APHC010261342022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEALNO.217/2022 Between: 1. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REP.BY. ITS VC AND MD, REGIONAL MANAGER, NEW BUS STAND AREA, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1. SHAIK KARIMUN, W/O.LATE SHAIK SUBHANI, AGED 43 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, R/O.D.NO.26-39, 124/10F, 4TH LINE, RAMIREDDY NAGAR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. SHAIK KALESHA VALI, S/O.LATE SHAIK SUBHANI, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, COOLIE, R/O.D.NO.26-39, 124/10F, 4TH LINE, RAMIREDDY NAGAR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. SHAIK JAREENA, W/O.ABDUL KAREEM, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, COOLIE, R/O.D.NO.26-39, 124/10F, 4TH LINE, RAMIREDDY NAGAR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. SHAIK JANI, S/O.LATE SHAIK SUBHANI, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, NO AVOCATION, R/O.D.NO.26-39, 124/10F, 4TH LINE, RAMIREDDY NAGAR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 5. SHAIK SALMA, D/O.LATE SHAI SUBHANI, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, NO AVOCATION, R/O.D.NO.26-39, 124/10F, 4TH LINE, RAMIREDDY NAGAR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2 CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A.No.217 of 2022 6. JARAPALA BUJJI NAIK, S/O.THAVIRYA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, NALLAGONDA THANDA, EPURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC against the Order and Decree dated 02-05-2019 passed in M.V.O.P.No. 1218 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Guntur. Counsel for the Appellant: 1. SANISETTY VENKATESWARLU SC For APSRTC Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. MARELLA RADHA The Court made the following: 3 CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A.No.217 of 2022 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN M.A.C.M.A.No.217 of 2022 JUDGMENT: Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (“Corporation”) preferred present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Accidents Act, 1988, assailing order, dated 02.05.2019, passed in M.V.O.P.No.1218 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Guntur (“the Tribunal”), awarding compensation of Rs.6,42,000/- on account of death of deceased Shaik Subhani. The claim was instituted by wife, two sons and two daughters of deceased Shaik Subhani, claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for death of deceased. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts relating to the present appeal in a nutshell are as follows: (a) Deceased Shiak Subhani while crossing road at Sai Nagar, Nallapadu Main Road, Guntur, at about 6.50 p.m. on 14.09.2016, RTC Bus bearing Registration No.AP 07 Z 0370 coming from Nallapadu towards Guntur, dashed and ran over him causing fatal injuries and he died on spot. Case was registered vide Crime No.180 of 2016 of West 4 CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A.No.217 of 2022 Traffic Police Station, Guntur Urban District, for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC against driver of the Bus i.e., 6th respondent herein. The deceased stated to be aged 38 years and earning Rs.6,000/- p.m. being Carpenter, therefore, the claimants sought for compensation of Rs.8.00 Lakhs in total. (b) 1st respondent Corporation filed written statement denying that the accident has occurred on account of rash and negligent act of the driver of the bus besides disputing age, income and profession of the deceased. (c) 2nd respondent Driver also filed written statement denying that he was negligent besides taking stand that at the time of accident, there was Vinayaka pooja and procession going, on account of stampede, the deceased sustained injuries and that there was no involvement of crime vehicle at all causing death of the deceased. (d) Based on the aforesaid pleadings available on record, the Tribunal has framed following issues: “1. Whether the pleaded accident dated 14.09.2016 has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of crime vehicle viz., APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 07 Z 0370 by its driver/2nd respondent and whether the deceased Shaik Subhani died due to the said accident? 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents? 3) To what relief?” 5 CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A.No.217 of 2022 (e) On behalf of claimants, wife of deceased was examined as P.W.1 and eyewitness to accident as PW.2 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.5, which are, certified copies of F.I.R., inquest report, post mortem report, M.V.I. Report and charge-sheet, respectively. On behalf of the respondents Corporation, the driver of the bus was examined as RW.1 and no documents were marked. (f) Insofar as 1st issue is concerned, the Tribunal by placing reliance on evidence of PW.2, who is stated to be eyewitness, came to the conclusion that the accident has occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus resulting in deceased dying on spot. The act of incident and the grievous injuries were believed based on Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.5. Though RW.1, the driver of the bus, was examined as witness for respondents Corporation, his version came to be disbelieved. (g) Insofar as 2nd issue is concerned, though deceased was claimed to be a Carpenter and earning an amount of Rs.6,000/- per month, no evidence came to be adduced to prove the same, therefore, the Tribunal disbelieved the said version as spoken by PW.1, however, has considered the age of deceased as 47 years based on inquest report and post mortem certificate and notionally assessed his income as Rs.5,500/- per month and accordingly, computed the compensation. 6 CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A.No.217 of 2022 The Tribunal ultimately awarded an amount of Rs.6,42,000/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation. Assailing the same, the present Appeal is preferred by the appellant Corporation. 4. Heard Sri Sanisetty Venkateswarlu, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC, appearing for the appellant and Smt.Marella Radha, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents 1 to 5/claimants. 5. Learned standing counsel for the appellant assailed the order of Tribunal mainly on the ground of liability. He took through this Court to the evidence of RW.1, the driver of the bus, to contend that the deceased suddenly came in middle of road as he was hit by a biker, thereby, he fell down on road causing injuries and that there was no contact of the bus with the deceased, however, Tribunal erroneously came to conclusion that death of deceased occurred on account of rash and negligent act of the driver of the bus. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 5/claimants supported the order under challenge by contending that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are sound and reasoned and do not call for any interference by this Court. 7 CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A.No.217 of 2022 7. The question that falls for consideration of this Court is: “Whether the order passed by the Tribunal suffers from any infirmity or perversity and needs interference of this Court? And to what relief?” 8. As regards reliability of F.I.R. and charge-sheet and other documents collected by investigating agency in the process of investigation and enquiry into the crimes registered on account of the Motor Accidents Cases, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 1 held that aforesaid documents, in particular charge sheet, prima facie points towards the drivers complicity in driving vehicle negligently and rashly and even if the accused were to be acquitted in the criminal cases, the same may be of no effect on assessment of liability in respect of motor accident cases by the Tribunal. The said view came to be expressed considering the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Crux2, which held that plea of negligence on the part of driver of offending vehicle as set up by claimants was required to be decided by the Tribunal on the touch stone of preponderance of probability and certainly not by standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The said view has later been followed and reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court 1 (2018) 5 SCC 656 2 (2013) 10 SCC 646 8 CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A.No.217 of 2022 in Mathew Alexander v. Mohammed Shafi3. Even recently in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajani Saho4, the exposition in aforesaid judgments has been reiterated. 9. Perused the record and considered the rival contentions of both the learned counsel. 10. In order to appreciate aforesaid contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation, the evidence on record has to be looked into. Claimants have let in evidence of PW.2, who is stated to be independent eyewitness. Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.5 came to be marked. As per these exhibits, Crime has been registered against RW.1 for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC. After investigation into the Crime, finally, charge-sheet came to be filed, copy of which is marked as Ex.A.5, holding that the driver of the bus to be responsible. Exs.A2 and A3 are inquest report and post mortem certificate, which suggest that deceased suffered grievous injuries. PW.2, who is stated to be eyewitness, spoke of the manner in which accident occurred, in specific, gave evidence that the deceased was hit by RTC bus while it was driven by RW.1 in rash and negligent manner. He was also shown as prosecution witness as L.W.6 in the charge-sheet. The aforesaid 3 (2023) 13 SCC 510 4 (2025) 2 SCC 599 9 CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A.No.217 of 2022 evidence demonstrates that, firstly, accident occurred and deceased was hit by bus, causing grievous injuries, resulting in death of deceased. Secondly, the documentary evidence. as corroborated by evidence of eyewitness PW.2, speaks of accident occurring on account of rash and negligent act of RW.1. In order to rebut the said evidence, RW.1 has stepped into box and gave evidence. In his evidence, he spoke that accident has occurred on account of deceased being hit by biker and sustained injuries. Except for his self-statement, there is no other witness either the biker or a third party eyewitness speaking in similar lines. When there is considerable documentary and oral evidence in favour of claimants’ version, in order to rebut the same, the Corporation witness alone is not sufficient to say the rebuttal evidence equally counter weighing. The Tribunal has taken into consideration aforesaid two evidences on record and has come to conclusion that it was RW.1, who was responsible for cause of accident and accordingly, held the issue against the Corporation. This Court does not find any error in such a finding. 11. As stated above, except for aforesaid ground, no other grounds are canvassed, in particular, regarding the quantum of compensation, this Court does not find any merit in the present Appeal. 10 CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A.No.217 of 2022 12. According, the appeal shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs. 13. The appellant Corporation is directed to deposit the balance amount of compensation before the Tribunal in terms of the impugned order within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and on such deposit, respondents 1 to 5/claimants are permitted to withdraw the same. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date:29.07.2025 cs