JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya) 1. The present Appeal has been filed by the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation Limited (‘TSRTC’) against order dated 13.12.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District Judge) at Nizamabad (‘Tribunal’) in MVOP.No.110 of 2015. 2. The MVOP was filed by the respondents/claimants, who are the wife and children of the deceased. The appellants were the respondents in the MVOP (which was then Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation). By the impugned order, the Tribunal allowed the claimants’ MVOP in part and awarded an amount of Rs.45,20,600/- towards compensation with interest @ 7.5.% per annum from the date of petition till deposit or till realization. 3. The Tribunal apportioned the compensation amount between the respondent No.1/claimant No.1 (wife of the deceased) and the respondent Nos.2 to 4/claimant Nos.2 to 4 (children of the deceased). The appellants were directed to deposit the compensation within one month from the date of the Award. The claimant No.1 was permitted to withdraw Rs.5,20,600/- with proportionate costs and interest and the balance amount was to be kept in fixed deposit with any Nationalised Bank for a period of two years. 4. Before dealing with the appeal on merits, it should be clarified that the two grounds raised by the appellant/TSRTC are (i) identity of the deceased and (ii) contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. 5. According to learned counsel appearing for the appellants, the identity of the deceased was not established before the Tribunal and hence the impugned order should be set aside. Counsel further submits that the Tribunal failed to consider that the deceased was equally negligent for the accident. Counsel urges that there was negligence on the part of the deceased. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants submits that the identity of the deceased stood established from the records before the Tribunal. Counsel relies on the relevant part of the impugned order to dispute the ground of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. 7. We have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and have perused the material on record. 8. Counsel relies on the relevant part of the impugned order to dispute the ground of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. 7. We have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and have perused the material on record. 8. It is necessary to state that on 18.06.2025, the Court had imposed costs on the appellants for not having any instructions with regard to their compliance of the order dated 06.07.2017 by which the appellants was directed to deposit 50% of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal along with costs and the respondent No.1 was permitted to withdraw his share as apportioned by the Tribunal. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants did not have the instructions on that date. The Court was informed much later, upon instructions, that the appellants had complied with the order dated 06.07.2017. The order for costs was hence recalled on 29.07.2025. 9. We first deal with the question raised with regard to the identity of the deceased. 10. The name of the deceased in the impugned order is stated as ‘Manthena Narsaiah @ Chinnolla Narsaiah’. The Cause Title of the MVOP describes the petitioner/claimant No.1 as ‘Manthena Pushpa W/o. Manthena Narsaiah @ Chinnolla Narsaiah’ and the petitioners/ claimant Nos.2 to 4 as S/o. and D/o. of ‘Manthena Narsaiah @ Chinnolla Narsaiah’ along with their individual names. The Death Certificate of the deceased (Exhibit A9) mentions the name of the deceased as ‘Chinnolla Narsaiah @ Manthena Narsaiah’. The Salary Certificate (Exhibit A8) issued by the Mandal Educational Officer also describes the deceased as ‘Narsaiah Chinolla’, Secondary Grade Teacher, working at MPPS Nandipet. 11. Hence, there is no doubt with regard to the name and identity of the deceased from the documents which from part of the records. Consequentially, there is also no doubt that the claimants (the respondents in the Appeal) are the family members of the deceased and filed the MVOP under section 166(1)(c) of The Motor Vehicles Act , 1988 read with Rule 455 of The A.P. M.V. Rules, 1989. 12. In any event, the appellants did not raise the issue of identity of the deceased before the Tribunal as would be evident from the impugned order. The only point raised by the appellants before the Tribunal was that the negligent and rash driving on the part of the deceased led to the accident. 12. In any event, the appellants did not raise the issue of identity of the deceased before the Tribunal as would be evident from the impugned order. The only point raised by the appellants before the Tribunal was that the negligent and rash driving on the part of the deceased led to the accident. The three issues framed by the Tribunal with regard to the alleged contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, entitlement of the respondents/claimants for compensation and to what relief, the issues formulated would also show that the issue of identity of the deceased was not raised before the Tribunal. 13. We hence reject the contention of the appellants with regard to the identity of the deceased. 14. The impugned order contains several findings which address the second issue i.e., the alleged contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. The findings are as follows: (i) PW.2, eye witness to the accident, deposed that he observed that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the bus driver. (ii) RW.2, the bus driver stated that he stopped the bus at Gaggupally village for boarding passengers at the Bus Stop when the accident occurred. (iii) The Scene of Offence Panchanama however states that there is no Bus Stop at the Scene of Offence which is also admitted by RW.1 (driver of the crime vehicle) in his evidence. (iv) The Tribunal accordingly found it strange as to why the bus was stopped for boarding passengers when there was no Bus stop at the Scene of Offence. The Tribunal found that the appellants did not explain this point. (v) The Scene of Offence Panchanama showed that the driver of the bus was on the wrong side of the road and the bike (which the deceased was riding) was coming on the left side. Although RW.1 (bus driver) and RW.2 (bus conductor) deposed that the accident occurred as the deceased dashed the stationed bus and RW.2 admitted that the bus was stopped on the right side. There is no reason given by the appellants as to why the bus was stopped on the right side when there is no Bus Stop at the Scene of Offence. (vi) The Investigation Reports show that the driver of the bus was negligent and the same led to the accident. 