APHC010841012015 -vi,s 4^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAiESF AT AMARAVATI SEQ ii T? fmsi ,» i^•4 4 '-t- fs /■' <4 U': ■im •Ir .• WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT honourable SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN lyiOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANFOIlf; adpta. Between: No.518 of 2Q7fi 1. The Vice Chairman and Managing Director. Owner of the Bus No.AP-10-7515. 2. The Manager APSRTC. RTC Bus Stand District. APSRTC, Musheerabad, Complex, Ongoie, Prakasarn ...APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS AND Borigorla Bala Guraviah, S/o Marripalem Village, Vaddimadugu Prakasarn District. Balaiah, Aged about 60 years, R/o Post, Konakanamitia Mandal, ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles and Decree dated 10-07-2015 Accident Claims Tribunal District in MVOP No. 319 of 2011. Act, against the Order passed by the Court of the Chairman Motor -cum-VII Additional District Judge, Ongoie, Prakasarn This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of Petition, the Order and Decree of the Trial Court and the material papers in the Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Sanisetty Venkateswarlu (SC for APSRTC), Advocate for the Appellants and Sri Madhava Rao Nalluri Advocate for the Respondents. This Court doth Order and decree as follows: 1. That the appeal be and is hereby dismissed; 2. That the appellants/APSRTC be and are hereby directed to deposit the balance amount of compensation as awarded in terms of the impugned order dated 10.07.2015 in M.V.O.P.No.319 of 2011, after deducting the amount, if any, already paid, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 3. That on such deposit being made, the hereby permitted to withdraw the order. respondent/claimant be and is amount in terms of the impugned 4. That in the event if the respondent/claimant is at liberty to take steps for accordance with law. That there be no order as to costs in this appeal. compensation amount is not deposited, the recovery in 5. SD/- N.NAGAMMA ASSISTANT RE^TRAR section Officer //TRUE COPY// To 1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims District Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District. Two CD Copies Tribunal-cum-VII Additional 2. TK TAC HIGH COURT DATED:30/07/2025 decree MACMA No.518 of 2025 m 01 NOV 2025 % .^Js^urreni Sectiory^^ DISMISSING THE MACMA APHC010841012015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAPfeSH AT AMARAVATI r'- % , rv- 0}^ 'M - WEDNESDAY. THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT honourable SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN motor accident CIVIt MiSCEl I AMFni iq Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles and Decree dated 10-07-2015 Accident Claims Tribunal District in MVOP No. 319 of 2011 Between: APPEAL No.518 of 202/; Act, against the Order passed by the Court of the Chairman, Motor -cum-VII Additional District Judge, Ongole, Prakasam 1. The Vice Chairman and Managing Director, Owner of the Bus No.AP-10-7515. 2. The Manager APSRTC. RTC Bus District. APSRTC, Musheerabad, Stand Complex, Ongole, Prakasam ...APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS AND Borigorla Bala Guraviah, S/o Marripalem Village, Vaddimadugu Prakasam District. Balaiah, Aged about 60 years, R/o Post, Konakanamitia Mandal, ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER lA NO: 1 OF 2016(MACMAMP 119 QF 201fi) Petition under Section 151 of CPC staled in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pieased to grant stay of aii further proceedings of the Award 10-7-2015 passed by the Court of the Chairman Tribunai-cum-VII Additional District praying that in the circumstances and Decree dated Motor Accident Claims Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District iin MVOP No. 319 of 2011 including the execution proceedings, pending disposal of the MACMA. Counsel for the Appellants : SRI SANISETTY VENKATESWARLU (SC FOR APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent : SRI MADHAVA RAO NALLURI The Court made the following JUDGMENT : APHC010841012015 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: 518/2025 Between: 1.THE VICE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, APSRTC MUSHEERABAD,OWNER OF THE BUS NO.AP-10- 7515 2.THE MANAGER APSRTC, RTC BUS STAND COMPLEX ONGOLE,PRAKASAM DISTRICT ...APPELLAN I (5) AND 1.BORIGORLA BALA GURAVIAH, S/o Balaiah,Aged about 60 Village,vaddimadugu years,R/o Post,Konakanamitla Mandal,Prakasam District Marripalem ...RESPONDENT Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased toto allow the MACMA by setting aside the Award and Decree dated 10-7-2015 passed by the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-VII Additional District Judge,Ongole, prakasam District in MVOP