Currently Serving

Sri. S Sasidhar Reddy

CHIEF JUDGE

HYD, City Civil Court Complex · Hyderabad · Telangana

SRI. S SASIDHAR REDDY, CHIEF JUDGE, is posted at HYD, City Civil Court Complex, Hyderabad, Telangana, India. 1,099 court orders on record since 2025. 2 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles MVOP, T, EP cases.

1,099

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Posting

Featured Judgments

MVOP/936/2020

Swathi Panugothu vs T S R T C and others

06 May 2026

CJ, CCC M.V.O.P.No.936 of 2020

Dt:06.05.2026

1 of 11

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL - CUM -

THE COURT OF THE CHIEF JUDGE: CITY CIVIL COURT:

HYDERABAD.

Wednesday, the 06th day of May, 2026

Present: Sri S.Sasidhar Reddy

Chairman, MACT-cum-

Chief Judge,

City Civil Court.

M.V.O.P.No.936 of 2020

Between: Swathi Panugothu, D/o.Raghupathi.P., Age:22 years, Occ:Pvt.Employee, Petitioner is H.No.16-2-136/4, Madannapet, Hyderabad.

..Petitioner

And

1. Telangana State Road Transport Corp., Rep.by its Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, RTC ‘X’ Roads, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, (Owner of Crime Vehicle RTC Bus No.AP 28 Z 3971)

2. Depot Manager, Telangana State Road Transport Corp., Hayath Nagar-I Depot, Hayath Nagar, Hyderabad. (Owner of Crime Vehicle RTC Bus No.AP 28 Z 3971)

3. Lakshmi Prasad.K., S/o.Padmanabham @ Padma Nabha Rao, Age:53 years, Occ:Driver, R/o.9-130, P & T Colony, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad – 500 059. (Driver of Crime Vehicle RTC Bus No.AP 28 Z 3971)

.. Respondents

This petition came before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Putta Thirupathi Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Sri Thomas Joseph Lloyd, Advocate for the Respondents No.1 and 2 and Respondent No.3 having remained exparte; upon hearing both sides and on perusing the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court passed the following:-

CJ, CCC M.V.O.P.No.936 of 2020

Dt:06.05.2026

2 of 11

AWARD

1.This is a petition filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles

Act, 1988.

2.The case of the petitioner is that, (i) petitioner was aged 22 years and was hale and healthy. She was in private employment and earning Rs.9,000/- per month. On 24.01.2020, petitioner had gone to bus-stop near L.B.Nagar Ring Road, to go towards Uppal, an RTC bus bearing No.AP 28 28Z 3971, driven by respondent

No.3 came there. Petitioner along with other passengers went to board the vehicle. When the petitioner was entering the bus, respondent No.3 moved the bus suddenly and petitioner fell down and the bus front tyre ran over her right leg. As a result, she suffered multiple grievous injuries.

(ii)The Police of L.B. Nagar Law and Order Police Station registered a case in Crime No.131 of 2020 under Section 338 of

Indian Penal Code, 1860, against the respondent No.3 and after investigation filed charge sheet against respondent No.3. That, because of the accident, petitioner sustained grievous injuries and had to undergo prolonged treatment, incurred considerable

CJ, CCC M.V.O.P.No.936 of 2020

Dt:06.05.2026

3 of 11 medical expenses and became permanently disabled and lost her employment and income. That, the bus is owned by respondents

No.1 and 2 and driven by respondent No.3, and therefore, all the three respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.

3.Respondents No.1 and 2 filed counter denying the allegations in the petition and contending that there was no negligence on the part of the respondent No.3 and the accident did not occur as claimed by the petitioner.

4.Respondent No.3 did not appear despite service of notice and was set exparte.

5.Basing on the pleadings, the following issues were framed:

1) Whether the alleged accident dated

24.01.2020 resulting in injuries to the petitioner

i.e., Swathi Panugothu, occurred due to rash

and negligent driving of the driver of RTC Bus

bearing registration No.AP 28Z 3971?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to

compensation, if so, from whom and to what

extent?

3) To what relief?

CJ, CCC M.V.O.P.No.936 of 2020

Dt:06.05.2026

4 of 11

6.The issues are recast as follows:

1) Whether the accident that occurred on

24.01.2020, at about 09-00 hours, near bus-

stop at L.B.Nagar Ring-road, occurred due to

the rash and negligent driving of the

respondent RTC bus bearing No.AP 28Z 3971?

2) Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the said accident?

3) Whether the petitioner has become

permanently disabled because of said

injuries?

4) Whether the petitioner is entitled for

compensation? If so, what is the quantum of

compensation and from which of the

respondents?

5) To what relief?

7.Petitioner in support of her case, examined PW1, PW2 and marked Exs.A1 to A8. Respondents No.1 and 2 did not adduce any evidence.

8.Heard learned counsel for petitioner.

9.Heard learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2.

