IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. SRINIVAS MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 92 OF 2022 BETWEEN: 1. The Managing Director, APSRTC, Bus Bhavan, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh. 2. The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Rayachoty Depot, Kadapa District. ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENTS NOS.1 & 2 AND 1. Nidiginti Rama Subbaiah, S/o. Pedda Nagulu, Aged about 75 years, Hindu, Cultivation, And Business in preparation of photos, wire cots, 11/0 Edigapalli Village, T.Sundupalli Mandal, Now R/o Bose Nagar, Rayachoty Town and Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. 2. Vangimalla Prasad Reddy (Dirver), S/o. Veera Malli Reddy, aged about 40 years, Hindu, APSRTC Driver, R/o Motakatia Village, Sambepalli Mandal, Kadapa District. ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act praying that the High Court may be pleased to may be pleased to allow the appeal by setting 'Side the Judgment and decree passed by the Order and Decree dated \ 11.2021 passed in M.V.O.P.No.51 of 2019 on the file of the Motor \ lent Claims Tribunal cum V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty, \ a District. appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the Memorandum of Judgment and Decree of the lower Court and the material record and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Aravala. Rama Rao,"Advocaffe for the Appellant and Sri. G. Kondala Rao, for the Respondent. Appealf'" \ This Court doth order and decree as follows; 1. That the Appeal is be and hereby Dismissed. 2. That there shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To. 1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty, Kadapa District. 2. Three C.D Copies. Ssl vna HIGH COURT DATED:10/03/2025 (15 AUG 2025 F 'l-a DECREE . Current Section . ^ MA.CMA.N0.92 OF 2022 DISMISSING THE APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI^ ^ MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE % -p 'K'r rr-i: o sp^ ■ o v-' £pih PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. SRINIVAS MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 92 OF 2022 Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act praying that the High Court may be pleased to allow the appeal by setting aside the Judgment and decree passed by the Order and Decree dated 26.11.2021 passed in M.V.O.P.No.51 of 2019 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty, Kadapa District. BETWEEN: 1. The Managing Director, APSRTC, Bus Bhavan, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh. 2. The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Rayachoty Depot, Kadapa District. ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENTS NOS.1 & 2 AND 1. Nidiginti Rama Subbaiah, S/o. Pedda Nagulu, Aged about 75 years, Hindu, Cultivation, And Business in preparation of photos, wire cots, 11/0 Edigapalli Village, T.SundupaHi Mandal, Now R/o Bose Nagar, Rayachoty Town and Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. 2. Vangimalla Prasad Reddy (Dirver), S/o. Veera Malli Reddy, aged about 40 years, Hindu, APSRTC Driver, R/o Motakatia Village, Sambepalli Mandal, Kadapa District. ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER / r lA OF 2022 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.51 of v'ly. . 2019 dated 26.11.2021 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty, Kadapa District. Counsel for the Appellants: SRI. N. SRIHARI (SC FOR APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondents: SRI. G KONDALA RAO The Court made the following Judgment: /w THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS iyLA,CjyLAJ^a92of2022 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed against the order dated 26.11.2021 passed in M.V.O.P.No.51 of 2019 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge at Rayachoty (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’). 2. The appellant is the A.P.S.R.TC. The Respondent No. the claimant before the Tribunal and Respondent No.2 is the driver of the APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 29 Z 1092 1 is (hereinafter called as “crime bus”). 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the Tribunal. The case of the claimant, in the petition before the Tribunal are 4. is that; i) On November 6, 2018, at approximately 8;30 the claimant was traveling as a passenger in the bus referred to as the "crime bus." While the bus proceeding near Anumpalli Nerellavanka, the driver, operating the vehicle in a.m. was a rash and negligent manner, attempted to overtake an auto-rickshaw. During this maneuver, the driver lost control of vehicle, causing the bus to veer toward the right side the 2 of the road.As a result of this accident, multiple passengers sustained injuries, including the claimant. The injured individuals were immediately shifted to the Government Hospital in Rayachoty for medical treatment. ii). He claimed compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- from the respondents. Respondent No.3/driver remained ex parte before the 5. Tribunal. 6. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed counter and opposed the claim of the petitioner contending that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto, but not 3'"^ respondent: that the compensation claimed by the claimant is excessive, thereby, prayed to dismiss the claim against these respondents. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing 7. on the material: “1.Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC bus bearing No. AP 29 Z 1092 of Rayachoty Dept, belongs to respondents 2 and 3, near Anumpalli Nellavanka on Rayachoty-Ramapuram main road, YSR District, which resulted in causing injuries to the claimant/petitioner on 06.11.2018 at about 08.50 a.m.? 3 2.Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? And 3.To what relief?” 8. During enquiry before the tribunal, on behalf of the claimant, he himself got examined as PW.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.9. On behalf of the respondents, no oral and documentary evidence was adduced. 9. On the material, the Tribunal having come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash negligent driving of the crime vehicle by the 3'^'^ respondent held that claimant is entitled for the compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondents for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident. 10. It is against the said order, the present appeal preferred by the appellants/A.RS.R.T.C. Heard Sri Aravala Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for A.RS.R.T.C/Appellants. No representation on behalf of the 1 respondent/daimant. was 11. 12. Now, the point that arises for determination is:“whether the order of the Tribunal is on correct count or it is liable to be set aside, if so, to what extent? 4 13. POINT: It is not in dispute about the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident and that the claimant did not prefer any appeal against the order of the Tribunal. i 14. It is the main contention of the learned Standing Counsel for A.P.S.R.T.C/Appellant that the claimant failed to establish the negligence on the part of the driver of the RTC bus with any proper evidence. In fact, that claimant is travelling as a passenger in an auto, but not in the bus, hence, the RTC is not liable to pay any compensation. 15. To establish the rash and negligent driving of the crime bus, the claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and produced documentary evidence marked as Exs.A.1 and A.2, being the FIR and the charge sheet, respectively. In his testimony, P.W.1 gave a categorical account of the rash and negligent manner in which the 3rd respondent (driver of the crime bus) caused the incident. Nothing substantial was elicited in cross- examination to discredit or undermine his version of events. Further, upon careful perusal of Exs.A.1 and A.2, it is 16. evident that the police, after a thorough investigation concluded that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime bus. No contrary evidence, apart 5 assertions, has been placed on record to dispute the from mere claimant’s case. respondent, being the driver of the the most competent person to testify regarding the manner in which the incident occurred. However, the appellant failed to examine him before the Tribunal to rebut the claimants version or to provide an alternative explanation for the cause of the contention that the accident was caused due to the negligent driving of the auto-rickshaw lacks evidentiary rd 17. Moreover, the 3 crime bus, is t ‘ ii the accident. Hence, support and cannot be sustained. With respect to the quantum of compensation awarded evaluation of P.W.Vs testimony, along 18. by the Tribunal, upon with the supporting medical and documentary evidence marked A.9 the Tribunal rightly assessed and as Exs.A.3, A.6 to awarded just compensation to the claimant. There is no reason to interfere with the said calculation. Consequently, this Court finds no infirmity or legal error and conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal on all 19. in the findings aspects. The Award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the claimant. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no 20. order as to costs. '1 6 Interim orders granted earlier if any, shall stand vacated. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending stand closed. if any, shall / Sd/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 0 i //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty, Kadapa District. 2. One CC to Sri. N. Srihari (SC for APSRTC) [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri. G. Kondala Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, V.R Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 5. Three C.D Copies. Ssl vna I HIGH COURT \ DATED: 10/03/2025 ^rof S 0 5 AUG 2025 f Current S«cuon . ^ X^fSPATC**©^ JUDGMENT + DECREE MA.CMA.N0.92 OF 2022 OV i- CB DISMISSING THE APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS I