1 APHC010090672019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] THURSDAY, THE 25th DAY OF JUNE 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 199/2019 Between: 1. APSRTC, REP BY ITS MANAGINGDIRECTOR, MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD ...APPELLANT AND 1. BANDI SAILAJA, R/O. SANTHAPET, NELLORE CITY, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT 2. BANDI HASHIKA DEVI, R/O SANTHAPET, NELLORE CITY, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT 3. BANDI GEETHAMADHURI, R/O. SANTHAPET, NELLORE CITY, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT 4. BANDI MASHTANAMMA, R/O. SANTHAPET, NELLORE CITY,SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT 5. VANAM SRINIVASA RAO, PADRAWADA VILLAGE, SAMARLAKOTA MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT,AP ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Court Pleased to allow the MACMA by setting aside the judgement and decree dated 27-03-2018 passed in MVOP no.202 of 2016 on the file of court of the motor vehicle accidents claims tribunal-cum-i Addl district judge 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 condone the delay of 273 days in filing the Appeal against the order and Decree dated 27-03-2018 passed in MVOP NO.202 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the motor vehicle accidents claims tribunal-cum-i Addl district judge 2 IA NO: 2 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 all further proceedings pursuant and to the judgement Decree dated 27- 03-2018 passed in MVOP NO.202 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the motor vehicle accidents claims tribunal-cum-i Addl district judge, Nellore, Nellore District including the execution proceedings, pending disposal of the MACMA Counsel for the Appellant: 1. P DURGA PRASAD SC FOR APSRTC Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI The Court made the following: 3 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR MACMA No.199 of 2019 JUDGMENT:- 1. The present appeal is preferred by APSRTC, questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal through its order dated 27.03.2018 in M.V.O.P.No.202 of 2016, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Nellore. 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 Motor Vehicles Act, seeking to pay compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- together with interest, on account of the death of Bandi Padmaiah in the accident that occurred on 18.09.2015. The 1st petitioner is the wife, petitioner Nos.2 & 3 are the daughters and the 4th petitioner is the mother of the deceased. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that, on 18.09.2015, while the deceased was proceeding on his motorcycle and when he reached Bandlamamba Temple on NH-17, the 1st respondent/driver of the offending RTC bus came in rash and negligent manner, on wrong side of the road and dashed the 4 motorcycle. As a result of which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. In those circumstances, the petitioners approached the Tribunal by filing the above claim petition. 5. The 1st respondent/driver of the offending bus remained ex-parte. The 2nd respondent filed counter affidavit stating that the deceased, without observing the traffic rules, suddenly entered into the opposite lane and dashed the bus, thereby the accident was occurred. It was further contended that there was no negligence on the part of the 1st respondent. It was further contended that the deceased had no valid driving license, and prayed to dismiss the claim petition as the compensation claimed was excessive. 6. In order to prove the case of the petitioners, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Ex.A1 to A4 were marked. On the other hand, the 1st respondent/driver of the RTC bus was examined as RW-1 and no documentary evidence was marked. After enquiry, the Tribunal by order under challenge partly allowed the claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs.13,55,200/- together with interest @ 6% per annum. Questioning the same, the present appeal is filed. 5 7. Heard Sri Aaravala Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant APSRTC and Sri P.Siva Sai Datta representing Sri V. Siva Prasad Reddy, counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4. Despite service of notice there is no appearance for respondent No.5. 8. Perused the material available on record. 9. The counsel for the appellant would submit that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself inasmuch as he suddenly entered the opposite lane, thereby he lost control over the motorcycle and dashed the offending bus. To substantiate the said contention, the driver of the offending bus was examined as RW-1. A perusal of the evidence of RW-1 would go to show that he deposed in tune with the averments made in the counter affidavit. In such circumstances, the evidence of RW-1 cannot be taken into consideration as nothing is placed on record to substantiate the same. On the other hand, the petitioners have examined Sri Maddhuru Ankaiah, who was eye-witness to the accident as PW-2. A perusal of the evidence of PW-2, he categorically deposed that he was running a tea stall at the place of accident. He further deposed that on the day of accident, he saw the 6 motorcycle and it was hit by the offending bus as the bus was driving in rash and negligent manner at high speed by the 1st respondent/driver. Though PW-2 was cross-examined at length, except giving suggestions that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the deceased, nothing has been elicited to disprove his evidence. Further the evidence of PW-2 remained un-shattered. Apart from the same, the petitioners have also filed copies of FIR and charge sheet. A perusal of the contents of the above documents would go to show that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the 1st respondent/driver of APSRTC bus. On the consideration of oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal had rightly come to the conclusion that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the 1st respondent/driver of APSRTC bus. In such circumstances, the contention of the counsel for the appellant cannot be countenanced and accordingly the same is rejected. 10. Yet another ground of which the appeal was filed, that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was excessive as the petitioners have not placed anything on record to show that they are entitled to receive the same. The counsel for the appellant would further submit that in the absence of evidence, 7 the Tribunal ought not to have taken the income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month. 11. On the other hand, the counsel for the claimants would submit that it was specifically pleaded that the deceased was working in sand reach and was earning Rs.30,000/- per month. He would further submit that the wife of the deceased was examined as PW-1, who categorically deposed in similar lines with that of the averments made in the claim petition. 12. He would further submit that, the Tribunal had fixed Rs.6,000/- as income of the deceased as there was no material placed before it. He would further submit that petitioners have also got examined the president of Sangamithra Dwacra, who categorically deposed that the deceased was getting salary of Rs.6,000/- and the same was being deposited into his account every month. He would further submit that, by taking into consideration, the evidence of PWs.1 & 3, the Tribunal had rightly awarded compensation and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 13. A perusal of record would go to show that the petitioners have adduced oral evidence by examining the President of Sanghamitra Dwarka, to establish that the deceased was working in sand reach. Though it was contended that that 8 deceased was earning an amount of Rs.30,000/- per month, the same was disbelieved by the Tribunal and by appreciating evidence of PW-3, the Tribunal fixed Rs.6,000/- as the income of the deceased. 14. Further as already observed supra, the respondents have not taken any steps to rebut the evidence of PW-3 and no documentary evidence is placed on record. In such circumstances a mere denial of the income of the deceased would not suffice to hold that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was excessive. Further, it is apparent from the record that, while computing the compensation, the Tribunal had taken all the aspects into consideration and awarded just compensation. In view of the reasons recorded by the Tribunal, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the order under challenge. Accordingly, there are no merits in the present appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 15. During the course of hearing, the counsel for the respondents would submit that this Court consistently granting interest @ 7.5% per annum especially in the case of death arising out of beneficial legislations and seeks to enhance the interest from 6% to 7.5% per annum. This Court is in agreement with the 9 argument advanced by the counsel for the respondents/claimants and the interest is enhanced from 6% to 7.5%. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to pay interest @ 7.5% per annum to the petitioners as against the compensation awarded by Tribunal from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The said amount is directed to be paid within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 16. In the result the appeal is dismissed, however to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR 25.06.2026 DR 10 84 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR M.A.C.M.A.No.199 of 2019 Date: 25.06.2026 U DR