##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

M.A.C.M.A.No.587of 2019

DATE: 23.12.2025

Between:

Telangana State Road Transport Corporation and one another.

….. Appellants

AND

Sri K. Sanjeeva.

….Respondent

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the appellants-TSRTC under Section

173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the judgment and

decree dated 12.12.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.997 of 2012 by the

Chairman,MACT-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Courtat Hyderabad

(hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), whereby the Tribunal

awarded compensation of Rs.2,63,000/- together with interest @

7.5% per annum to be payable by the appellant-TSRTCfor the

injuries sustained by the respondent/claimant in a motor vehicle

accident.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 13.07.2011 while the

respondent was proceeding on his bike bearing No.AP-29-BF-8874

from Batasingaram to Hyderabad, he met with an accident due to

2

the rash and negligent driving of the driver of RTC bus bearing

No.AP-11-Z-1272 (hereinafter referred as ‘crime vehicle’) due to

which the claimant sustained injuries all over the body and fracture

to the right leg femur (compound) fracture, right 5 metacarpal, right

small. Immediately, he was shifted to nearby Omni Hospital and

later shifted to NIMS Hospital where he was admitted as inpatient

for 15 days. On receipt of the complaint, Police of

HayathnagarPolice Station, registered a case in Crime No.413 of

2011 against the driver of the crime vehicle. The claimantfiled the

aforesaid claim petition before the Tribunal, under Section 166 of

Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.

3. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the oral and documentary

evidence, found that the accident occurred due to rash and

negligent driving of the TSRTC bus driver and that TSRTC was

vicariously liable and awarded a total compensation of

Rs.2,63,000/-with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the

petition till realization. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal

is filed by the appellants-TSRTC.

4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants-

TSRTC contends that the Tribunal’s finding on negligence is

without credible evidence; that the claimant himself was negligent;

that the Tribunal failed to frame an issue on contributory

3

negligence; and that assessment of income, medical expenses,

future surgery cost, loss of marriage prospects, and other heads of

compensation is excessive and unsupported by materials on record

and thus, prayed to set aside the impugned judgment.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-

claimant contends that the Tribunal correctly appreciated the

evidence on record and awarded just and reasonable compensation

in accordance with law and as such the impugned judgment does

not call for any interference.

6. On a careful examination of the record, it is evident that the

Tribunal, on consideration of uncontroverted oral and

documentary evidence, including the FIR, charge sheet and the fact

that the appellants-TSRTC did not adduce any rebuttal evidence to

contest rash and negligent driving of the TSRTC bus, held that the

accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus.

Therefore, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the

Tribunal’s factual finding that the bus driver was negligent.

7. With respect to the aspect of contributory negligence and

non-joinder of necessary parties, this Court finds that the

pleadings and evidence do not indicate that the respondent himself

overtook the bus in a negligent manner so as to warrant a finding

of contributory negligence. Further, while non-joinder of necessary

4

parties may be a ground of challenge, TSRTC waived any such

irregularity by actively participating in the proceedings and

contesting the claim on merits.

8. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal

considered the extent of injuries (compound fractures to leg and

hand requiring surgery and future surgery), medical bills, loss of

ea