1 APHC010066022020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] TUESDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 166/2020 Between: 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, APSRTC, MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD NOW AT VIJAYAWADA. ...APPELLANT AND 1. NAGAM VISHNU KUMARI, W/O LATE KONDABABU, AGED 55 YEARS, THONDANGI R/O D.NO.5-72C, CHALMAYYANAGAR, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, ANNAVARAM, SANKAVARAM MANDAL. 2. NAGARN PEDDARAJU, S/O KONDABABU, AGED 36 YEARS, THONDANGI R/O D.NO.5-72C, CHALRNAYYANAGAR, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, ANNAVARAM, SANLCAVARAM MANDAL. 3. ARIGELA SUNITHA, , W/O TATAYYADORA, AGED 34 YERS, THONDANGI R/O D.NO.5-72C, CHALMAYYANAGAR, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, ANNAVARAM, SANKAVARARN MANDAL. 4. BASWA SRINIVAS, , S/O PRAKASARAO, A/3 5 YEARS, CHITRADA. VILLAGE, PITHAPURAM MANDAL. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased topleased to allow the appeal by setting aside the Judgment and decree passed by the order and decree dated 25.06.2019 passed in MVOP No. 01 of 2018 On the file of the Chairman MACT Cum XII Additional District Judge East Godavari at Pithapuram to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 pleased to condone the delay of 94 days in filing the appeal against the judgment and decree passed On the file of the Chairman MACT Cum XII Additional District Judge East Godavari at Pithapuram passed in MVOP NO.01 of 2018 dt. 25.06.2019 and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2020 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 pleased to grant stay of execution of decree in pursuant to MVOP NO.01 / 2018 dt. 25.06.2019 On the file of the Chairman MACT Cum XII Additional District Judge East Godavari at Pithapuram pending disposal of the above MACMA and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. VINOD KUMAR TARLADA (SC FOR APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. BOLLA VENKATA RAMA RAO 3 JUDGMENT: The present appeal is filed by the appellant/APSRTC, aggrieved by the Order dated 25.06.2019 passed in M.V.O.P.No.1 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum- XII Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Pithapuram. 2. For sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were referred before the Tribunal. 3. The petitioner No.1 is the wife and petitioner Nos.2 & 3 are the son and daughter of the deceased. It is the case of the petitioners that on 23.09.2011 at about 10:30 AM, while the deceased was driving Auto bearing Registration No. AP 05 TU 9013, when it reached Gorrikandi canal, A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing Registration No. AP 11 Z 2525, came in opposite direction, driven in rash and negligent manner by the 1st respondent/driver and dashed the auto of the deceased. As a result of which, the deceased and others died on the spot and some other passengers were injured. A case in Crime No.110 of 2011 under Section 304-A IPC was registered against the 1st respondent/driver. On account of death of the deceased, the petitioners have filed M.V.O.P.No.1 of 2018, under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- together with interest @ 18 % per annum from the date of the petition till realization. 4 4. It is the case of the petitioners that the deceased was aged 55 years at the time of accident and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month by cultivating the lands belonging to him and he was also cultivating the other lands on lease. It is further case of the petitioners that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. 5. The claim was resisted by the 2nd respondent by filing counter affidavit, denying the contents of the claim petition. The 2nd respondent also denied the earning capacity of the deceased including the relationship of the petitioners with the deceased. It is further contended that the driver of the Auto, while overtaking lorry, driven the auto at high speed and in zig zag manner and dashed the bus. It is further stated that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto. 6. In order to prove the case of the petitioners, they examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. On behalf of respondents neither oral evidence was adduced nor any documents were marked. The 1st respondent/driver remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence put forth by the parties, the tribunal partly allowed the claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs.5,05,600/- and directed the respondents to deposit the said compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition i.e., 12.12.2017, till 5 realization with proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the 2nd respondent. 7. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri B. Venkata Rama Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3. 8. Perused the record. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Tribunal did not appreciate that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto driver. He would further submit that the Tribunal erred in granting compensation of Rs.5,05,600/- to the petitioners despite the fact that the petitioners did not file any documentary proof to show that the deceased was earning member of the family at the time of the accident. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month by doing cultivation and he was the owner of the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.5.00 cents. He would further submit that apart from his land, the deceased was also cultivating the lands belonging to others by taking them on lease. He would further submit that the Tribunal has granted just compensation after taking into consideration of the evidence put forth by the petitioners and there is no illegality or infirmity in the order impugned. 6 11. On perusal of the record, though it is contended by the respondent that the deceased drove the auto in rash and negligent manner and dashed the bus, in support of the said contention, the respondent did not examine any witness to substantiate the same. Further, the 1st respondent/driver remained ex-parte. On the other hand the petitioners have examined P.Ws.1 & 2 and marked the copies of FIR and charge sheet. Further the evidence of P.Ws.1 & 2 is in corroboration with the FIR and charge sheet. In the absence of any evidence placed on record by the respondent, the contention of the respondents cannot be countenanced. From the above, it can be held that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. 12. Coming to the income of the deceased, though it is contended that he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month by doing cultivation of lands admeasuring to an extent of Ac.5.00 cents and other lands by taking the same on lease, the petitioners did not file any documentary proof to substantiate the same. Though P.Ws.1 and 2 deposed that he used to earn Rs.20,000/- per month, in the absence of any documentary proof, their evidence cannot be relied on. In the absence of any evidence in support of the case of the petitioners, the trial court has taken the income of the deceased as Rs.4,950/- per month and awarded compensation of Rs.5,05,600/- in favour of the petitioners under various conventional heads. The Tribunal after 7 considering the case of the petitioners coupled with the oral and documentary evidence put forth by them, has fixed just compensation in the case on hand. Though it is contented by the counsel for the appellant that the compensation awarded to the petitioners are excessive, this Court does not find any force in the said argument inasmuch as the trial court disbelieved the contention of the petitioners and taken the income of the deceased as Rs.4,950/-. Further, the respondents have neither adduced any oral evidence nor marked any exhibits to disprove the same. 13. For the reasons recorded above, this Court does not find any merit in the appeal and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Consequently, Order dated 25.06.2019 passed in M.V.O.P.No.1 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum- XII Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Pithapuram is confirmed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR 04.11.2025 SCH 8 158 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR M.A.C.M.A. No.166 of 2020 Date 04.11.2025 U SCH