THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO DATED: 06^th March 2026 Between:

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), represented by its Managing Director, Owner of the Bus bearing No.AP 28 Y 5592, Hyd-2 Depot, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

… Appellant - respondent No.1 And

1.M.Ramesh … Respondent No.1 - Petitioner

2. K.Ajay Babu

3.The United India Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Branch Manager, Branch Office, Opp: Central Bank of India, Bank St., Koti, Hyderabad.

… Respondent Nos.2 and 3 –

respondent Nos.2 and 3

JUDGMENT

1. This memorandum of Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the MV Act’) assailing the award passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.50 of 2010 dated 17.06.2014.

2. Appellant is the respondent No.1, respondent No.1 is the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the respondent Nos.2 and

3 in the O.P.

3. Respondent No.1 – petitioner has filed claim petition under Sections 163 – A and 166 of the MV Act read with Rule 475/1B of APMV Rules, 1989, claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of filing the petition till payment, for the injuries sustained by him in the road accident.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant – respondent No.1 submits that the Tribunal erred in awarding 50% of sum of Rs.2,06,000/- towards the compensation along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum so far as APSRTC is concerned as against the claim of Rs.5,00,000/- in case of injuries under Section 166 of the MV Act, has committed irregularity in holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP-28-Y-5592 without there being any acceptable evidence on record, failed to frame an issue whether the claim against APSRTC is liable to be dismissed as the crime vehicle was hired by the APSRTC and ought to have appreciated the fact that the injured was on foot board negligently in the bus-bay of Bowenpally bus stop which is restricted to anyone to stand in the bus-bay and caused accident without giving way to the bus. As per Ex.A4 - C.C of charge sheet, at the time of accident the injured was walking on the road as such there is no contradictions between the version of the charge sheet and the claim petition with regard to the manner in which the accident has taken place. The Tribunal erred in taking the income of the injured at Rs.500/- per day. Ex.A9 – disability certificate is issued by PW3. The learned Tribunal ought to have appreciated the fact that the insurance company shall be solely and exclusively liable to pay the compensation arising out of third party claims. Counsel to substantiate his contention has relied on the decisions in the cases of (i) The National Insurance Company Limited, Hyderabad Vs. C.H.Balram and others 1 and (ii) Smt.K.Jayasree and others Vs.

K.Shankara Reddy and others² and prayed to allow the appeal.

1 Review MACMA.Nos.4332 and 4333 of 2014 in MACMA.Nos.2623 of 2007 and 2486 of 2006, of the

High Court of judicature at Hyderabad, for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh.

2 MACMA.Nos.2953 of 2009 and 1846 of 2010, of the High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh,

Hyderabad.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 – petitioner submits that in case if the Hon’ble Court comes to a conclusion that RTC is liable to be exonerated, insurance company may be directed to pay the entire compensation amount.

6. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that the copy of the policy is not marked, appellant – respondent No.1 has not made out any case and no interference is called for.

7. Respondent No.1 - petitioner is examined himself as PW1, examined PW2 – Biplab Sinha and PW3 – Dr.B.Sugunakar Reddy and got marked Exs.A1 to A12. Appellant –