IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: THURSDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE : AMARAVATI PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS jVlOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANFOl i.g Appeal under Section 173 of M.V.ACT Decree dated 05.01.2022 in M.V.O.P.No.6 of 2019 the Chairperson, Motor Accidents Claims District Judge, Gooty. APPEAL NO: 244 OF 91)99 against the Judgment and - on the file of the Court of cum - VI Additional Tribunal - Between: The Regional Manager, C/o APSRTC District Depot, Anantapuramu Town and ...Appellant/Respondent AND 1. Annavaijula Mohan Krishna Murali@A.Mohan Krishna Murthy® Mohan Sharma, S/o late Venkata Subaiah, aged about 71 years, Hindu, Priest, R/o Knstapadu Village, Peddavaduguru Mandal, Ananatpuramu District. ... Respondent/Petitioner 2. B.Sharmas Vali, S/o B.lmam Hussain 2-44, Urvakonda Village and Mandal, . Major, Hindu, Driver R/o D.No.1- Anantapuramu District. ...Respondent/Respondent No.2 r (2"*^ Respondent is herein driver of APSRTC not necessary party) i^NQ: 1 OF 2022 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 grant stay of execution of decree in pursuant to MVOP No.6 of 2019 dated. 05.01.2022 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal VI Addl. District Judge, Gooty pending disposal of the above MAGMA. cum Counsel for the Appellant: SRI ARAVALA RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: SRI M KARIBASAIAH The Court made the following Judgment: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS M.A.C.M.A.No.244 of 2022 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order of the Chairman Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge at Gooty (hereinafter called as 'the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.6 of 2019 dated 05.01.2022. The appellant is the APSRTC/owner of the Bus bearing 2. No.AP 29Z 3782 (hereinafter referred to as “crime bus”). The respondent No.l is the claimant before the Tribunal. The respondent No.2 is the driver of the crime bus. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter 3. referred to as they arrayed before the tribunal. The case of the claimant, in the petition before the 4. Tribunal is that: i). On 28.04.2018 at about 04.10 p.m., at Gooty bus stand, while the claimant getting into the crime bus. the 2nd respondent driver of the crime bus moved the same in a rash and negligent manner without any precautions, resulted the claimant fell on the road. front wheel tyre of the said bus ran over on his left leg and caused grievous injury. Then, he was shifted to Government Hospital at Gooty, in-turn taken treatment at Sri Ghakra Hospital at Kurnool and from 2 there to KIMS at Secunderabad. He spent an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- towards medical, travelling and attendant expenses. ii). He claimed compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- against the owner and driver of the crime bus. 5. The respondent No.l/APSRTC filed counter denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the accident occurred was due to the negligence of the claimant, who tried to board a moving bus, but not 2"^ respondent driver of the crime bus; that the compensation claimed by the claimant is excessive, thereby, prayed to dismiss the claim against this respondent. 6. The Tribunal settled the following issues and additional issues for enquiry basing on the material; ‘1. Whether the accident occurred on account of negligence of petitioner or the driver of RTC bus bearing No.AP 29Z 3782? 2.Whether the compensation claimed by the petitioner is excessive or not? and 3.To what relief?” 3 7. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimant, P.Ws.l to 3 were examined, Exs.A.l to A.8, C.l and C.2 were exhibited. On behalf of the respondent No.l, 2^^ respondent himself examined as R.W. 1, but no documentary evidence was adduced. On the material, the Tribunal, having come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime bus by the 2nd respondent, held that claimant is entitled for the compensation of Rs.4,90,532/-, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident. It is against the said award; the present appeal preferred by the appellant/APSRTC. Heard Sri G.Gopinad Yadav, learned counsel representing Sri Aravala Ramarao, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant/APSRTC and Sri M.Karibasaiah, learned counsel for the 1st respondent/claimant. was 8. 9. was 10. 4 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 accident, involvement of crime bus and quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. It is also not in dispute that no appeal was preferred by the claimant and driver of the crime bus against the findings of the Tribunal. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant/APSRTC is that the accident occurred was due to the 13. negligence on the part of the claimant since he boarded the moving bus and lost control over the same, thereby, the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/claimant submits that the Tribunal after perusal of entire material on record rightly came to the conclusion that the accident occurred was due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime bus by the 2"*^ respondent only, there are no valid 14. 5 grounds urged by the appellant to meddle with the said findings. 15. In view of the above contention, this Court perused the material available on record. To prove the rash and negligent driving of the 2’^'^ respondent, the claimant got examined himself P.W.l coupled with Exs.A.l and A.3 F.I.R and charge sheet respectively. 16. On perusal of Exs.A.l and A.3 F.I.R. and Charge Sheet respectively, the investigating agency, investigation, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime bus by the 2^’^ respondent. Furthermore, R.W. 1 admitted that police registered against him. Except bare testimony of R.W.l, nothing placed on record to prove any contributory negligence against the claimant. The testimony of P.W.l coupled with Exs.A.l and A.3 categorically show that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the crime bus by the 2^^^ respondent. The Tribunal, after thorough appreciation of the matter rightly to the conclusion that the claimant received crush injury as after thorough case I came 6 because of the negligence of R.W.l only, which interference of this Court. It is needless to material on record rightly calculated and entitled by the claimant, which is not in dispute. requires no 17. say that the Tribunal by considering the awarded compensation 18. In view of the above discussion, considered opinion that this Court is of the no valid grounds urged by the appellant to interfere with the findings arrived by the Tribunal in all 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 accordingly. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. There shall be order as to costs. aspects, as there is 19. no Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed. Sd/- U SRIDEVl ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SEC N OFFICER To, 1. The Chairman. Motor Accidents District Judge, Gooty. (with i One CC to Sri Aravala Rama One CC to Sri. M Karibasaiah, 4. The Section Officer, V.R. 5. Three CD Copies Claims Tribunal - records if any) Rao, Advocate [OPUC] Advocate [OPUC] Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. cum - VI Additional 2. 3. HIGH COURT DATED:03/04/2025 JUDGMENT + DECREE MACMA.No.244 of 2022 WITUOnt’''® WITHOUT COSTS IVI.A.C.M.A. f / IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI THURSDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS ^ MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 244 OF 2022 Between: The Regional Manager, C/o APSRTC Depot, Anantapuramu Town and District ...Appellant/Respondent AND 1. Annavajjula Mohan Krishna Murali@A.Mohan Krishna Murthy@ Mohan Sharma, S/o late Venkata Subaiah, aged about 71 years, Hindu, Priest, R/o Kristapadu Village, Peddavaduguru Mandal, Ananatpuramu District. ... Respondent/Petitioner 2. B.Sharmas Vali, S/o B.lmam Hussain, Major, Hindu, Driver R/o D.No.1- 2-44, Urvakonda Village and Mandal, Anantapuramu District. ...Respondent/Respondent No.2 (2 Respondent is herein driver of APSRTC not necessary party) Appeal under Section 173 of M.V.ACT against the Judgment and Decree dated 05.01.2022 in M.V.O.P.No.6 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the Chairperson, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - District Judge, Gooty. cum - VI Additional f This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the suit and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Aravala Rama Rao, for the Appellant and of Sri M. Kari Basiah, for the Respondents This Court Doth ORDER and DECREE that the Decree of the Lower Court be and hereby is confirmed and this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is Dismissed and this Court Doth further Order and Decree that there be no order as to costs in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. Sd/- U SRIDEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SE OFFICER To, 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - VI Additional District Judge, Gooty. 2. Three CD Copies sree 7 « f HIGH COURT DATED:03/04/2025 DECREE MACMA.No.244 of 2022 o I 11 JUN 2025 rn DISMISSING THE M.A.C.M.A. WITHOUT COSTS