APHC010045732022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 36/2022 Between: 1. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, NTR BUS STAND COMPLEX, GUNTUR, GUNTUR JCJC. (OWNER OF APSRTC BUS BEARING NO. AP 28 Z 4168). ...APPELLANT AND 1. BATTAGIRI SAMSONU, S/O. PEDDA VENKATESWARLU, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, COOLIE, R/O. VIDYA NAGAR, GUNTUR, GUNTUR JCJC. 2. BATTAGIRI PULLAMMA, W/O. SAMSONU, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, R/O. VIDYA NAGAR, GUNTUR, GUNTUR JCJC. 3. BATTAGIRI NAGAJYOTHI, D/O. SAMSONU, AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS, STUDENT, R/O. VIDYA NAGAR, GUNTUR, GUNTUR JCJC. (3RD RESPONDENT IS BEING MINOR REP. BY HER FATHER BATTIGIRI SAMSONU I.E. 1ST RESPONDENT). 4. SHAIK KHADAR BASHA, S/O. MADAR VALI @ KOTHAPALEM MADAR VALI, R/O. NAVABMITTA, PODILI TOWN, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, PODILI JCJC. (DRIVER OF APSRTC BUS BEARING NO. AP 28 Z 4168). (R 4 IS NOT NECESSARY). ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased topleased to allow the MACMA by setting aside the Order and Decree dated 13-12-2019 passed in M.V.O.P No. 1400 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- II Additional District Judge, Guntur and pass IA 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 pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the Order and Decree dated 13-12-2019 passed in M.V.O.P No. 1400 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Guntur including of execution proceedings pending disposal of the above M.A.C.M.A and pass IA NO: 2 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 Pleased to vacate the interim stay granted by this Honble court in IA 1/2022 in MACMA 36/2022 dated 10-02-2022 by permit the petitioners to withdraw the amount deposited by the respondent no.1/appellant before the Honble Motor accidents claims tribunal -cum-II Additional district judge, gutnur Counsel for the Appellant: 1. SOLOMON RAJU MANCHALAFOR (APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SRICHARAN TELAPROLU The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.36 of 2022 JUDGMENT: APSRTC preferred present appeal aggrieved by the order dated 13.12.2019 passed in M.V.O.P. No.1400 of 20147 on the file of Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal – cum – II Additional District Court, Guntur, by which it was directed to pay compensation of ₹6,50,000/- on account of death along with interest @9% per annum. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts relating to the present appeal in a nutshell are as follows: (a) Claimants 1and 2 are parents and 3rd claimant is sister of deceased. Deceased was aged 11 years and pursuing 6th class at Raghavendra Private School, Kurichedu Village. On 27.08.2016, he returned from school by bus at about 04.00 p.m. and while going to his home, APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 28Z 4168 came from Kurichedu side towards Vinukonda and dashed the boy, causing serious multiple injuries. He was shifted to 2 CGR, J MACMA. No.36 of 2022 hospital at Vinukonda, where he succumbed at 11.20 p.m. Crime was registered for offences under Section 304-A of IPC against the driver of bus. Parents and sister of deceased laid the claim for ₹8,50,000/-. (b) 1st respondent – driver of the bus filed written statement denying the manner of causing accident and denied that there was any negligence on his part and rather it was due to the negligence of the deceased in crossing the road, the accident occurred. Even 2nd respondent – Corporation also filed counter in similar lines denying the manner in which accident occurred and any liability on account of the same. (c) On behalf of the claimants, father of the deceased was examined as P.W.1 and eyewitness to accident as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. The driver of bus was examined for respondents as R.W.1 and no documents were marked. (d) Based on pleadings and evidence let in both oral and documentary, the Tribunal framed following issues: 1) Whether Battagiri Anil (deceased) died in the accident on 27.08.2016 at 04.00 P.M., due to rash and negligent driving of the driver (R1) of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 28Z 4168? 3 CGR, J MACMA. No.36 of 2022 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, and if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? 3) To what relief? (e) 1st issue came to be answered by Tribunal in favour of claimants, holding that the accident occurred because of negligence of the driver of bus and was not attributable to the deceased himself. While answering the 2nd issue, as negligence is on the part of driver of bus proved, considering that deceased was minor and below the age of 15 years, income came to be assessed as ₹30,000/- per annum and accordingly, the compensation came to be determined for an amount of ₹6,50,000/- on different heads along with interest @ 9%. Assailing the same, present appeal is filed. 4. Heard Mr.Sanisetty Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for appellant and Mr.Sri Charan Telaprolu, learned counsel for respondents. 