10.ISSUE NO.1:In support of her claim that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.3

CJ, CCC M.V.O.P.No.936 of 2020

Dt:06.05.2026

5 of 11 of the RTC bus, petitioner examined herself as PW1 and marked

Ex.A1-Certified copy of FIR and Ex.A3-Certified copy of Charge

Sheet. This evidence shows that police registered case against respondent No.3 and after investigation filed charge sheet against respondent No.3. Though, respondents No.1 and 2 contended that there was no negligence on the part of respondent No.3, they did not adduce any evidence. Respondent No.3 did not appear and contest the claim. Therefore, considering the evidence on record, it has to be held that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.3 of the RTC bus.

11.ISSUE NO.2:In support of her claim that she sustained injuries in the accident, petitioner relies upon Ex.A1, Ex.A3 and also Ex.A2-Certified copy of MLC Report. This evidence shows that petitioner sustained injuries in the accident.

12.ISSUE NO.3:In support of her claim that she became permanently disabled, petitioner relies upon evidence of PW2 and

Ex.A6. PW2 is not the doctor who treated the petitioner. PW2 is habituated in issuing disability certificates. He had issued disability certificate in the following cases on the file of this court alone viz.,

CJ, CCC M.V.O.P.No.936 of 2020

Dt:06.05.2026

6 of 11

M.V.O.P.No.1341 of 2021, M.V.O.P.No.2691 of 2021,

M.V.O.P.No.475 of 2019, M.V.O.P.No.2359 of 2019,

M.V.O.P.No.916 of 2020, M.V.O.P.No.777 of 2019, M.V.O.P.No.334 of 2018, M.V.O.P.No.971 of 2020, M.V.O.P.No.907 of 2022,

M.V.O.P.No.1340 of 2021, M.V.O.P.No.286 of 2020,

M.V.O.P.No.808 of 2023, M.V.O.P.No.973 of 2020, M.V.O.P.No.608 of 2020, M.V.O.P.No.1897 of 2019, M.V.O.P.No.127 of 2020,

M.V.O.P.No.1488 of 2019, M.V.O.P.No.1521 of 2018,

M.V.O.P.No.1221 of 2019, M.V.O.P.No.1452 of 2018,

M.V.O.P.No.2056 of 2021, M.V.O.P.No.2367 of 2019,

M.V.O.P.No.2868 of 2018, M.V.O.P.No.2369 of 2019,

M.V.O.P.No.2803 of 2017, M.V.O.P.No.620 of 2019,

M.V.O.P.No.1220 of 2019, M.V.O.P.No.2361 of 2019,

M.V.O.P.No.2489 of 2019, M.V.O.P.No.2075 of 2018,

M.V.O.P.No.1811 of 2019, M.V.O.P.No.3034 of 2017,

M.V.O.P.No.2869 of 2018, M.V.O.P.No.255 of 2018,

M.V.O.P.No.1483 of 2018, M.V.O.P.No.1404 of 2017,

M.V.O.P.No.2761 of 2018, M.V.O.P.No.2266 of 2017,

M.V.O.P.No.3043 of 2017, M.V.O.P.No.1884 of 2017,

M.V.O.P.No.1086 of 2016, M.V.O.P.No.201 of 2018 and

CJ, CCC M.V.O.P.No.936 of 2020

Dt:06.05.2026

7 of 11

M.V.O.P.No.1592 of 2022. Therefore, the evidence of PW2 cannot be accepted.

13.Learned counsel for petitioner relied upon the following judgments viz., M.Dinkar v. APSRTC and Another [2023 ACJ 152],

E.Ramesh v. N.Raja Reddy and another [1997 (4) ALT 753],

United India Insurance Company Limited, Hyderabad v.

K.Swaoopa Rani and Others [2013 (1) ALD 369 and in Charan

Singh v. G.Vittal Reddy and Another [2003 (4) ALD 183 (DB)], to contend that even if the doctor who issued disability certificate is not the treated doctor, the disability certificate can be accepted.

Ordinarily, any doctor can give disability certificate basing on his expertise. But, in the present case, PW2 is habituated in issuing such certificates and his evidence is not believable. Therefore, since the medical record does not show that petitioner suffered any permanent disability and the petitioner did not examine any of the doctors who treated her, it has to be held that petitioner failed to prove that she became permanently disabled.

14.ISSUE NO.4:It is the case of the petitioner that because of the accident she had suffered grievous injuries in the accident

CJ, CCC M.V.O.P.No.936 of 2020

Dt:06.05.2026

8 of 11 and had to undergo multiple surgeries, prolong treatment and had incurred considerable medical expenses and he became permanently disabled and lost his employment and income.

Therefore, the compensation that can be awarded is as follows:

PECUNIARY DAMAGES: Medical Expenses:

15.Petitioner contended that she had undergone prolonged treatment and incurred medical expenses, but she has not examined anyone in support of her case. Therefore, no amount can be awarded towards medical expenses.

Loss of Income:

16.As held above, petitioner failed to prove that she suffered any permanent disability. Hence, no amount can be awarded under this head.

NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGES:

Pain and Suffering:

17.Petitioner suffered fracture as per the medical record, therefore, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- can be awarded under this head.

18.Thus, in all, the just compensation that can be paid is

Rs.1,00,000/-.

