1. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Mothukuri Laxmi

Counsel forthe Respondent: Dr. CHALLA SRINIVASA REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER 7 HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE M. G.PRIYADARSINI l M.A.C.M.A.No.1O85 OF 2013 JUDGMEN,T: Aggrieved by the order and decree dated 27.ll.2ol2 .(hereinafter will be Yeferred as 'impugned order,) passed by t}re learned Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal * cum - II Additional District Judge, Khammam (hereinafter wil be referred as 'Tribunal') in M.A.T.O.p.No.884 of 2Oll, the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation has filed the present Appeal to set aside the impugned order.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case as can be seen from the record are as under: a) The petitioner filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act claiming compensation of Rs.4,OO,OOO/- against the Respondent/Corporation for the injuries sustained by her in the road traffic accident that occurred on O3.06.2Ol l. The reason assigned by the petitioner for the injuries sustained by her in the accident is that on 03.06.2011 at 6.00 pM she got down from thc bus at Thirumala and at the same time, the I I 2 driver of APSRTC Bus bearing registration No'AP 29 Z OllT of Srikalahasthi Depot (hereinafter will be referred as crime vehicle') drove the same in rash and negligent manner at high speed alrd dashed the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner fell down ald sustained severe crush injuries to her legs' b) A case in Crime No.24 of 2Oll of Thirumala Police Station was registered against the driver of the bus. The petitioner, who is aged about 40 years, was earning Rs.150/- per day by doing coolie work. Due to the accident, the petitioner betame permanently disabled and not in a position to attend her normal duties. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by its driver and thus, the petitioner claimed compensation of Rs-4,0O,000/- from the Nos. 1 and 2, who are Manager, Srikalahasthi Depot and respondent Managing Director of APSRTC respectively' Before the learned Tribuna-I, in reply to the above petition 4. averments, the respondent No.2 filed counter and whereas respondent No. I remained exparte' In the counter, the respondent No.2 denied the manner of the accident, age' occupation and earnings of the deceased. It was contended that the accident occurred due to gross negligence on the part of the I t 't J petitioner at the time of the accident and there was no negligence on the part of driver of t}re ApSRTC Bus. It was further contended that the claim of the petitioner is highly excessive and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: i) Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in motor accident occurred on 03.O6.2O11 due to rash and. negligent diuing of the ApSRTC Bus bearing No.Ap 29 7 0I t 7?

6. ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to tohat amount and from uhich of tle respondents? iii) To tthat relieJ? In ordt'r to establish her claim before the learned Tribunal, PWs I to 3 were examined and Exs.A 1 to A6 were exhibited on behalf of the petitioner. On the other hand, the driver of the crime vehicle was examined as RWl, however, no documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the ApSRTC to deny the claim of I he petitioner.

7. The learned Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, passed the impugned order awarding Rs.4,OO,0O0/- AS compensation to the petitioner. / l ucr,l Io loas of 2Or3 Aggrieved by the same, the Appellant/APSRTC Corporation filed the present Appeal to set aside the impugned order'

8. Heard Sri Kallakuri Srinivasa Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the Appetlant/APSRTC Corporation, Dr' Challa Srinivasa Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent/claimant and perused the material available on record including the grounds of Appeal. g. It is to be seen that the injured/claimant has not preferred any Appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal.

10. The first and foremost contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that there is no negligence on the part of driver of the crime vehicle and in fact when the bus was stopping at passengers stand, the petitioner has crossed the bus before it is halted and thereby the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the petitioner' It was further contended that the learned Tribunal relied on Exs'Al to A4 to establish that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of the driver of t-Ile bus but the same is not conclusive proof to hold that the driver of the bus was rash and negligent' t / /7 r!cPJ M^cir.tNo roas.r20la

11. The learned Tribunal relied upon oral evidence of PWl apart from the documentary evidence in the form of Exs'A I (FIR), A2 (Charge sheet), A3 (medical certificate) and A4 (MVI report). Ex.Al is the FIR in Crime No'24 of 2O11 of Police Station Tirrmala Traffic and the complaint was lodged by one K' Srinivas. Ex.A2 is the charge sheet, which discloses that the driver of the RTC bus bearing No-AP 29 Z OllT drove the same in rash and negligent manner without due care and precautionary measures collided against the pedestrian (petitioner herein) while she was coming to a side Apart from the above documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal relied upon the oral evidence of PWl, who was cross examined by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2' But nothing could be elicited from the cross examination of PWI to establish that the accident occurred due to negligence of the petitioner' In order to disprove the contention of the petitioner, tJle respondents got examined the driver of the crime vehicle as RW 1 , who has reiterated the averments of the counter in his chief examination' In the cross examination, he admitted that police filed charge sheet against him stating that he was responsible for the accident. In the chief examination, RWI deposed that while was entering into the bus stand at Tirumala and when he was 6 stopping the bus at passengers stand, the injured tried to cross the bus before it is halted. It is not the case of RWI that he has not seen the petitioner while she was crossing the bus. When RWI has seen the. petitioner crossing the bus, he ought to have applied breaks to avoid the bus. It is pertinent to note that the bus was about to stop at the passengers stand and by that time the bus will be very slow to control, more particularly, when the driver of the bus witnesses a passenger crossing the bus. Despite seeing the passenger crossing the bus at the passenger stand, the driver could not control the bus or could not stop the bus to avoid the accident. Thus, it clearly malifests the negligence on part of the driver in avoiding the accident. Hence, it is amply clear that the learned Tribunal after considering all these aspects has answered issued No. I holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus-

