APHC010298152019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] TUESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1002/2019 Between: 1. APSRTC, REP. BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, APSRTC COMPLEX, VIZIANAGARAM TOWN, VIZIANAGARAM DIST., ...APPELLANT AND 1. GUDLA SWARNA KUMARI, W/O VENKATA RAO, AGED BOUT 49 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD DUTIES, RESIDING AT D.NO. 13-45-36, NAKKA STREET, SRIKAKULAM TOWN AND DIST., 2. GUDLA SIVA PRASAD, S/O VENKATA RAO, AGED BOUT 23 YEARS, STUDENT, RESIDING AT D.NO. 13-45-36, NAKKA STREET, SRIKAKULAM TOWN AND DIST., 3. GUDLA ANASUYAMMA, W/O BYRAGI, , AGED BOUT 78 YEARS, RESIDING AT D.NO. 13-45-36, NAKKA STREET, SRIKAKULAM TOWN AND DIST., 4. JULUMURU GOPALA RAO, S/O LATE APPALA SURI, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,RTC BUS DRIVER, E.NO.775289, APSRTC BUS NO. AP-30-A-0053, RESIDENT OF MANGALA VEEDHI, ETCHERLA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DIST., 2 ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased toTo setting aside the Judgment and Decree passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - Family Court - cum - III Addl.District Judge, Srikakulam. IA NO: 1 OF 2019 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 passed by the Chairman,Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - Family Court - cum - III Addl. District Judge, Srikakulam passed in M.V.O.P.No.218/2016, dated 29.03.2019. Counsel for the Appellant: 1. K SRINIVASA PRASAD SC For APSRTC Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 3 The Court made the following judgment: The present appeal is filed by APSRTC, aggrieved by order dated 29.03.2019, passed in MVOP No.218/2016, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Family Court-cum-III Additional District Judge, Srikakulam. 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, 1988 read with rules made thereunder, claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-, together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of accident till the date of realization, on account of the death of Sri Gudla Venkata Rama (herein after referred to as ‘the deceased’), who was the husband of the 1st petitioner, father of the 2nd petitioner and son of the 3rd petitioner. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that on 18.11.2015, while the deceased was returning to home on his TVS XL Moped bearing registration No.AP-30/H-8996, when he reached Maddi Veedhi Junction, Srikakulam to Palakonda Road Srikakulam Town and District, the driver of the offending bus bearing Registration No.AP-30/Z-0053 drove the bus 4 in a rash and negligent manner, without observing the traffic rules, and dashed the deceased from behind. As a result, the deceased fell down on the road and sustained severe crush injuries on his buttocks and became unconscious. Immediately, he was shifted to RIMS General Hospital, Srikakulam, where he died on the same day at 7.35 p.m., while undergoing treatment for the injuries sustained by him. A case in Cr.No.58/2015 was registered against the 1st respondent/driver and later the same was investigated and charge sheet was filed. 5. It is the case of the petitioners that the deceased was working as a cook and was also supplying catering material, earning about Rs.15,000/- per month. It is further stated that the entire income of the deceased was being contributed towards maintenance of his family. In view of the death of the deceased, the petitioners lost their source of income and thereby approached the Tribunal by filing the claim petition. The respondents filed counter affidavit stating that the driver of the RTC bus was driving the bus at a normal speed by taking all precautions and that he was an experienced driver. It is further stated that the deceased himself was responsible for the occurrence of the accident inasmuch as he drove the moped at high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and thereby lost control over the vehicle and fell down on the road. It was further averred 5 that the insurer of the moped was not impleaded as a party respondent to the claim petition and, therefore, the petition itself is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of a necessary party. It was also pleaded that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the deceased and, therefore, there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. It was further stated that the claim made by the petitioners was excessive and prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. In order to substantiate their claim, the 1st petitioner was examined PW.1 and the 3rd petitioner was examined as PW.2. They also examined one Sri Vunna Manmadha Rao Guptha as PW.3 and marked exhibits Exs.A1 to A7. On the other hand, the respondents have examined the driver of the RTC bus as RW.1 and did not mark any documentary evidence. After enquiry, the Tribunal, by impugned order, partly allowed the claim petition by awarding an amount of Rs.11,86,506/-, together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. 7. Heard Ms.Bhavani, counsel representing Sri K.Srinivasa Prasad, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant. Despite service of notice, there is no appearance for the respondents. 8. Perused the record. 6 9. The counsel for the appellant would strenuously contend that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself and, therefore the respondents are not liable to pay the compensation. In order to substantiate the said contention, the driver of the offending vehicle was examined as RW.1, who reiterated the contents of the counter affidavit. On the other hand, the petitioners marked copies of the FIR and revised charge sheet, which were marked as Exs.A1 and A5 respectively. A perusal of the contents of the exhibits A1 and A5 would go to show that the offending bus dashed the deceased from behind. Further, the contents of the said documentary evidence clearly show that both the deceased and the offending bus were travelling in the same direction. In view of the same, it can be held that there was no negligence on the part of the deceased. Therefore, the contention raised by the appellant that, there was as contributory negligence on the part of the deceased cannot be accepted. 10. Yet another ground on which the appeal has been filed is that the insurer of the TVS Excel Moped was not impleded as a party respondent to the claim petition. In this context, as already observed supra, that the APSRTC had miserable failed to prove the negligence on the part of the deceased. In such circumstances, the question of impleding the insurer of 7 TVS XL Moped as party respondent to the claim petition does not arise. Accordingly, the said contention is also rejected. 11. Coming to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, it is evident from the record that the deceased was working as cook and was also supplying materials for catering purposes. In order to prove the same, the petitioners examined PWs.1 to 3. Though the witnesses were cross-examined at length, nothing was elicited to disprove their evidence. Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the petitioners, the Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month. As already observed, the respondents have not placed anything on record to disprove the evidence of the petitioners. In the absence of any evidence, the Tribunal, having taken various aspects into consideration, had rightly fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month and, by following various judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court, and arrived at Rs.11,82,506/-, as compensation together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum under various conventional heads. Though the counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, in view of the reasons recorded by the Tribunal, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order under challenge. In view of the reasons stated above, this Court is of the 8 opinion that, there are no merits in the appeal and the same is hereby 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.10.03.2026 DSB 9 183 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR MACMA No.1002 of 2019 Date 10.03.2026 U DSB