No. 319 of 2011 and pass lA NO: 1 OF 2015fMACMAMP 5943 OF 2015 Petition under Section 151 CPC circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 67 days in presenting the appeal filed against the Order and Decree dated 10- praying that in the 2 CGR,J MAGMA No.518of2025 7-2015 passed by the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-VIl Additional District Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District in MVOP No. 319 of 2011 and pass lA NO: 1 OF 2016(MACMAMP 119 OF 2016 praying that in the Petition under Section 151 CPC circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings of the Award and Decree dated 10-7-2015 passed by the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-VI l Additional District Judge, Ongole, prakasam District in MVOP No. 319 of 2011 including the execution proceedings, pending disposal of the MACMA. Counsel for the Appellant(S); 1.SANISETTY VENKATESWARLU SC For APSRTC Counsel for the Respondent: 1.MADHAVA RAO NALLURI The Court made the following: CGR, J MACMA No.518 of 2025 JUDGMENT: The appellants/APSRTC (hereinafter referred to as Corporation") have preferred the present appeal assailing the order dated 10.07.2015 in MVOP No. 319 of 2011 on the file of the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District Judge, Ongole, determining the compensation at Rs.6,40,475/- to the injured claimant. Parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the 2. Tribunal for the sake of convenience. The claimant is stated to have boarded the RTC bus bearing 3. registration No. AP 10 Z 7615 and was supposed lo gei aown ai Marripalem bus stop. However, the bus was not stopped there and moved ahead beyond the stop, and when it was stopped for the passengers to get down there, the claimant tried to get down from the bus. However, the driver of the bus, without noticing, started the bus; thereby, he fell down, and the back left wheels of the bus ran over the legs of the claimant, sustaining grievous injuries. He was shifted to the Government Hospital at Podili and thereafter to Ongole and was admitted in a private hospital. He was treated, and ultimately his right leg came to be amputated and was assessed with \ permanent disability of 50%. The accident was reported to the police and a crime came to be registered against the driver of the bus vide 4 CGR,J MAGMA No.518 of 2025 Crime No.14 of 2011 for the offences under Section 383 of IPC. The claimant thereafter laid the claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- for the injuries sustained. The Corporation filed a written statement before the Tribunal denying the manner in which the accident occurred, stating that the driver of the bus was neither negligent nor responsible for the running over of the bus over the claimant, besides denying the age, income and medical expenses incurred. It was specifically pleaded in the written statement that when the bus reached BC Colony of Marripalem, the conductor gave a signal to stop the bus, and before the bus stopped, the claimant, who was on the footboard awaiting to deboard the bus, tried to get down from the moving bus and thereby fell down, resulting in being run over by the left back wheels of the bus. Therefore, it was clearly a case of self-negligence of the claimant but not of the driver of the bus. 4. even The petitioner himself was examined as PW1, the doctors who treated the petitioner were examined as PW2 and PW3, and the son of the petitioner was examined as PW4 and got marked Exs.AI to A22. None were examined for the respondents and no documents 5. / were marked. 6. The Tribunal has framed the following issues: CGR,J MAGMA No.518of2025 i. Whether the injuries of petitioner Borigorla Bala Guravaiah S/o Balaiah were caused in the accident on 23.03.2011 at 11.30 a.m. due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle bearing No. AP-10 Z 7515 APSRTC bus? a. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim for any compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? Hi. To what relief? 7. The first issue came to be determined by concluding that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the bus. In order to arrive at the said finding, the Tribunal appreciated the evidence of PW1 and Exs.M to A3, which are the FIR, wound certificate, and charge sheet, wnich indicated that the driver was at fault and that negligence was proved. As the first issue was decided in favour of the claimant, the compensation came to be determined based on the nature of the injury, functional disability, and the income, and ultimately arrived at the compensation as Rs.6,40,475/- in total. 8. Assailing the same, the present appeal is filed. 9. Heard Sri Sanisetty Venkateswarlu, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC, appearing for the appellants/APSRTC, and Sri Madhava Rao Nalluri, learned counsel for the respondent/claimant . 6 CGR,J MACMA No.518 of 2025 Learned counsel for the Corporation mainly contended that the Tribunal miserably failed to appreciate that it was the claimant’s fault, on account of self-negligence, which caused the accident, and not that of the driver of the bus. While referring to the contentions of the written statement, he contended that it has been specifically pleaded that the claimant tried to deboard the bus even before it stopped; thereby, he fell down and sustained injuries. Therefore, the same cannot be attributable in any manner, much less, say due to the negligence of the driver of the bus. No arguments were advanced with respect to the quantum of liability. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant tried to substantiate the findings and 10. fhp lloKili+x/ on rt i i U U i i Ci i i i < i i / x conciusioilb ieCulded by the TW* Corporation. Perused the material available on record. 11. The point for consideration is that: 12. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in fixing the negligence on the driver of the bus and in the process whether the findings recorded suffer from any perversity? It is not in dispute that the claimant was travelling in the bus owned by the Corporation. The bus was supposed to have stopped at Marripalem bus stop. It is the case of the claimant that the bus did "not stop at the designated stop, but rather stopped beyond it, and 13. CGR,J MAGMA No.518 of 2025 while he was trying to get down from the bus, it suddenly moved, resulting in him falling down and the bus wheels running over his legs. The said act of moving the bus without noticing whether all the passengers had deboarded is an act of negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. To substantiate the said plea, the injured himself was examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 - FIR, A2 - wound certificate and A3 - charge sheet. The contents of Exs.AI to A3 go to show that the accident had occurred on account of the negligence of the driver of the bus and in the manner as narrated by PW1. Since the initial burden of proof lies on the claimant to prove that the accident occurred and that it was on account of the negligence of the driver of the bus, the same came to be established. 14. In order to rebut the same, the respondent Corporation, though had specifically pleaded in the written statement that the claimant tried to get down from the bus and that the running over of the bus on his legs was his own doing, miserably failed to examine the driver, conductor, or any other inmate of the bus to substantiate the same. The Tribunal, considering the evidence available on record, in particular that of PW1 and the contents of Exs.AI to A3 came to the conclusion that the driver of the bus was responsible \ and clearly involved in causing the accident. / CGR, J MAGMA No.518 of 2025 The degree of proof required to be established for considering the cause under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act is based preponderance of mere probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt. The claimants, by producing the aforesaid evidence, have therefore discharged the burden of proof as required under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal, examining the aforesaid material, came to a definite finding. In the absence of any rebuttal, it cannot be said that the Tribunal was not justified in taking said view. 15. on 16. In view of the same, there is no merit in the appeal and the same stands dismissed. The appellants/APSRTC are directed to deposit the balance amount of compensation as awarded in terms of the impugned order dated 10.07.2015 in MVOP No. 319 of 2011, after deducting the amount, if any, already paid, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit being made, the respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the amount in terms of the impugned order. In the event if the compensation amount is not deposited, the respondent/claimant is at liberty to take steps for recovery in accordance with law. 17. 18. There shall be no order as to costs. 9 CGR,J MAGMA No.518 of 2025 As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- N.NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR f SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To 1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District, (with records if any) 2. One CC to Sri Sanisetty Venkateswarlu (SC for APSRTC), Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Madhava Rao Nalluri, Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Amaravathi. (to dispatch the trial court records) 5. Two CD Copies Pradesh at TK TAC HIGH COURT DATED:30/07/2025 JUDGMENT + DECREE MACMA No.518 of 2025 01 NOV 2025 -.1= ■^XCurrent bection^v^ DISMISSING THE MACMA