APHC010065072022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3367] TUESDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 56/2022 Between: Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation ...APPELLANT AND Paruchuri Hari and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: SOLOMON RAJU MANCHALAFOR (APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent(S): The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge at Nellore (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.139 of 2017 dated 10.03.2020. 2. The appellant is the APSRTC/owner of the Bus bearing No.AP 26 Z 0091 (hereinafter referred to as “crime bus”). The respondent No.1 is the claimant before the Tribunal. The respondent No.2 is the driver of the said crime bus. 2 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the tribunal. 4. The case of the claimant, in the petition before the Tribunal is that: i). On 05.04.2015 at about 10.00 a.m., while the claimant and others were proceeding on a motorcycle bearing No.AP 26 BA 8151 from his house to Penchalakona, when they reached Ramakotaiah Nagar, Kothur at Nellore, the crime bus driven by the 2nd respondent-driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, hit the motorcycle of the claimant, resulted the claimant sustained fracture injuries. ii). He claimed compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- against the owner and driver of the crime bus. 5. The respondent No.1/APSRTC filed counter denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the 3 motorcycle by the claimant, but not driver of the crime bus; that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties; that the compensation claimed by the claimant is excessive, thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition against this respondent. 6. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material: “1.Whether the alleged accident occurred on 05.04.2015 at about 10.00 A.M., near Ramakotaiah Nagar, Kothur, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District was due to rash and negligent act of the driver of APSRTC Bus bearing Reg.No.AP 26 Z 0091 and whether it resulted injuries to the petitioner/Paruchuri Hari? 2.Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? and 3.To what relief?” 7. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimant, PWs.1 to 3 were examined, Exs.A.1 to A.7, X.1 and X.2 were exhibited. On behalf of the respondent No.1/APSRTC, 1st 4 respondent/driver was examined as R.W.1, however, no documents were exhibited. 8. On the material, the Tribunal, having come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the contributory negligence of both the petitioner and 2nd respondent/driver of the crime bus, attributing 15% and 85% of negligence respectively, held that the claimant is entitled for the compensation of Rs.6,04,682/-, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondent Nos.1 and 2, for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident. 9. It is against the said award; the present appeal was preferred by the appellant/APSRTC/owner. 10. Heard Sri Sanisetty Venkateswarlu, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant/APSRTC/owner. None appeared for the respondent No.1/claimant, in spite of opportunity is given. 5 11. Now, short point that arises for determination is “whether the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside, if so, to what extent?” 12. POINT: It is not in dispute about the injuries sustained by the claimant, involvement of crime bus as well motorcycle bearing No.AP 26 BA 8151, rash and negligent driving of the crime bus as well motorcycle of the claimant. Furthermore, there is no dispute about the quantum of compensation entitled and awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant. It is a fact that no appeal was preferred by the claimant and driver of the crime bus against the findings of the Tribunal. 13. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant/APSRTC is that when there is a contributory negligence on the part of the claimant in riding the motor cycle, resulted the incident, the Tribunal erred in fixing the liability only to the extent of 15%, thereby, the same is liable to be set aside. 6 14. In view of the above contention, this Court perused the entire material available on record. To prove the contributory negligence on the part of the claimant, the respondent No.1 relied upon the testimony of R.W.1, who is driver of the crime bus. As per the admission made by P.W.1/claimant, by the time of incident, himself riding the motorcycle with two pillion riders. Furthermore, it is also an admitted fact that when the claimant overtaking the auto, the accident was occurred and that while overtaking the auto, the injured rider did not take any care and caution resulted the incident and that that care and caution can be attributed as contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the said motorcycle to the extent of 25% instead of 15% as ordered by the Tribunal. 15. By appreciating the above facts, the Tribunal attributing 15% contributory negligence on the part of the claimant and 85% to the 2nd respondent driver of the crime bus in causing the incident, which require interference, in the considered opinion of this Court, by attributing 25% 7 contributory negligence on the part of the claimant in riding the motor cycle, resulted the incident. 16. It is needless to say that the Tribunal after considering the testimony of P.Ws.2 and 3 coupled with Exs.A.2, A.5 to A.7, X.1 and X.2 rightly calculated the compensation entitled by the claimant, which requires no interference. Thereby, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.5,33,543/- against the respondents/owner and driver of the crime bus by attributing 25% of contributory negligence on the part of the claimant and 75% against the 2nd respondent/driver of the crime bus, in causing the incident. Thus, the point is answered accordingly. 17. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed in part. Consequently, restricted the compensation awarded to the claimant from Rs.6,04,682/- to Rs.5,33,543/-, with proportionate costs, with interest at 7.5% from the date of petition till the date of realization. The rest of the terms and conditions made in the order of the Tribunal shall remained intact. The appellant/respondent No.1/APSRTC shall deposit 8 the compensation amount within two months from the date of this judgment before the Tribunal. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS Date: 18.03.2025 Krs 9 513 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS M.A.C.M.A.No.56 of 2022 DATE: 18.03.2025 Krs