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.1170 of 2019 DATE:10.03.2026 Between:

The Managing Director, APSRTC, Bus Bhavan,RTC X roads, Hyderabad.

…..Appellant AND BeraLaxmi ….Respondent

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the appellantunder Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 19.12.2014passed inM.V.O.P. No.534of 2009by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, at Adilabad(hereinafter referred to as, “the Tribunal”), whereby the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and granted compensation of Rs.1,14,851/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum for the injuries sustained by the respondent-claimant in a Motor Vehicle Accident.

2. Heard the submissions of learned counsel for both sides and perused the record.

3. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-RTC argued that the Tribunal failed to observe that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the RTC bus bearing No.AP-11 Z-4031. It is contended that the claimant sustained injuries due to her own negligence while attempting to board a moving bus. It is also contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant and prayed this Court to reduce the same.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent- claimant contended that the Tribunal, after a thorough consideration of the evidence of PW.1 and Exs.A-1 to A-9, rightly concluded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the RTC bus driver. The learned counsel further submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and does not require any interference.

5. As seen from the material placed on record, the accident occurred on 15.03.2009 when the driver of the RTC bus applied sudden brakes, causing the claimant to fall and sustain injuries. The police filed a charge sheet (Ex.A-2) against the driver of the RTC bus. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the findings arrived at by the Tribunal regarding negligence, as the same are corroborated by the evidence of PW.1 (eye-witness) and the documents under Exs. A-1 and A-2.

6. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal took into consideration the notional income of Rs.3,000/- per month and applied the multiplier of 15 as per the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, awarding Rs.81,000/- towards loss of future earning capacity due to 30% permanent disability suffered by the respondent-claimant. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards loss of earnings, Rs.5,000/- towards transport charges, Rs.4,000/- towards extra nourishment, Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering, and Rs.11,851/- towards medical expenses. Having regard to the nature of the injuries and the permanent disability suffered by the claimant, this Court is of the view that the compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and reasonable as contemplated under the Motor Vehicles Act. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the well-reasoned findings of the Tribunal. Therefore, this appeal is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.

7. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_________________________________ JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY Date:10.03.2026 NSP