.2014
issued by Government City Hospital, Metpalli, Karimnagar, by showing
the injuries sustained by the claimant. It is the evidence of
respondent/claimant that for better treatment he was shifted to Private
Hospital. Ex.A5 is the discharge summary, which goes to show that
the date of admission is 18.04.2014, surgery is also done on the same
day, he was discharged on 25.04.2014. The operational procedure is
for head injury. Ex.A6 is the discharge summary, date of admission is
28.04.2014 and date of discharge is 01.05.2014, which goes to show
that the claimant went for a follow up with fever and right leg pain.
Ex.A7 is the Essentiality Certificate dated 16.05.2014 for an amount of
Rs.1,87,110/- which goes to show that the Hospital has charged the
12 BRMR,J
MACMA_12_2022
claimant for nursing charges, maintenance charges, surgery charges,
DMO charges, Doctor consultation, ICU charges, Pharmacy and lab
investigations.
14.2. It is the submission of the appellants counsel that Ex.A7 is not
proved by the cogent evidence by examining independent witnesses.
Ex.A7 are the bills from 18.04.2014 to 25.04.2014, for an amount of
Rs.1,87,110/- issued by Sairam Multi Specialty Hospital pertaining to
the claimant, which are in consonance with Ex.A5 (Discharge
summary), Ex.A8(Prescriptions and Lab report (24 Nos) and Ex.P9
(X- Rays 11 Nos.), the evidence of the claimant is sufficient to prove
the same. The appellant’s counsel submits that the Tribunal erred in
awarding Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.5,000/-
towards transportation without any evidence. As per Ex.A4 claimant
has received head injury with multiple fracture of bones and Tribunal
has rightly awarded an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards pain and
suffering and Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment taking into
consideration all the aspects and awarded Just compensation. Hence,
point is answered accordingly.
15. In view of the reasons above, I am not inclined to interfere with
the award passed by the Tribunal, there are no merits in the appeal
deserves no consideration and the same is liable to be dismissed and is
accordingly dismissed without costs.
13 BRMR,J
MACMA_12_2022
16. In the result, MACMA.No.12 of 2022 is dismissed without costs.
As a sequel, Miscellaneous application/s, pending if any, shall
stand closed.
_________________________
B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J
7th March, 2025.
PLV