APHC010066502020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] FRIDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 174/2020 Between: 1. APSRTC, REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD NOW AT VIJAYAWADA ...APPELLANT AND 1. PENKAY RAMU, DIED 2. PENKAY SAROJINI, W/O LATE RAMU AGED 45 YEARS, RIO D.NO.1-50 KOTHURU, NEAR RAYUDU PALEM, RAMANAYYA PETA, KAKINADA RURAL MANDAL, KAKINADA. 3. MUTYALA SRIMANNARAYANA, S/O VEERA SWAMY AGED 51 YEARS, DRIVER APSRTC D.NO.6-1-30/1 DUSARLAPUDI VARI STREET, KAKINADA. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased too setting aside the order dated 16-08-2018 passed in MVOP No 98/2015 on the file of the Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum - III Addl District Judge, Kakinada. East Godavari District. 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 to condone the delay of 453 days in filing the appeal against the judgment and decree passed On the file of the Chairman MACT Cum 2 III Additional District Judge East Godavari at Kakinada passed in MVOP N9.98 of 2015 dt. 16.08.2018 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 to grant stay of execution of decree in pursuant to MVOP NO.98 / 2015 dt. 16.08.2018 On the file of the Chairman MACT Cum III Additional District Judge East Godavari at Kakinada pending disposal of the above MACMA and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. K SRINIVASA PRASAD SC For APSRTC Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. KOTI REDDY IDAMAKANTI 2. 3 The Court made the following judgment: The present appeal is filed by APSRTC aggrieved by order dated 16.08.2018 in MVOP No.98 of 2015 on the file of the Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, East Godavari, Kakinada. 2. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as they were referred before the Tribunal. 3. The petitioners filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of death of their daughter, Smt. Kalla Durga (herein after referred to as, the deceased), in an accident that was occurred on 09.10.2012, opposite Sarpavaram Police Station, in which the offending bus bearing registration No.AP28Z907 was involved. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that on 09.10.2012, the deceased went to Sarpavaram Police Station along with her mother in order to give report against her former husband. When they reached the police station, the offending bus driven by the 1st respondent, in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed, dashed against a scooterist and ran over him. In the said process the offending bus also dashed against the deceased and the 2nd petitioner. Immediately, the deceased and the 2nd petitioner were shifted to Government General Hospital, Kakinada, where the doctors declared that the deceased was brought dead. A case in 4 Cr.No.309 of 2012 was registered under Sections 304-A and 337 IPC, on the file of Sarpavaram Police Station. In view of the death of the deceased, the parents filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. The 1st respondent remained ex-parte. The 2nd respondent filed counter affidavit denying the averments made in the claim petition, inter alia contending that, two women suddenly came onto the road from Sarpavaram Police Station. Upon seeing them, the 1st respondent/driver tried to stop the vehicle, during which one women, was in confused state of mind, skidded on the road before the bus. It was further contended that, the bus was never involved in the accident as alleged, and there was no negligence on the part of the 1st respondent/driver. 5. In order to prove the case of the petitioners, the 2nd petitioner was examined as PW.1 and one Sri G.Apparao was examined as PW.2. They have also marked Ex.A1 to A4. On the other hand, the respondents have not examined any witness nor produced any documentary evidence. Considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal partly allowed the petition by awarding compensation of Rs.4,89,000/- making the respondent liable to pay the same jointly and severally. 6. Heard Ms.Bhavani, counsel appearing for the appellant, Sri Nanilu Naidu, counsel representing Sri I.Koti Reddy, counsel for the respondents. 7. Perused the record. 5 8. The counsel for the appellant would contend that, there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. She would further submit that, the deceased was under confused state of mind and suddenly fell down before the offending bus and the offending bus was never involved in the accident as alleged. In order to substantiate the said contentions, the respondents have not examined any witness on their behalf. On the contrary, a perusal of the evidence of PW.1, i.e., the 2nd petitioner, who was the eye-witness to the accident, makes it clear that the 1st respondent/driver of the offending bus drove the vehicle in a rash and negligence manner and hit her and the deceased. Apart from the same, it is also clear that before the bus hit the deceased, it had dashed one scooterist. Though PW.1 was cross examined at length, nothing was elicited to disprove her evidence. Apart from the same, a perusal of the copies of FIR and charge sheet, which were marked as Exs.A1 and A3, would show that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent/driver of the RTC bus. As already noted supra, the respondents have failed to establish that there was any negligence on the part of the deceased and the 2nd petitioner. In the absence of any material on record, the contention of the counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted and the same is hereby rejected. 9. A perusal of the order under challenge it is clear that the Tribunal, by taking into consideration the age of the deceased, fixed her income as Rs.4,500/- per month. Further, it is evident from the record that it was the 6 case of the claimants that the deceased was a tailor by avocation and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. Though, the petitioners had claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- per month, the Tribunal had fixed Rs.4,500/-, by taking into consideration of evidence available on record. As already noted supra, the respondents have not placed anything on record to rebut the oral and documentary evidenced produced by the petitioners. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. Viewed from any angle this Court does not find any merit in the appeal and accordingly the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR Dt.06.03.2026 DSB 7 105 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR MACMA No.174 of 2020 Date 06.03.2026 U DSB