12. The other contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the APSRTC is that the learned Tribunal erred in considering the earnings of the petitioner at Rs.2,OOO/- per month without there being any conclusive proof and that the learned Tribunal ought to have taken the income of Rs. 15,0OO/- per annum as prescribed under schedule II of Motor Vehicles Act. ) I / /

13. The petilioner claimed to be earning Rs. 150/- per day by doing coolie work, however, the learned Tribunal did not consider the same on the ground that except the bare statement of PWl, there is no other evidence with regard to earnings of the petitioner. There is no dispute that the occupation of the petitioner is toolie'. In the absence of any concrete evidence and also considering the cost of living during the relevant point of time, tl.e learned Tribunal has fxed notional income of the petitioner at Rs.2,OOO/- per month, which is appearing to be just and reasonable as the accident occurred in the year 20 I 1. On the other hand, the respondents have also not placed any material to establish that the monthly income of the petitioner arrived by the petitioner is excessive. It is pertinent to note that the notional income as prescribed under schedule II of Motor Vehicles Act is taken into consideration in case of non earning members. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner is a non earning member. In these circumstances, the above contentions of the respondents with regard to the income of the pelitioner arrived by the learned Tribunal, are untenable.

14. It is the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the APSRTC that learned Tribunal erred in awarding I i 8 compensation of Rs.4,OO,0OO/-, which excessive and out of all proportlons.

15. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner suffered amputation of left leg above knee with TOlo of the disability and she might have suffered physical as well as mental agony' The petitioner might have incurred considerable amount towards her treatment at various hospitals, medical expenses, transportation, extra nourishment, attendant charges etc' A perusal of the impugned order discloses that the ledrned Tribuna,l by considering all the above aspects has awarded Rs.4,0O,OO0/-, which is just and reasonablq' Except contending that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is excessive, the respondents have not adduced any evidence on their behalf to establish that the learned Tribunal has awarded more compensation than the compensation entitled by the petitioner. Thus, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the frndings of the learned Tribunal so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned. L6. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the hrm opinion that the appellants/respondents failed to establish any of the grounds to set aside the well reasoned order \ t 9 passed by the learned Tribunal. Thus, the present Appeal is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.

17. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed ' "out.rAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /IrRuE coPY// (\ l--:: SECTION OFFICER to',l. an" Chairman' Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum ll Additional District ' jrfi iric-l)Khammam (with records) 2. one cc to sri K'll';;;;'s'i';ilasa Rao Advocate toPUCl 3. One CC to Dr chall;3il'";;;ieddv' Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies ' \ \ KH/plP+t I 't tLti H I HIGH COURT DATED:1110212025 JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.No.1085 of 2013 1tlg STdr\A q J 'z o I 2 7 l{AR 2025 r Dr'-. * o DISMISSING TFIE MACMA. WITHOUT COSTS @W IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI Between:

1. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Depot M.A.C.M.A. NO: 1085 OF 2013 Manager, Srikalahasti Depot, Chittoor District.

2. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation,, Rep. by its Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad ...A',ELLANTS AND Mothukuri Laxmi, W/o.Late Mothukuri Uppalaiah, Occ Coolie, R/o lrsulapuram Village, Bayyaram Mandal, Khammam District. ...RESPONDENT Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree daled 27-11-2012 passed in MATOP No. 884 of 2011 on the file of the court of the chairman, Motor Accidents claim Tribunal - cum - ll Additional District Judge, (FTC-I), Khammam. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the materiat papers in the appeal and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Kallakuri Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the Appellants and of Dr. challa Srinivasa Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: '1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and herebyis dismissed; and

2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPY// SD/-T.JAYASREE ANT REGISTRAR AS SECTION OFFICER '1 . The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum ll Additional District Judge (FTC-I) Khammam (with records)

2. Two CD Copies To, w HIGH COURT DATED:1110212025 JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.No.1085 of 20'13 DISMISSING THE MACMA. WITHOUT COSTS @ W