APHC011509722012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3367] FRIDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 169/2025 Between: Apsrtc ...APPELLANT AND Dasari Kistayya and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: VINOD KUMAR TARLADA (SC FOR APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent(S): The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.589 of 2009 dated 16.12.2011. 2. The appellant is the APSRTC/owner of the Bus bearing No.AP 11Z 5300 (hereinafter referred to as “crime bus”). The respondent No.1 herein is the claimant before the Tribunal and respondent No.2 is the driver of the crime bus, respectively. 2 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the tribunal. 4. The case of the claimant, in the petition before the Tribunal is that: i). On 01.12.2008 at about 04.00 p.m., when the claimant sat on a bench in front of platform No.11 of Ravulapalem RTC Bus stand, the driver of RTC hire bus bearing No.AP 5W 4774 came to the bus complex and stationed the bus at platform No.11 and waiting for passengers, the driver of the crime bus drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the stationed bus bearing No.AP5W 4774 from behind, resulted the bumper of the stationed bus hit against the legs of the claimant and sustained injuries to both legs. ii). He claimed compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- against the driver and owner of the crime bus. 5. The respondent No.2 filed counter denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the accident occurred was due 3 to the negligence on the part of the claimant, but not 1st respondent/driver of the crime bus, thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material: “1.Whether the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the first respondent? 2.Whether the petitioners are entitled compensation? If so, to what is the quantum and by whom is it payable? and 3.To what relief?” 7. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimant, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined, Exs.A.1 to A.4 and Ex.X.1 were exhibited. On behalf of the respondents, no oral and documentary evidence was adduced. 8. On the material, the Tribunal, having come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash negligent driving of the crime bus by the 1st respondent, held that claimant is entitled for the compensation of Rs.1,32,600/-, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date 4 of realization against the respondents, for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident. 9. It is against the said award; the present appeal was preferred by the appellant/APSRTC. 10. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant/APSRTC. 11. Now, the point that arise for determination is “whether the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside, if so, to what extent?” 12. POINT: It is not in dispute about the injuries sustained by the claimant in the incident and involvement of the crime bus. It is also not in dispute that no appeal was preferred by the claimant as well driver of the crime bus against the findings of the Tribunal. 13. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the claimant, but not 1st respondent. 5 14. In view of the above contention, this Court perused the material placed on record. To prove the rash and negligence on the part of the 1st respondent in causing the incident, the claimant relied upon his testimony as P.W.1 and EXs.A.1 and A.2 F.I.R. and Charge Sheet, respectively. On perusal of Exs.A.1 and A.2, the investigating agency, after thorough investigation, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime bus by the 1st respondent. The testimony of P.W.1 coupled with Exs.A.1 and A.2 categorically show that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the crime bus by the 1st respondent. Nothing was elicited during cross examination to disbelieve the testimony of P.W.1 and Exs.A.1 and A.2. 15. Furthermore, the 1st respondent is the best witness to speak about the manner of the incident and deny the case of the claimant, but he did not choose to enter into witness box. No oral and documentary evidence was adduced to deny the case of the claimant by the respondents. Thereby, it is clear in vivid terms that the Tribunal after appreciating the material on 6 record in right perspective came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime bus by the 1st respondent, which requires no interference 16. Moreover, the Tribunal after considering testimony of P.W.2 coupled with Exs.A.3, A.4 and X.1 rightly calculated and awarded the compensation to the claimant, which is not denied by the appellant. 17. Viewing from any angle, this Court is of the considered opinion that no interference warrants to the findings recorded by the Tribunal regarding all aspects, as there is no need to disturb the well-articulated order passed by the Tribunal, the appeal preferred by the appellant is liable for dismissal. Thus, the point is answered against the appellant/APSRTC. 18. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS Date: 07.03.2025 Krs 7 120 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS M.A.C.M.A.No.169 of 2025 (J U D G M E N T) DATE: 07.03.2025 Krs