15. There is no reason given by the appellants as to why the bus was stopped on the right side when there is no Bus Stop at the Scene of Offence. (vi) The Investigation Reports show that the driver of the bus was negligent and the same led to the accident. 15. The Tribunal accordingly concluded that the appellants had failed to discharge the onus of rebutting the charge of negligence under section 166 of the 1988 Act. 16. We find the reasons given by the Tribunal in dislodging the charge of contributory negligence to be in order and passed on logical conclusions on the undisputed facts and on the evidence before the Tribunal. It is relevant to state that the appellants have not furnished any proof in support of the ground of contributory negligence including in the Appeal. 17. We have also perused the Investigation Report, dated 29.03.2014 of the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Armoor. In the said Report, the Investigating Officer refers to the Complaint made by one Manthena Suresh Kumar, who is the nephew of the deceased. The Report further refers to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the bus driver (RW.1) and dashing of the bus against the deceased who was coming on his motorcycle from the opposite direction. 18. The impugned order also mentions the admission of RW.1 made in his cross-examination that there is no Bus Stop at the Scene of Offence. The impugned order further refers to admission of RW.2 (bus conductor) in his cross-examination that he did not state that the accident occurred on the right side of the road. 19. As stated above, the Tribunal found that the deceased was coming on the left side and the bus was on the wrong side (right side of the road) at the time of the accident and the appellants had failed to explain as to why the bus was stopped on the right side when there is no Bus Stop on the road. Significantly, the impugned order also refers to the evidence of an independent eye witness/PW.2 who supported the case of the claimants i.e., the accident occurred due to negligence of the bus driver. 20. We are hence constrained to reject the second issue of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. 21. Significantly, the impugned order also refers to the evidence of an independent eye witness/PW.2 who supported the case of the claimants i.e., the accident occurred due to negligence of the bus driver. 20. We are hence constrained to reject the second issue of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. 21. We also do not find any error in the impugned order since the Tribunal referred to Exhibit A9 (Death Certificate) with respect to the identity of the deceased. Further, PW.3 (S.Linganna) who was working as the Head Master of ZPHS, Vannel (K) and Incharge MEO at Nandipet, deposed that the deceased was working as Secondary Grade Teacher at MPPS Nandipet Mandal. Exhibit A8 (Salary Certificate) shows the salary of the deceased as Rs.30,068/-. The Tribunal relied on Exhibit A8 and the evidence of PW.3 to hold that the deceased did not fall within the purview of income tax. 22. Therefore, the contention of the appellants that the Tribunal erred in taking the gross income as opposed to the net income is also completely without basis. We accordingly do not find any scope for interference in the compensation calculated by the Tribunal. 23. The Tribunal relied on Sarla Varma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation , [ 2009(6) SCC 121 ] and arrived at a figure of Rs.43,20,600/- in accordance with the age, income and the number of dependents of the deceased. The Tribunal additionally awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards consortium and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection. The total of Rs.45,20,600/- was awarded to the claimants along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till deposit or realisation. 24. We accordingly find no reason to interfere with or set aside the impugned order as prayed for. The Proceeding Sheets show that the appellants obtained stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of the impugned order/decree dated 13.12.2016 subject to the appellants depositing 50% of the compensation awarded in favour of the respondent Nos.1 to 4 and costs within six weeks from the date of interim protection i.e., 06.07.2017. The respondent No.1 was permitted to withdraw the costs and her share of the compensation as apportioned by the Tribunal without furnishing security and the remaining amount was directed to be kept in the fixed deposit in a Nationalised Bank. 25. The respondent No.1 was permitted to withdraw the costs and her share of the compensation as apportioned by the Tribunal without furnishing security and the remaining amount was directed to be kept in the fixed deposit in a Nationalised Bank. 25. Since we have found that the impugned order is without any error either in facts or in the law, we deem it fit to dismiss the Appeal. We also cannot ignore the equities involved in the Appeal. This is a case of death, the family members of the deceased approached the Tribunal in 2015. The impugned order was passed on 13.12.2016 allowing the claim of the dependants in part. The appellants/TSRTC challenged the impugned order in 2017 by way of the present Appeal. Hence, ten years have passed from the time of filing of the MVOP by the claimants. This means that the challenge to the impugned order, after nine years, is restricted to an amount of Rs.23 lakhs approximately (taking into account the principal sum). Considering that the deceased died in 2014 and the dependants have remained deprived for eleven years, this Court also does not find any grounds to continue that deprivation particularly where the impugned order is correct in both, facts and law. 26. MACMA.No.1411 of 2017 is accordingly dismissed in terms of the above. The appellants are directed to deposit the remaining 50% of the awarded amount along with interest within eight weeks from date. The respondents shall be at liberty to withdraw the amount, as apportioned by the Tribunal. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.