5. Learned counsel for appellant mainly advanced arguments regarding fixing of negligence on driver of bus and consequential fastening liability on the Corporation. He contended that the deceased upon getting down from the bus while returning home tried to cross the road from left side to right side, due to slip of 4 CGR, J MACMA. No.36 of 2022 shoe, he fell on road and hit the stationed bus at left rare wheel and died, therefore, no negligence can be attributed to the driver of bus, rather it is a case of self-negligence. He has drawn attention of this Court to ground No.3 of memorandum of grounds. Except for aforesaid contention, no other grounds have been argued, though memorandum of grounds raises certain other pleas. 6. Per contra, on the other hand, learned counsel for respondents/claimants tried to support the impugned award by contending that the Tribunal has fairly appreciated the documentary and oral evidence on record in coming to conclusion that the accident had occurred only on account of negligence of the driver of the bus and not that of the deceased. He has further drawn attention of this Court to the stand taken by 1st respondent i.e., driver of bus, in the written statement filed as well as the Chief Affidavit and his cross-examination as R.W.1. To buttress the point that the very same witness has taken stand that the deceased fell on road due to slip of shoe and hit stationed bus at left rare wheel, significantly in contrast to the contents of FIR and charge sheet which said that the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of driver of the bus. He, while referring 5 CGR, J MACMA. No.36 of 2022 to the evidence of P.W.2, who is eyewitness and also shown as L.W.6 in the charge sheet, contended that it was the driver of bus who was at fault and negligent in causing the accident, therefore, pleaded to dismiss the appeal. 7. Perused the record and considered the rival submissions. 8. The question that falls for consideration of this Court is: 1. Whether the order passed by the Tribunal suffers from any infirmity or perversity and need interference of this Court? 2. To what relief? 9. (a) Learned counsel for appellant only raised the issue of attributing negligence on the part of driver of bus, therefore, the appeal is being decided dealing with the said aspect alone, as there is no challenge to the quantum of compensation determined. The deceased got down from school bus and was returning back to home. It is the case of claimants that while en route to his house, he was hit by bus while crossing the road. In support of the said claim, claimants got examined P.W.1 and P.W.2. P.W.1, being father and not an eyewitness, he could not have spoken of the manner in which accident occurred. However, P.W.2, who was eyewitness and also one of the 6 CGR, J MACMA. No.36 of 2022 prosecution witnesses, as seen from charge sheet filed under Ex.A2 spoke that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent act of driver of crime vehicle. In his evidence, he has stated that deceased after getting down from the school bus was crossing the road and that the driver of bus came in rash and negligent manner without blowing horn and dashed the deceased, thereby causing serious injuries. Ex.A1 and Ex.A2, which are FIR and charge sheet, fortified the same. Ex.A3 - inquest report and Ex.A4 – post mortem report also suggest that deceased was hit by bus. (b) As against aforesaid evidence, the Corporation got examined the driver of bus as R.W.1. He has admitted in his cross-examination that there was heavy rain when the accident occurred and further took stand that the boy had fallen down on account of slip of shoe and had hit stationed bus on rare wheel side. This stand of R.W.1 is not found in the written statement but seems to have developed in evidence. Further, except for the said witness, no other independent eyewitnesses were examined to speak in favour of respondents. (c) Tribunal, after evaluating the evidence let in on behalf of both claimants and as well as the Corporation, has come to 7 CGR, J MACMA. No.36 of 2022 conclusion that the accident has occurred merely on account of rash and negligent act of driver of crime vehicle and that the Corporation has miserably failed to show that it was a case of self-negligence of deceased himself. Having coming to the said conclusion, the Tribunal has given credence to the evidence of P.W.2 and also Exs.A1 to A5. When it is the case of the driver of bus that the driver of crime bus was stationed and that boy has fell down on account of slip of shoe and got himself hit the bus, the FIR, charge sheet and in particular, inquest report and postmortem report do not in any manner corroborate with his stand, rather they justified the stand of claimants. If it is a simple case of slip by minor boy and dashing into a stationed bus, it is for anybody’s imagination that mere such slip would not be fatal. The postmortem certificate reported the nature of injuries to be: “External Examination: Crush injury of both legs and knee to ancle. Internal Examination: Skull intact, brain congested, thoracic cage intact, no bony injury, no hemothorax.” 8 CGR, J MACMA. No.36 of 2022 The above injuries definitely are severe and can be caused only on account of hit by bus in high speed. Therefore, the findings recorded by Tribunal in the opinion of this Court do not suffer from any infirmity or perversity. 10. In view of the above reasoned discussion, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the same. Accordingly, this MACMA is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending consideration, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J 23.07.2025 SS