CJ, CCC M.V.O.P.No.936 of 2020

Dt:06.05.2026

9 of 11

19.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Supe Dei (Smt) and others v. National Insurance Company Limited [(2009) 4 SCC 513] confirming the judgment in Kaushnuma Begum v. New India

Assurance Co.Ltd [(2001) 2 SCC 9] held that in motor accident cases interest at 9% is appropriate. Hon’ble Supreme Court in (1)

Anjani Singh v Saluddin [(2014) 15 SCC 582], (2) Syed Sadiq v

United India Insurance Co. Ltd [(2014) 2 SCC 735] and (3)Chanderi Singh v Jaspal Singh [(2015) 11 SCC 703] following the judgment in Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Association of

Victims of Uphaar Tragedy and others [(2011) 14 SCC 481] held that 9% interest can be awarded from the date of filing of the claim till date of realization. Therefore, respectfully following the rulings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, 9% interest per annum can be awarded.

20.In this case, petition was filed in the year 2020 and petitioner did not file process and petition was initially dismissed against respondent No.3 and then restored and finally issues were framed on 10.07.2023. Petitioner did not commence the evidence till 12.08.2024. Therefore, interest is awarded from 12.08.2024 till date of realization

CJ, CCC M.V.O.P.No.936 of 2020

Dt:06.05.2026

10 of 11

21.Since the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.3 and the bus is owned by respondents

No.1 and 2, therefore, respondents No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.

22.ISSUE NO.5:In the result, the petition is partly allowed with proportionate costs directing the respondents No.1 to 3 to jointly and severally pay the petitioner a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) towards compensation with interest at 9% per annum from 12.08.2024 till date of realization. Upon deposit, petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount.

Since the petitioner was granted court fee exemption at the time of filing the petition, the petitioner shall pay the court fee of

Rs.7,360/- within 15 days from the date of the order. If the petitioner fails to pay the court fees, the same shall be recovered from the decree amount. The Advocate Fee is fixed at Rs.1,500/-.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade - I, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 06 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-

CHAIRMAN

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-Cum

CHIEF JUDGE: CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD

CJ, CCC M.V.O.P.No.936 of 2020

Dt:06.05.2026

11 of 11

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For the Petitioner: For the Respondents:

PW1: Swathi Panugothu.None. PW2: Dr.A.Srinivas Goud.

Documents marked

For the petitioner:

Ex.A1: Certified copy of F.I.R.No.131/2020, dt.24.01.2020 along with complaint. Ex.A2: Certified copy of MLC Report dt.24.01.2020 issued by Kamineni Hospitals, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad. Ex.A3: Certified copy of Charge Sheet. Ex.A4: Discharge Summary of Swathi dt.28.01.2020 issued by Kamineni Hospital, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad. Ex.A5: Injury Photographs (2 in number) of Petitioner. Ex.A6: Disability Certificate dt.17.11.2022 issued by Dr.A.Srinivas Goud. Ex.A7: Bunch of Medical Bills along with Statement for Rs.5,760/-. Ex.A8: One X-ray Film.

For the respondents:

Nil.

Sd/-

CHAIRMAN

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-Cum

CHIEF JUDGE: CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD

MVOP/890/2024

Kotha Gadi Laxmi vs The TSRTC

06 May 2026

CJ, CCC M.V.O.P.No.890 of 2024

Dt:06.05.2026

1 of 11

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL - CUM -

THE COURT OF THE CHIEF JUDGE: CITY CIVIL COURT:

HYDERABAD.

Wednesday, the 06th day of May, 2026

Present: Sri S.Sasidhar Reddy

Chairman, MACT-cum-

Chief Judge,

City Civil Court.

M.V.O.P.No.890 of 2024

Between:

1. Kotha Gadi Laxmi, W/o.Kotha Gadi Venkataiah, Age:36 years, Occ:Housewife.

2. Kotha Gadi Venkataiah, S/o.Kotha Gadi Buchaiah, Age:43 years, Occ:Labour.

3. Kothagadi Kirthana, D/o.Kothagadi Venkataiah, Age:10 years, Occ:Student. Petitioner No.3 is being minor represented by her natural mother, i.e., Petitioner No.1.

All are N/o.Arkathala, Vikarabad District,

Presently R/o.2-8-947, Tolichowk, Hyderabad...Petitioners

And

1. T.S.R.T.C., Rep. by its Managing Director, O/o.Bus Bhavan, RTC X Roads, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

2. Depot Manager, O/o.T.S.R.T.C., Vikarabad RTC Depot, Vikarabad, T.S.

3. D.Ananth Reddy, S/o.D.Gopal Reddy, Age:Major, Occ:TSRTC Bus Driver, R/o.1-21, Medipally Kalan, Pudur, Vikarabad – 501 501.

.. Respondents

CJ, CCC M.V.O.P.No.890 of 2024

Dt:06.05.2026

2 of 11

This petition came before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri C.Satish Kumar Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioners and of Sri Gaurav Kwatra, Advocate for the Respondents No.1 and 2 and Respondent No.3 having remained exparte; upon hearing both sides and on perusing the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court passed the following:-

AWARD

1.This is a petition filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles

Act, 1988.

