• ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: MONDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE AMARAVATI PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS jyiOJOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANFOll.g apppai Between: The APSRTC, rep.by its Managing Director, RTC House Administration Block, Pandit Nehru Bus Station Of RTC Bus bearing No.AP02Z0488 Tadipatri Depot) NO: 223 OF 2027 1st floor, NTR Vijayawada, A.P (owner ...Appellant/Respondent No.1 AND 1. Dudekula Ghouse, S/o Dudekula Hajeepeera, Age 48 D.No.4/153, Yerraguntapalli Village, Tadipatri Mandal. 2. Dudekula Sharifa, W/o D.Ghouse Moodin Coolie, R/o D.No.4/153, Yerraguntapalli Village, Tadipatri Mandal. . ■ -Respondents/Petitioners years, coolie, R/o Age 38 years, Dudekula 3. P.Prasad, S/o P.Rajanna, aged about 49 driver in Tadipatri Depot, R/o D.No.11/104, Yadiki Village (Driver of RTC bus bearing No.AP02Z0488). years, Hindu, Working as and Mandal, ...Respondent/ Respondent No.2 (3'^^ Respondent is herein driver of APSRTC not necessary party) Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V Act, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 31.01.2022 passed in MVOP No.24 of 2020 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum VI Addl. District Judge, Gooty. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of . \ appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Trial Court and material . the Suit and upon hearing arguments of Sri Aravala Rama Rao Counsel for APSRTC), Advocate for the Appellant and none appeared for the Respondents. This Court doth Order and decree as follows: 1. That the M.A.C.M.A. be and is hereby dismissed; 2. That there be no order as to costs in this appeal. papers in (Standing Sd/- M SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTIONDFFICER To, 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal District Judge, Gooty, Ananthapur District. 2. Three CD Copies - cum - VI Additional Stu sree HIGH COURT DATED: 24/03/2025 o 03 SEP 2025 ^ Current Section DECREE MACMA.No.223 of 2022 DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: MONDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V Act, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 31.01.2022 I the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Gooty. :: AMARAVATI MARCH APPEAL NO: 223 OF 2099 passed in MVOP No.24 of 2020 on the file of - VI Addl. District Judge, cum Between: The APSRTC rep. by its Managing Director, RTC House Administration Block, Pandit Nehru Bus Station, Of RTC Bus bearing No.AP02Z0488 Tadipatri Depot) 1st floor, NTR Vijayawada, A.P (owner ...Appellant/Respondent No.1 AND 1. Dudekula Ghouse, S/o Dudekula Hajeepeera, D.No.4/153, Yerraguntapalli Village. Tadipatri Mandal. Age 48 years, coolie, R/o 2. Dudekula Sharifa, W/o D.Ghouse Moodin, Age 38 years, Dudekula, Coohe, R/o D.No.4/153, Yerraguntapalli Village, Tadipatri Mandal. •.. Respondents/Petitioners 3. P.Prasad, S/o P.Rajanna, aged about 49 years. Hindu, Working driver in Tadipatri Depot, R/o D.No.11/104, Yadiki Village and Mandal, (Driver of RTC bus bearing No.AP02Z0488). as ...Respondent/Respondent No.2 (3 Rsspondent is herein driver of APSRTC not necessary party) lA NO: 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. 24 of 2020 dated. 31.01.2022 On the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - VI Additional District Judge, Gooty pending disposal of the above MACMA. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI ARAVALA RAMA RAO (STANDING COUNSEL FOR APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondents: - The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS M.A.C.M.A.No.223 of 2022 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order, dated 31.01.2022, of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Gooty (hereinafter called as 'the TribunalO in M.V.O.RNo.24 of 2020. The appellant/A.P.S.R.T.C is the owner of the bus bearing 2. NO.AP02Z0488 (hereinafter referred to as "crime vehicle")- Respondent Nos.l and 2 are claimants who are parents of the deceased. Respondent No.3 is driver of the crime vehicle. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred 3. to as they are arrayed before the tribunal. The case of the claimants, in the petition before the Tribunal is 4. that: i). On 02.09.2018, the deceased Dudekala Khadar Vali who is aged about 15 years and studying class while standing infront of the saloon towards extreme road margin, at about 08.30 a.m., the offending vehicle APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 02 Z 0488 coming from Tadipatri, driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver with high speed, lost control over the vehicle, went on wrong side and dashed against the 2 deceased, as a result, the deceased sustained severe head injuries and crush injuries all over the body and he was admitted in Government Hospital, Tadipatri. Later while shifting to Government Hospital, Ananthapuramu, he died on the way. ii).Being the parents of the deceased, they claimed compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- against the driver and owner of the crime vehicle. 5. Respondent No. 1-Road Transport Corporation filed counter denying the allegations in the petition and stated that the deceased the date of accident took moped of father and while crossing the road near cotton mill gate, the accident occurred. The accident occurred only due to the negligent and rash driving of the deceased. The driver of the bus could not avert the accident in spite of his best efforts. Thereby, contributory factor has to be taken into consideration while arriving at liability and finally prayed for dismissal of the petition. Respondent No.2/Driver of RTS Bus also filed separate counter and submitted that the deceased was proceeding on motor cycle in the middle of the road without following the traffic rules and suddenly crossed the road, due to which the accident occurred. The deceased is minor and have no right to driver motor cycle and accident occurred on 6. 3 only due to negligent of the deceased. Hence, this respondent is not liable to pay compensation. 7. The Tribunal on considering the rival contentions of both the parties, settled the following issues for enquiry: "l.Whether the accident occurred because of negligent driving of the deceased of the 2^^ respondent driver of the APSRTC?? Z.Whether the compensation claimed by the petitioners is excessive or not? 3.To what relief?" During enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.l and 2 were 8. examined and Exs.P.l to P.4 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, RWl was examined and no documents are marked. 9. After considering the material on record, the Tribunal, having come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the crime bus by its driver, held that claimants are entitled for the compensation of Rs.6,78,000/-, with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. 10. It is against the said award; the present appeal was preferred by the appellant/A.P.S.R.T.C. 11. Heard Sri Aravala Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant. None appeared on behalf of the Respondents. ' ^ 4 12. Sri Aravala Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant submits that the claimants failed to establish the negligent driving on the part of the RTC driver of the bus. At the time of accident, the deceased was driving TVS XL Mope and tried to cross the road without observing the signals and due to which the accident occurred. The insurer of the Moped was not impleaded party and OP is bad for as a necessary non-joinder of necessary party. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is highly excessive and hence, prays to allow the appeal. 13. Now, the point that arises for determination is "whether the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside, if so, to what extent?" 14. POINT: It is not in dispute about the death of the deceased accident and involvement of the RTC Bus. The appellant is also not disputing about the same. It is the only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased in occurrence of the incident by riding a moped and tried to cross the road suddenly without observing the signals and hit the bus. The Tribunal failed to consider the said aspect. The tribunal erred in awarding compensation without any evidence on record. in the 15. 5 16. In view of the above contention, this Court perused the material placed on record. To prove the rash and negligence driver of the crime bus, the claimants on the part of the got examined PWs 1 and 2. PWl is the father of the deceased who reiterated the petition contents in his chief affidavit. He denied suggestion that at the time of accident, his was riding TVS moped and that due to his negligence only the accident occurred. PW2 is the eye witness to the incident and he deposed that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligence the driver of the offending vehicle only. Nothing was elicited during his cross-examination to disbelieve his testimony and no evidence is put forth to say that there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased in causing the accident. Therefore, as righty held by the son of Tribunal, the Respondent No.3 failed to rebut the said evidence and it is clearly held that the Respondent No.3 is responsible for the accident. Coming to the dependents, it can be safely held that PWs 1 and 2 are the claimants who are father and mother of the deceased and they are entitled for the compensation as held by the tribunal. Having regard to the above discussion, since there are no merits in the contention raised by the appellant with regard to contributory negligence, this Court finds no interference warrants to the findings recorded by the Tribunal, as such, the appeal preferred by the 17. 18. 6 appellant is liable for dismissal. Thus, the point is answered against the appellant. 19. 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. Sd/- M SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER Tribunal - cum - VI Additional District Judge, Gooty, Ananthapur District (with records if any) 2. One CC to Sri. N Srihari ( Standing Counsel for APSRTC ) [OPUC] 3. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravathi 4. Three CD Copies To The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims at Stu sree HIGH COURT DATED: 24/03/2025 S 03 SEP 2()?5 ^ ^CurrentSeciion . , ^^iS&PATCHeoJ^ JUDGMENT +DECREE MACMA.No.223 of 2022 DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS