APHC010833752015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI JULY fS Ho TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT honourable SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLAMFni iq Between: appeal No.399 of 7C)9fi Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. its ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT AND Tadikonda Prabhudas, S/o. Prakasha Rao, Aged about 34 years, R/o. Gorantia Village, Guntur Rural Mandal, Guntur District. ...RESPONDENT/CLAIIVIANT Act, against the Order by the -cum-l Additional District Judge, Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles and Decree dated 09-07-2014 j Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Guntur, Guntur District. passed in M.V.O.P. No.489 of 2011 This appeal coming on for hearing and upon Petition, the Order and Decree the Petition and perusing the grounds of of the Trial Court and the material papers in hearing the arguments of Sri Sanisetty Venkateswariu (SC for APSRTC), Advocate for the Appellant and of Smt Marella Radha, Advocate for Respondent. This Court doth Order and decree as follows: 1. That the appeal be and is hereby dismissed; 2. That the appellant Corporation be and is hereby 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: 3. That on such deposit, respondent/claimant be and is hereby permitted to withdraw the same; 4. That there be no order as to costs in this appeal. SDI- M.SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// secTidn officer To 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims District Judge, Guntur, Guntur District. 2. Two CD Copies Tribunal-cum-l Additional TK TAC HIGH COURT DATED:29/07/2025 DECREE MACMA No.399 of 2025 DISMISSING THE MACMA APHC010833752015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JULY fp TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT i o HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN lyiOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANFONS APPEAL Nn of 2025 Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, against the Order and Decree dated 09-07-2014 passed in M.V.O.P. No.489 of 2011 by the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District Judge, Guntur, Guntur District. Between: Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT AND Tadikonda Prabhudas, S/o. Prakasha Rao Gorantia Village, Guntur Rural Mandal, Guntur District. Aged about 34 years, R/o. ...RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT jA NO: 2 OF 2015fMACMAMP 5232 OF 201.*^) Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the order and ^ decree dated 09.07.2014 passed in M.V.O.P. No.489 of 2011 by the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District Judge, Guntur including of execution proceedings, pending disposal of the above MACMA. Counsel for the Appellant : SRI SANISETTY VENKATESWARLU (SC FOR APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent : SMT MARELLA RADHA The Court made the following JUDGMENT : APHC010833752015 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 APPEAL NO: 399/2025 Between; 1. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CORPORATION MUSHEERABAD HYDERABAD ROAD TRANSPORT REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, ...APPELLANT AND 1.TADIKONDA PRABHUDAS, S/o. Prakasha Rao, Aged about 34 years, R/o. Gorantia Village, Guntur Rural Mandal, Guntur District ...RESPONDENT Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and Decree dated 09-07-2014 passed in M.VO.P. No.489 of 2011 by the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District Judge, Guntur. Counsel for the Appellant; 1.SANISETTYVENKATESWARLU SC ForAPSRTC Counsel for the Respondent; 1.MARELLARADHA The Court made the following; CGR, J. M.A.C.M,A.No.399of2025 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN M.A.C.M.A.No.399 of 2025 JUDGMENT: Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (“Corporation”) preferred present Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Accidents Act, 1988, assailing order, dated 09.07.2014, passed in M.V.O.P.No.489 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District Judge, Guntur (“the Tribunal”), awarding compensation of Rs.1,59,300/- to the respondent/claiman t for the injuries sustained by him in the accident. For the sake of convenience, parties herein are referred to as they 2. were arrayed before the Tribunal. Brief facts relating to the present appeal in a nutshell are as 3. follows: Claimant was proceeding on (a) This is a case of injuries. motorcycle towards Narasaraopet on 13.03.2011 and at about 11.30 a.m. when he reached Highway at Nudurupadu High School, the motorcycle was hit by Corporation bus bearing registration No.AP 11 Z 2008 in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in him sustained injuries. He was shifted to Hospital and underwent treatment. Thereafter, the present claim came to be laid for Rs.2.00 Lakhs. 3 CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A.No.399of 2025 (b) Respondent Corporation filed written statement denying that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent act of the driver of the bus besides disputing age, income and nature of injuries and treatment received and pleaded for dismissal of the petition. Based on the aforesaid pleadings available on record, the (c) Tribunal has framed following issues; “1. Whether the driver of APSRTC BUS No.AP 11 Z 2008 on 13.03.2011 at about 9.30 a.m. within the limits of Phirangipuram, Guntur District PS., drove it in a rash and negligent manner and caused injuries to TADIKONDA PRABHUDAS? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation and if so, to what amount and from whom? 3. Whether the respondent is liable to pay compensation? (d) On behalf of claimant, he was examined as PW.1 and the doctor, who extended treatment, was examined as PW.2 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.8 and Exs.X.1. and X.2. None were examined for respondent Corporation nor any document was marked. (e) 1 issue came to be answered in favour of the claimant holding that accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the bus. Issues 2 and 3 also came to be decided in favour of the claimant holding that injured had head injury and facture of left knee joint, which are grievous injuries, for which, he underwent surgery. On appreciation of evidence available on record, he has been awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- each for two grievous injuries; Rs.50,000/- towards CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A.No.399of2025 disability: Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of income; Rs.5,000/- towards extra-nourishment; Rs.5,000/- towards transport and attendant charges and Rs.39,300/- towards medical expenses, in total, he was awarded Rs.1,59,300/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5.% 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 respondent/claimant. 5. The only point urged on behalf of the appellant is that the Tribunal has erred in fixing the entire liability on the appellant Corporation when there is negligence attributable even on the claimant also, inasmuch as he was driving motorcycle on wrong direction and thereby contributed for cause of accident. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant Corporation took through this Court to the evidence of claimant to contend that the same is not sufficient for the Tribunal to come to the conclusion that the accident occurred solely on account of the negligent driving of the driver of the bus alone. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ claimant supported the order under challenge by contending that the 5 CGR, J. M.A.C.M,A.No.399of2025 findings recorded by the Tribunal are sound and reasoned and do not call for any interference by this Court. 7. Perused the record and considered the rival contentions of both the learned counsel. 8. The point that is urged for consideration of this Court is whether the injured is also equally responsible for the cause of accident, if so, it is a case of contributory negligence. In the written statement filed by the Corporation a specific stand was taken that the motorcycle on which injured was travelling came in wrong direction. Except for the said statement in the written statement, neither the driver of the bus nor any other witness has been examined for Corporation leave about marking any documents. On the other hand, claimant has examined himself as PW.1 and also marked Ex.A.6-FIR, Ex.A.7-charge-sgheet, which suggest that the incident had occurred on account of rash and negligent act of the driver of the bus. Aforesaid evidence definitely does not mention anywhere that motorcycle was proceeding in wrong direction as claimed by the appellant Corporation. The Tribunal has appreciated and summarised the evidence on record and came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent act of the driver of the bus. In the absence of any other rebuttal evidence from 6 CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A.No.399of2025 the appellant Corporation, this Court finds no infirmity in the aforesaid findings recorded by the Tribunal calling for interference of this Court. r As regards reliability of F.I.R. and charge-sheet and other 9. 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. 1 held that aforesaid documents, in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 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 Crux^, 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 in Mathew Alexander v. Mohammed Shafi^. Even recently in ICICI 1 (2018) 5 see 656 ^ (2013) 10 see 646 ^ (2023) 13 see 510 CGR, J. M.A.C,M.A.No.399 of 2025 Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajani Saho^ the exposition in aforesaid judgments has been reiterated. 10. 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. 11. According, the appeal shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs. 12. The appellant Corporation is directed to deposit the balance amount of,corrfpensation 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, respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the same. As a sequel. Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand ■ r closed. " (2025) 2 see 533 SD/- M.SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGIS SECTI^foFFICER AR //TRUE COPY// To 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Ciaims Tribunai-com-i Additionai District Judge, Guntur, Guntur District, (with records if any) ' [?PUq Venkateswariu (SC for APSRTC), Advocate 3. One CC to Smt Marella Radha, Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, VR Section, Amaravathi. (to dispatch the trial 5. Two CD Copies High Court of Andhra Pradesh court records) at HIGH COURT DATED:29/07/2025 f 2 » AUG 2025/1 Current Section . ^ JUDGMENT + DECREE MAGMA N0.399 of 2025 DISMISSING THE MACMA