2.The case of the petitioners is that, (i) petitioners are the parents and younger sister of Kothagadi Karthi. Karthik was aged 14 years and he was a student. On 22.03.2024, Karthik was proceeding on a motorcycle bearing No.TS 34 1296 towards

Nawabpet along with others. At around, 01-00 hours, a TSRTC bus bearing No.AP 29Z 1324, driven by respondent No.3 at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner collided against motorcycle head-on. As a result of the collision, Karthik sustained grievous injuries and he was shifted to Government

Hospital, Vikarabad. After administering first aid, he was shifted to Esha Hospital, Vikarabad and then to Citizen Hospital,

Hyderabad, where he succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment on 22.03.2024.

CJ, CCC M.V.O.P.No.890 of 2024

Dt:06.05.2026

3 of 11

(ii) That Police of Nawbpet Police Station registered a case in Crime No.33 of 2024 under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 199 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against respondent No.3 and after investigation filed charge sheet against respondent No.3. That because of the accident, petitioners lost their son and a valued family member. That, the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.3, driving the bus owned by respondents No.1 and 2, and therefore, all the three respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners for the loss of their son.

3.Respondents No.1 and 2 filed their counter denying the allegations in the petition and contending that there was no negligence on the part of respondent No.3 and the negligence was that of the rider of the motorcycle.

4.Respondent No.3 did not appear despite service of notice and was set-exparte.

5.Basing on the pleadings, the following issues were framed:

1) Whether the accident that occurred on

22.03.2024, at about 09-30 hours, near Nawabpet

Model School, Pulimamidi, Vikarabad, Telangana,

occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of

the respondent No.3 of TSRTC bus bearing No.AP

29Z 1324?

CJ, CCC M.V.O.P.No.890 of 2024

Dt:06.05.2026

4 of 11

2) Whether Kothagadi Karthik sustained injuries

in the said accident and died as a result of said

injuries?

3) Whether the petitioners are entitled for

compensation? If so, what is the quantum of

compensation and from which of the respondents?

4) To what relief?

6.Petitioners in support of their case examined PW1, PW2 and marked Exhibits A1 to A5. Respondents No.1 and 2 examined respondent No.3 as RW1.

7.Heard learned counsel for petitioners.

8.Heard learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2.

9.ISSUE NO.1:It is the case of the petitioners that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.3 of RTC bus. Petitioners examined PW1 and marked Ex.A1-Certified copy of FIR, Ex.A4-Certified copy of MVI

Report and Ex.A5-Certified copy of Charge Sheet. They also examined PW2 as an eyewitness. PW2 is not cited as an eyewitness in Ex.A5. Respondents No.1 and 2 examined respondent No.3 as RW1. Respondent No.3 had not filed his counter. Further, he is facing criminal prosecution and he is an employee of respondents No.1 and 2, therefore, much credence

CJ, CCC M.V.O.P.No.890 of 2024

Dt:06.05.2026

5 of 11 cannot be given to his evidence. Police record shows that the accident occurred due to head-on-collision. Police had registered case against respondent No.3 and after investigation filed charge sheet against respondent No.3. In view of this evidence, it has to be held that accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.3 of the RTC bus.

10.ISSUE NO.2:In support of their claim that, Karthik sustained injuries in the said accident and died as a result of the said injuries, petitioners rely upon the evidence of PW1, PW2,

Ex.A1, Ex.A4, Ex.A5, and also Ex.A2-Certified copy of Inquest

Report and Ex.A3-Certified copy of Postmortem Examination

Report. This records shows that Karthik sustained injuries in the accident and died as a result of said injuries.

11.ISSUE NO.3:It is the case of the petitioners that Karthik was a student and he was aged 14 years. Petitioners have not filed any proof of age. In so far as age is concerned, since no proof of age is filed, the age recorded in inquest report and postmortem report has to be considered. The age recorded in

Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 is 14 years. Therefore, age is recorded as 14

CJ, CCC M.V.O.P.No.890 of 2024

Dt:06.05.2026

6 of 11 years. Petitioners claim that Karthik was a student. They have not filed any proof. However, since it is contended that Karthik was a student, following the ruling of Hon’ble Supreme Court in

M.R.Krishna Murthi v New India Assurance Company Limted and others [(2020) 15 SCC 493], the minimum wage is taken as a notional income. The minimum wage is Rs.12,309/-1. Since the age is taken as 14 years, 40% has to be added towards future prospects following the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others [(2017) 16 SCC 680], which comes to Rs.4,923.6 which is rounded off to Rs.4,924/-. Therefore, monthly income is

Rs.17,233/- (Rs.12,309/- + Rs.4,924/-). Since Karthik was a bachelor, 50% has to be deducted towards personal expenses, which comes to Rs.8,616.5, which is rounded off to Rs.8,617/-.

Since the age is taken as 14 years, the applicable multiplier is

18. Hence, Loss of Dependency is Rs.18,61,272/- (Rs.8,617/- x 12 x 18).

12.The petitioners can be awarded the following sums under the standard heads:- 1https://labour.telangana.gov.in/MinRatesWages.do

CJ, CCC M.V.O.P.No.890 of 2024

Dt:06.05.2026

7 of 11

LOSS OF CONSORTIUM:

A sum of Rs.48,400/- towards loss of consortium can be awarded to each of the petitioners No.1 to 3, totaling

Rs.1,45,200/-, following the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others [(2017) 16 SCC 680], Magma General Insurance Company

Limited v. Nanu Ram [(2018) 18 SCC 130], Joginder Singh v. ICIC

Lombard General Insurance Co., [(2020) 18 SCC 808] and

Janabai v. ICICI Lombard Insurance Co.Ltd [(2022) 10 SCC 512].

LOSS OF ESTATE:

A sum of Rs.18,150/- towards loss of estate can be awarded to the petitioners following the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of IndiainNational Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and others.

FUNERAL EXPENSES:

A sum of Rs.18,150/- can be awarded to the petitioners towards funeral expenses following the ruling of Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India in National Insurance Company Ltd.,

Vs. Pranay Sethi and others.

CJ, CCC M.V.O.P.No.890 of 2024

Dt:06.05.2026

8 of 11

13.In all, the just compensation that can be awarded to the petitioners is Rs.20,42,772/-, which is enumerated as follows:-

Loss of DependencyRs.18,61,272/-

Loss of Consortium to theRs.1,45,200/- petitioners No.1 to 3 @ Rs.48,400/-

Loss of EstateRs.18,150/-

Funeral ExpensesRs.18,150/-

14.Though the petitioners had only claimed a sum of

Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation, they are entitled for a sum of

Rs.20,42,772/-, which is over and above the claim made by petitioners in this petition. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nagappa

Vs. Gurudayal Singh and Others, [(2003) 2 SCC 274], Rajesh and others Vs. Rajbir Singh and others [2013 ACJ 1403 (SC)] and Syed Sadiq Vs. United India Insurance Co., Ltd., [2014

ACJ 627]has held that there is no embargo for the

Court/Tribunal to award appropriate compensation which can be more than the amount claimed in the petition, if the petitioners are entitled for the compensation more than they claimed.

Respectfully following the rulings of Hon’ble Supreme Court this is a fit case for awarding compensation in excess of the claim.

CJ, CCC M.V.O.P.No.890 of 2024

Dt:06.05.2026

9 of 11

15.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Supe Dei (Smt.) and others v. National Insurance Company Limited [(2009) 4 SCC 513] confirming the judgment in Kaushnuma Begum v. New India

Assurance Co.Ltd [(2001) 2 SCC 9] held that in motor accident cases interest at 9% is appropriate. Hon’ble Supreme Court in (1)

Anjani Singh v Saluddin [(2014) 15 SCC 582], (2) Syed Sadiq v

United India Insurance Co. Ltd [(2014) 2 SCC 735] and (3)Chanderi Singh v Jaspal Singh [(2015) 11 SCC 703] following the judgment in Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Association of

16.Since the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.3 and the bus is owned by respondents

No.1 and 2, respondents No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.

CJ, CCC M.V.O.P.No.890 of 2024

Dt:06.05.2026

10 of 11

17.ISSUE No.4: In the result, the petition is allowed with costs directing the respondents No.1 to 3 to jointly and severally pay the petitioners a sum of Rs.20,42,772/- (Rupees Twenty

Lakhs Forty Two Thousands Seven Hundred Seventy Two only) towards compensation with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim till date of realization. Out of compensation, petitioners are entitled for equal shares in the compensation, costs and interest. Upon deposit, the share of petitioner No.3 shall be deposited in fixed deposit, until she attains the age of majority. Petitioners No.1 and 2 are permitted to withdraw their respective shares. The petitioners shall pay the deficit Court fees within 15 days from the date of the order. If the petitioners fail to pay the court fees the same shall be recovered from the decree amount. The Advocate Fee is fixed at Rs.1,500/-.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade - I, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 06 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-

CHAIRMAN

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-Cum

CHIEF JUDGE: CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD

CJ, CCC M.V.O.P.No.890 of 2024

Dt:06.05.2026

11 of 11

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For the Petitioner: For the Respondents:

PW1: Kotha Gadi Venkataiah.RW1: D.Ananth Reddy. PW2: M.Shivaraju.

Documents marked

For the petitioner:

Ex.A1: Certified copy of F.I.R. with complaint. Ex.A2: Certified copy of Inquest Report. Ex.A3: Certified copy of Postmortem Examination Report. Ex.A4: Certified copy of MVI Report. Ex.A5: Certified copy of Charge Sheet.

For the respondents:

Nil.

Sd/-

CHAIRMAN

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-Cum

CHIEF JUDGE: CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD

Order Record 1,090 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
MVOP/54/2025	Akkenapally Naresh vs Merajunnisa Begum	19 May 2026	Orders	—
MVOP/583/2024	Kotagiri Bhanu Teja vs Ch. Divya Reddy	19 May 2026	Orders	—
MVOP/1724/2025	D Veeraiah vs Amgoth Ganesh Nayak	19 May 2026	Orders	—
MVOP/890/2024	Kotha Gadi Laxmi vs The TSRTC	06 May 2026	Award	—
MVOP/936/2020	Swathi Panugothu vs T S R T C and others	06 May 2026	Award	—
MVOP/1785/2022	Vijay Kumar Maloth vs Sai Prakash.N	06 May 2026	Award	—
MVOP/2365/2019	Venkatappa K. vs The TSRTC	06 May 2026	Award	—
MVOP/2597/2021	Yennam Rahul Veera Reddy vs R.Shyamaiah	06 May 2026	Award	—
T.R.O.P/26/2026	V Usha Rani vs Ch Annapurnadevi	06 May 2026	Orders	—
MVOP/252/2022	P.Dhanamma vs Kamepalli Venkateswarlu	05 May 2026	Award	—
MVOP/894/2023	Durgapuram Laxmi Devi vs The TSRTC	05 May 2026	Award	—
MVOP/988/2023	Chikati Bharatamma vs I.Venkata Rao	05 May 2026	Award	—
MVOP/2398/2023	B. Vijaya vs The Depot Manager, TSRTC	05 May 2026	Award	—
MVOP/2862/2024	M. Indramma vs The TSRTC (Earlier APSRTC)	05 May 2026	Award	—
MVOP/2930/2024	MD. Buran vs The TELANGANA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION	05 May 2026	Award	—
G.W.O.P/3/2026	Mr Santosh Sharma vs Sapna Sharma	05 May 2026	Orders	—
T.R.O.P/86/2025	A. ANASUYA vs KOMIRISHETTY PENTU BHAI	05 May 2026	Orders	—
MVOP/1532/2019	Palubai Prashanth Chary vs The TSRTC	04 May 2026	Award	—
OP/592/2018	B.Roopa Rani vs Shaik khaleel	04 May 2026	Award	—
CMA/146/2018	Ramesh Mehta vs The Sports Authority of Telangana State.	01 May 2026	Judgement	—
MVOP/1411/2023	Koppula Hyndhavi vs Nuthangi Kishore Babu	01 May 2026	Award	—
MVOP/1610/2024	Syeda Ruhina Fatima vs T.S.R.T.C.	01 May 2026	Award	—
T.R.O.P/21/2026	MUDDAM DHEERAJ KUMAR vs M HIMABINDU	01 May 2026	Orders	—
MVOP/512/2023	B.Swarooparani vs Althaf Ali	30 Apr 2026	Award	—
MVOP/719/2024	Chinne Bai vs M/s. Parthasarathy Logistics Pvt. Ltd.	30 Apr 2026	Award	—
MVOP/563/2022	Pasha Mohammad vs Aruna P	28 Apr 2026	Award	—
MVOP/749/2023	S.Bheeshma Chary vs The TSRTC	28 Apr 2026	Award	—
MVOP/232/2019	B.Madhusushan vs TELANGANA STATE RAOD TRANSPORT CORPORATION	27 Apr 2026	Award	—
MVOP/1235/2021	Ravi W. vs Sai Prudhvi O.	27 Apr 2026	Award	—
T.R.O.P/9/2026	Bannala Ravitej Reddy vs G Shekhar Goud	27 Apr 2026	Orders	—
T.R.O.P/7/2026	Azzam Nazim Farooqui vs Srinivas Bung	24 Apr 2026	Orders	—
MVOP/892/2024	Satarla Pedda Chennaiah vs Singi Reddy Pradeep Reddy	23 Apr 2026	Award	—
MVOP/1542/2021	Yadamma Kamalla vs The TSRTC	23 Apr 2026	Award	—
T.R.O.P/17/2026	Dr Jameelunnisa Salma vs Miss Shagufta Yasmeen	23 Apr 2026	Orders	—
T.R.O.P/24/2026	Ms Namdhari Tent House vs Maneeza Jumabhoy	23 Apr 2026	Orders	—
MVOP/1611/2021	M.Srinivas vs Vivekanand Rath	22 Apr 2026	Award	—
MVOP/2199/2024	K. Jaya Lakshmi vs TSRTC	22 Apr 2026	Award	—
MVOP/2412/2021	P.Murali Krishna vs APSRTC	22 Apr 2026	Award	—
MVOP/2616/2023	Sukhabati Devgade vs The KSRTC	22 Apr 2026	Award	—
MVOP/2667/2024	Nutakki Ratnakumari vs APSRTC	22 Apr 2026	Award	—
T.R.O.P/23/2026	Mohd Yousuf Hussain vs Mohd Osman	22 Apr 2026	Orders	—
T.R.O.P/25/2026	R Venkateswar Rao vs R.Krishna	22 Apr 2026	Orders	—
MVOP/74/2024	Smt. Sunita Devi vs Telangana State Road Transportation Corporation	20 Apr 2026	Award	—
MVOP/1963/2023	Puppalla Yashoda vs Sri Sammakka Sarakka Concrete	20 Apr 2026	Award	—
EP/26/2026	Shriram Finance Limited Formerly knows as Shriram City Union Finance Ltd. vs Ravinder Derangula	17 Apr 2026	Orders	—
EP/27/2026	Shriram Finance Limited Formerly knows as Shriram City Union Finance Ltd. vs Vijay Kumar K	17 Apr 2026	Orders	—
EP/28/2026	Shriram Finance Limited Formerly knows as Shriram City Union Finance Ltd. vs Shaik Mohammed	17 Apr 2026	Orders	—
EP/29/2026	Shriram Finance Limited Formerly knows as Shriram City Union Finance Ltd. vs G Kaushik Reddy	17 Apr 2026	Orders	—
MVOP/736/2022	Ganta Umadevi vs Pagadala Kurumaiah	17 Apr 2026	Award	—
MVOP/842/2021	G.Lingamma vs The TSRTC	17 Apr 2026	Award	—
MVOP/1769/2023	Bhuma Shobha vs Dubba Ramesh	16 Apr 2026	Award	—
MVOP/1820/2023	Shantha.N vs The Managing Director, TSRTC	16 Apr 2026	Award	—
MVOP/1991/2022	K.Jangamma vs Kadari Rama Krishna	16 Apr 2026	Award	—
T.R.O.P/16/2026	B Mahesh vs GHMC	16 Apr 2026	Orders	—
MVOP/455/2020	G.Appayamma vs APSRTC	15 Apr 2026	Award	—
MVOP/2309/2021	Arpula Anjamma vs Ambati Shankar	15 Apr 2026	Award	—
OS/319/2025	Smt.T RADHA vs The Tahsildar	15 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
T.R.O.P/18/2026	SMT NIKITHA RAJ POGAKU vs SRAVAN KUMAR POGAKU	15 Apr 2026	Orders	—
OP/837/2017	Naveen Reddy.R vs TELANGANA STATE RAOD TRANSPORT CORPORATION	13 Apr 2026	Award	—
T.R.O.P/20/2026	Neha Begum vs Mohd Khaja	13 Apr 2026	Orders	—
MVOP/1483/2022	Bondeli Nirmala Bai vs Dodla Edamaiah	10 Apr 2026	Award	—
MVOP/2229/2023	Purnima Kumari vs Lunavath Dhanalaxmi	10 Apr 2026	Award	—
MVOP/2879/2021	B.Swapna Devi vs Mohammed Jafar	10 Apr 2026	Award	—
G.W.O.P/41/2025	JABEEN SULTANA vs ALL CONCERNED	10 Apr 2026	Orders	—
MVOP/2319/2021	Nadimpally Varalaxmi vs Polina Ram Manoj	09 Apr 2026	Award	—
OP/558/2018	A.Murali Krishnamacharyulu vs TELANGANA STATE RAOD TRANSPORT CORPORATION	09 Apr 2026	Award	—
MVOP/628/2025	DUNDIGALLA KRISHNAMURTHY vs VELGOTI NAGA LAXMI	08 Apr 2026	Orders	—
OS/825/2016	Arvind Constructions Rep by its authorized officer vs Greenko AMR power pvt Ltd	08 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OP/22/2019	M/s R.K.Infra and Enginering (India) Pvt Ltd vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Special Chief Secretary	07 Apr 2026	Orders	—
OS/248/2025	Yelchuri Rama Devi vs M. Shantha Kumari	07 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
T.R.O.P/53/2025	A. MANIK PRABHU vs M/S. N.S. FILLING POINT	07 Apr 2026	Orders	—
MVOP/73/2024	Rathlavath Bujji vs Basa Suresh Kumar	06 Apr 2026	Orders	—
MVOP/193/2023	G.Padma vs Syed Irfan	06 Apr 2026	Orders	—
MVOP/320/2023	Radha Power vs Sheetal .B	06 Apr 2026	Orders	—
MVOP/427/2025	ALLADA KARUNAKAR REDDY vs ANGERI SANGEETHA	06 Apr 2026	Orders	—
MVOP/484/2022	Y.Ramesh vs T.Mallikarjun	06 Apr 2026	Award	—
MVOP/554/2022	Narayana Chary .V vs Chena Ram @ Chenaram Sirvi	06 Apr 2026	Orders	—
MVOP/575/2022	Chandanapalli Maheswara Rao vs Managing Director, TSRTC	06 Apr 2026	Award	—
MVOP/619/2025	GARLAPATI PAVANI vs BHARAT TRANSPORT SERVICE	06 Apr 2026	Orders	—
MVOP/640/2024	Hanna Nafisa Nasim vs Selva Prasath	06 Apr 2026	Orders	—
MVOP/862/2025	Thikkala Bikshapathi vs E Suresh	06 Apr 2026	Orders	—
MVOP/872/2025	SMT YERRA VIJAYA LAXMI vs MEDARI KURMAIAH	06 Apr 2026	Orders	—
MVOP/955/2023	Swarupa Poloju vs Veera Shekar G @ Veera Shekar Gudaram	06 Apr 2026	Orders	—
MVOP/958/2024	Gyara Anuradha vs B.Praveen Kumar Goud	06 Apr 2026	Orders	—
MVOP/987/2023	S.Ishaan vs Ahmed Hussain	06 Apr 2026	Orders	—
MVOP/1024/2024	Danaiah Radarapu vs Varma Supply Chain Pvt. Ltd.,	06 Apr 2026	Orders	—
MVOP/1066/2025	GANTADI VIJAYA LAXMI vs MEDARI KURMAIAH	06 Apr 2026	Orders	—
MVOP/1106/2025	Balakrishna vs Neo Logistics	06 Apr 2026	Orders	—
MVOP/1107/2025	Kummari Chandra Sekhar vs Neo Logistics	06 Apr 2026	Orders	—
MVOP/1108/2025	B. LAXMI NARAYANA ALIAS VINOD vs NEO LOGISTICS	06 Apr 2026	Orders	—
MVOP/1124/2023	Durga Prasad Pallapu vs Rafeeq Mohammed @ Rafeeq Mohd.,	06 Apr 2026	Orders	—
MVOP/1285/2024	Kathal Sabu vs Nandamuri Transporters	06 Apr 2026	Orders	—
MVOP/1333/2025	Anitha Devi Alias Sabitha vs Aashiyan Alan Kingston John	06 Apr 2026	Orders	—
MVOP/1390/2024	Gyara Upender vs B. Praveen Kumar Goud	06 Apr 2026	Orders	—
MVOP/1451/2025	Sangapaka Rajamallu vs Hepseeba Doopati	06 Apr 2026	Orders	—
MVOP/1455/2025	Naroju Radha vs Tikuram Das	06 Apr 2026	Orders	—
MVOP/1456/2023	Salima Sultana vs Athinarapu Ganesh	06 Apr 2026	Orders	—
MVOP/1617/2024	Ayyagalla Vittal vs Uduthala Mahesh	06 Apr 2026	Orders	—
MVOP/1778/2025	Palle Laxmidevamma vs D V S Kutumba Rao	06 Apr 2026	Orders	—
MVOP/1779/2025	Palle Sunitha vs D V S Kutumba Rao	06 Apr 2026	Orders	—

