7 APHC010835622015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI h-T B o >d ix: if o WEDNESDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 344 OF 2025 o Between: Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Represented by its Vice- Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Hyderabad. ... APPELLANT/PETITIONER AND Boya Basamma alias Chittemma, W/o. Boya Erappa, Hindu Aged about 37 years, Urukunda Village, Kowthalam Mandal, Kmool District. ...RESPONDENT/CLAIMANTS Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act 1973, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 05.06.201 in M.V.O.P.No 8/2013/on the file of the Motot Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-ll Additional District Court, Kumool at Adoni. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Trail Court and material the Suit and upon hearing arguments of SRI Aravala Rama Rao papers in (SC for APSRTC), Advocate for the Appellant and SRI G.SRAVAN KUMAR Advocate for Respondent. This court doth order and decree as follows: 1. That the Appeal be and is hereby dismissed. 2. The the Appellant-Corporation be and is hereby directed to deposit the balance amount of compensation as determined and awarded by that Tribunal under the impugned order, after deducting the amount, if any, already paid, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 3. That on such deposit respondent/claimants be and are hereby permitted to withdraw the same. 4. That there be no order as to costs in this Appeal. SD/- K.J.RAJA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Chairman, Motot Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-ll District Court, Kumool at Adoni. (with records if any) 2. Two C.D Copies. TAC Additional r HIGH COURT DATED;30/07/2025 DECREE MA.CMA NO. 344 OF 2025 IMACMA IS DISMISSED. APHC010835622015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI fc-r WEDNESDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN jVIOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 344 OF 2025 Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1973, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 05.06.201 in M.V.O.P.No 8/2013/on the file of the Motot Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-ll Additional District Court, Kumool at Adoni. Between Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Represented by its Vice- Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Hyderabad. ... APPELLANT/PETITIONER AND Boya Basamma alias Chittemma, W/o. Boya Erappa, Hindu Aged about 37 years, Urukunda Village, Kowthalam Mandal, Kmool District. ...RESPONDENT/CLAIMANTS LA NO: 2 OF 2015fMACMAMP 4991 OF 2015 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including the execution proceedings in M.V.O.P. f r \ s 0^^ 7 No; 8/2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-ll Additional District Court, Kurnool at Adoni Kurnool District. / / ;; Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI ARAVALA RAMA RAO, 'I (SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) Counsel for the Respondent: SRI. G SRAVAN KUMAR The Court made the following JUDGMENT : s ! ■ APHC010835622015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 344 of 2025 Between: 1. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE-CHAIRMAN- CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, HYDERABAD. ...APPELLANT AND 1.BOYA BASAMMA @ CHITTEMMA, W/o. BOYA ERAPPA, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, URUKUNDA VILLAGE, KOWTHALAM MANDAL, KMOOL DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant; 1.ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent: 1.G SRAVAN KUMAR The Court made the following: / /' 2 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.344 of2025 J U D G M E N T: The present Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises out of the order dated 05.06.2015 passed in M.V.O.P.No.8 of 2013 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-11 Additional District Judge’s Court, Kurnool, at Adoni, whereby the claimant was awarded compensation of Rs.83,400/- on account of her sustaining injuries in a motor accident. 2. Respondent herein was the claimant and appellant herein- Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘Corporation’) was the respondent before the Tribunal. Parties will be referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. Brief facts of the case are as follows: 3. The claimant was in ninth month of pregnancy on the date of accident i.e., on 01.10.2008. On the said date, she was being (i) taken to hospital in an auto, accompanied by her husband and relatives. The said auto met with an accident on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC bus bearing registration No.AP-IOZ-1877, which collided with the auto while coming from the opposite direction. Resultantly, the claimant sustained injury to her right wrist. The auto driver and one of the inmates of the auto sustained severe injuries and they later succumbed. The claimant was shifted to Government Area Hospital at Adoni for treatment. \ 3 CGRJ M.A.C.M.A.No.344 of2025 where she delivered a baby girl, unfortunately, in a dead state. She was later shifted to a private nursing home at Adoni on the same day, where she underwent treatment as an in-patient till 20.10.2008. The incident was reported to police and a case in Crime No.53 of 2008 was registered against driver of the bus for offences punishable under Section 304-A and 337 I.P.C. Thereafter, the claimant filed the present claim petition, under Section 166(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- under various heads. (ii) The respondent-corporation filed written statement, denying the manner in which the accident occurred and further attributing negligence to the driver of the auto, who also succumbed. It was also pleaded that the auto was carrying about 30 persons at the time of accident and it was sheer negligence of the driver of the auto and rather making claim against the owner and insurer of the auto, the liability was sought to be fastened on the Corporation. (iii) On behalf of claimant, she herself was examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.AI to A4. On behalf of respondent, driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1 and no documents were marked. (iv) Based on the pleadings and evidence adduced on behalf of either side, the Tribunal has framed following issues and additional issue for consideration; r 4 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.344 of2025 “1) Whether the accident and the resultant injuries to the petitioner occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the R. T.C. bus bearing No.AP-10Z-1877 by its driver? 