IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Date: 16.03.2026 Between:

T.Padma and six others …. Appellants AND N.Shiva Babu and three others …..Respondents

JUDGMENT:

Aggrieved by the award and decree dated 23.12.2017 (hereinafter shall be referred to as ‘the impugned order’) passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal–cum–The Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (hereinafter shall be referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in O.P.No.2760 of 2014, the appellants preferred the present Appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their status before the learned Tribunal.

I. BRIEF FACTS

3. The brief facts of the case as borne out from the record are as under:

The petitioners/claimants, who are the wife, children, parents and unmarried sister of the deceased, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- against the respondents, for the death of the deceased in the road traffic accident. The reason assigned by the claimants for the accident is that on 27.08.2014 at 10.30 A.M., while the deceased was proceeding in his Swift Dzire Car bearing No.AP 09 TVA 3877 from Raigiri side towards Hyderabad, at the outskirts of Raigiri Village, the APSRTC hired bus bearing No.AP 29 TA 2500 coming in the opposite direction from Bhongiri side driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and dashed against the car in which the deceased was travelling. As a result, the deceased stuck up in the car and sustained fatal injuries on forehead and all over the body and died on the spot. The Police, Bhongir Rural Police Station, Nalgonda District (presently Yadadri – Bhuvanagiri District), registered a case vide Crime No.147/2014, dated 27.08.2014, under Section 304 (A) of IPC. Therefore, respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation. Hence, the petition.

4. In reply to the above petition averments, the respondent No.1 remained exparte and respondent Nos.2 filed a counter denying the material allegations including the manner of the accident, age and income of the deceased. It is also stated that the deceased was not holding valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident and the vehicle alleged to have caused the accident was also not insured with the company at the time of accident. It was also further stated that the certificate number mentioned by the petitioners is not tallying with the series of policy issued by the respondent No.2/insurance Company. Furthermore, it is stated that they are liable to pay the interest only from the date of commencement of evidence and not from the date of filing of the petition as per the Judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in R.D.Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control India Private Limited, 1995 ACC 281 SC and interest should not be allowed on future earning if the same was allowed by the Tribunal. Thus, respondent No.2 prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

5. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 filed a counter denying all the material allegations, the manner of accident and the income of the deceased. They also relied upon a decision reported in 2011 (8) Supreme Court Cases 142, wherein it was held that APSRTC is not liable to pay the compensation and only the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation on hired buses. Therefore, respondent Nos.3 and 4 prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 6. After considering the rival contentions, the learned Tribunal framed three issues. During the course of trial, the petitioner No.1 was examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A10 and also examined eye witness to the occurrence as PWs 2 and 3 and got

marked Exs.X1 to X3. On behalf of respondents, no oral evidence was adduced but got marked Ex.B1.

7. The learned Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, passed the impugned order awarding Rs.23,46,000/- as compensation