Showing 100 of 1,090 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

May 2026		23
Apr 2026		121
Mar 2026		66
Feb 2026		73
Jan 2026		133
Dec 2025		75
Nov 2025		57
Oct 2025		57
Sep 2025		151
Aug 2025		93
Jul 2025		119
Jun 2025		85

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has SRI. S SASIDHAR REDDY handled?

SRI. S SASIDHAR REDDY has handled 1099 court orders since 2025 at HYD, City Civil Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 82 orders per month.

What types of cases does SRI. S SASIDHAR REDDY hear?

Based on available records, SRI. S SASIDHAR REDDY primarily handles Motor Accident matters (Motor Accident Claims) and Civil matters (Execution Petitions, Appeal Suits) at HYD, City Civil Court Complex.

Where is SRI. S SASIDHAR REDDY currently posted?

SRI. S SASIDHAR REDDY is posted as CHIEF JUDGE at HYD, City Civil Court Complex, Hyderabad, Telangana.

Are judgments by SRI. S SASIDHAR REDDY available online?

Yes. 2 judgments by SRI. S SASIDHAR REDDY are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does SRI. S SASIDHAR REDDY dispose cases?

SRI. S SASIDHAR REDDY disposes approximately 82 cases per month, based on 1099 orders handled over their tenure at HYD, City Civil Court Complex.

Since when is SRI. S SASIDHAR REDDY serving?

SRI. S SASIDHAR REDDY has been serving at HYD, City Civil Court Complex since 2025. and is currently posted there.

Case Types

MVOP 56%

T 12%

EP 10%

AS 6%

OS 6%

CMA 4%

G 3%

OP 2%

Posting History

Apr 2025 — Present

CHIEF JUDGE · 1,099 orders

Other Judges at this Court

Smt. Y. Padma

II ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE

1,069 orders

Manisha Sravan Unnam

III ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE

0 orders

Sri. K. Murali Mohan

IX ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE

121 orders

Sri. Ch. Jithendhar

X ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE

299 orders

Smt. P.lakshmi Kumari

XI ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE

1 orders

Smt. M. Padmaja

XIV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE

1,179 orders

Sri. D.v. Nageswara Rao

XXV ADDL CHIEF JUDGE

1,759 orders

Smt. Vempati Aparna

XXVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE

14 orders

Ms. Shalini Lingam

II JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

86 orders

Smt. Putta Mounika

III JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

5 orders

Ms. K.Keerthana

IV JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

20 orders

Ms. G.Girija

V JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

36 orders

Ms. Anamika

VI JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

670 orders

Ms. K.Bindu

VII JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

137 orders

Ms. B.Manasa

VIII JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

64 orders

Smt. B. Kalpana

IX JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

210 orders

Smt. Arisha Nusrat

X JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

2 orders

Sri. Rama Chandra Rao Nadendla

XIX JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

339 orders

Gopi Krishna Kumaram

XXI JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

0 orders

Sri C.suresh

I SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

344 orders

Sri. B. Rama Rao

II SENIOR CIVIL JUGDE

45 orders

Sri. G. Uday Kumar

THE PRL. SPECIAL COURT IN THE CADRE OF DISTRICT JU...

48 orders

Sri. N. Venkat Ram

ADDL. SPECIAL COURT IN THE CADRE OF DISTRICT JUDGE...

19 orders

← View all judges at HYD, City Civil Court Complex