2) Whether the Petitioner is entitled to any compensation, and if so, to what amount from the Respondent? 3) To what relief? Additional Issue: Whether the pregnancy of the petitioner was terminated because of the accident?” (v) First issue and additional issue came to be decided in favour of the claimant, holding that the accident had occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus, resulting in injuries to the claimant and death of the baby in the womb. Consequently, while answering the second issue, the claimant has been awarded a total compensation of Rs.83,400/- payable with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. (vi) Assailing the said order, the present appeal has been preferred by the Corporation. Heard Sri Aravala Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for appellant, and Sri G. Sravan Kumar, learned counsel for respondent. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-Corporation contended that the liability could not have been fastened on the 4. 5. 5 CGRJ M.A.C.M.A.No.344 of2025 Corporation inasmuch as the auto was carrying about 30 persons the day of accident, which is clearly impermissible in terms of the Motor Vehicles Act and that the same would indicate that the driver of the auto was not in control of the auto and that he had contributed to on the accident. He further contended that the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.83,400/- as compensation under various heads, which was without any basis and excessive. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent/claimant tried to support the impugned order and justify the compensation 6. awarded by the Tribunal under various heads. He contended that the Tribunal, on proper appreciation of the evidence on record, in particular, Exs.AI and A2, has come to conclusion that the accident had occurred solely on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus, but not on account of negligence of driver of the auto. Insofar as determination of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has based its findings on proper appreciation of Exs.A3 and A4 in arriving at just compensation and, therefore, the same does not warrant any interference. 7. This Court has considered the submissions made on either side and perused the record. In order to prove that the accident had occurred on account of 8. rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus, the claimant has \ 6 CGHJ M.A.C.M.A.No.344 of2025 examined herself as P.W.1, besides marking Exs.M and A2, which are F.I.R. and charge sheet. After registration of F.I.R. in relation to on completion of investigation, the police laid charge sheet against the driver of the bus, holding him responsible for causing the accident due to his negligent driving, burden of proving that the accident the accident and The initial occurred on account of the negligence of the driver of the bus was discharged by the claimant by adducing substantial evidence in that regard. In rebuttal, the driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1. However, no independent witness, either a passenger travelling in the bus or a co-passenger of the claimant, was examined to support the version of R.W.1. It is well settled that the degree of proof required in cases under the Motor Vehicles Act is based on the standard of preponderance probabilities, and not proof beyond reasonable doubt. of The Tribunal, upon appreciating the evidence on record, arrived at finding that the accident had occurred due to the act of the driver of the bus. In the absence of a definitive rash and negligent any material to the contrary, either pleaded or brought to the notice of this Court, there i no reason to take a different view from what IS was concluded by the Tribunal. Therefore, the submission of learned Standing Counsel for appellant that liability could not have Corporation merits no acceptance. been fastened on the \ \ 7 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.344 Of2025 9. Now, though learned contended that the and excessive, coming to the aspect of Standing Counsel quantum of compensation, appellant-corporation for has compensation awarded was without any basis on scrutiny of the findings recorded by the Tribunal, it IS very much apparent that substantive part of the compensation has been determined based on Ex.A3-Wound Certificate and Ex.A4- medical bills. One should in ninth month delivered not lose sight of the fact that the claimant of pregnancy and due a stillborn baby girl. For to the accident, the severe pain and she suffering endured on account of awarded Rs.30,000/., besides suffering caused due to fracture ini earnings for two delivering a stillborn child the Tribunal awarding Rs.10,000/- for pain and injury and Rs.7,000/- towards loss of matter in its compensation awarded by the not warrant months. On entirety, this Court finds Tribunal is fair and consideration of the that the reasonable and does any interference. The dismissed. eppeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be 10. Accordingly, this Motor stands dismissed, the balance the Tribunal under the i \ any, already paid, within Accidents Civil Miscellaneous The appellant-corporation i Appeal is directed to deposit amount of compensation as determined and impugned order, after deducting the a period of eight weeks from awarded by amount, if \ the date of r 8 CGR,i M.A.C.M.A.No.344 of2025 receipt of copy of this order. On such deposit being made, the respondent-claimant is permitted to withdraw the same. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. SD/- KJ.RAJABABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Chairman, Motot Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-ll Additional District Court, Kumool at Adoni. (with records if any) 2. One CC to SRI. ARAVALA RAMA RAO, (SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI. G SRAVAN KUMAR, Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer V.R. Section, High Court of Andhra Prasesh, at Amaravathi. 5. Two C.D Copies. ssl TAC HIGH COURT DATED:30/07/2025 JUDGMENT + DECREE MA.CMA NO. 344 OF 2025 "l ?l SEP 2025 ^ . Currant Suction MACMA IS DISMISSED.