Date of reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement : 03.07.2026 Date of uploading : APHC010155052019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] FRIDAY, THE 3rd DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 414/2019 Between: 1. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, RTC HOUSE, PNBS, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1. BORRA LAKSHMI, W/O VENKATA REDDY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/O. ARTHAMURU, BANTUMILLI MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 2. BORRA VENKATA REDDY, S/O. PITCHAIAH, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O. ARTHAMURU, BANTUMILLI MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3. BORRA VENKATA NARSAIAH, S/O VENKATA REDDY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, STUDENT, R/O. ARTHAMURU, BANTUMILLI MANDAL, KRISHNA 2 DISTRICT. 4. KETHA RAMA KRISHNA, S/O VALUKKAIAH, HINDU, AGED 52 YEARS, SETTIBALIJA, DRIVER OF APSRTC BUS AP 28 Z 0297, R/O K.SAMUDRAGATTU VILLAGE, ATTILI MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Courtto allow the MACMA by setting aside the Order and Decree dated 24-01-2019 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 284 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X Additional District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam and pass 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 all further proceedings pursuant to the Order and Decree dated 24.01.2019 passed in M.V.O.P.No. 284 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X Additional District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam including the execution proceedings, pending disposal of the above M.A.C.M.A. and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. P DURGA PRASAD SC FOR APSRTC Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SURI BABU PUPPALA 3 The Court made the following judgment: The present appeal is preferred by APSRTC questioning order dated 24.01.2019 in MVOP.No.284 of 2017, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X Additional District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam. 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.20,00,000/-, on account of the death of Borra Kondaiah @ Pitchi Kondaiah, who died in the accident that occurred on 23.12.2016. The petitioner Nos.1 & 2 are the parents of the deceased, and 3rd petitioner is the brother of the deceased. It is the case of the petitioners that, the deceased was aged about 19 years and was hale and healthy as on the date of the accident. The deceased was working in Sri Sai Siva Sitha Ramanjaneya Rice Mill, apart from cultivating land admeasuring an extent of Ac.5.00 which was taken on lease from one Sri Tirumala Durga Anjaneyulu. It was further stated that the deceased used to get yield twice a year by raising crops. It was further stated that, due to ill health of the father of the deceased, he was unable to attend to any work, and the 4 petitioner used to work as a coolie in the said rice mill and also cultivating agricultural land which was taken on lease, and earning Rs.2,50,000/- per annum. It was further stated that the entire income of the deceased was being contributed towards the maintenance and welfare of the family. It was also stated that, in view of the sudden demise of the deceased, the petitioners lost their source of income. 4. It was the further case of the petitioners that, on 23.12.2016, the deceased, along with other villagers, boarded the offending bus bearing registration No.AP28Z 0297. It was further stated that, the 1st respondent/driver of the bus drove it in rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed against the iron railing at Lajjabanda Murugu Canal Culvert. As a result, the footboard of the bus was badly damaged. Consequently, the deceased and another passenger fell on the road, and the rear wheels of the bus ran over on the legs of the deceased. As the deceased received several injuries all over the body, he fell unconscious and was shifted to the Government General Hospital, Machiliptnam. It was further case of the petitioners that, after first aid, the deceased was shifted to Government General 5 Hospital, Vijayawada for better treatment. While undergoing treatment at Vijayawada, the deceased succumbed to injuries on the same day at 8 pm. Upon receiving complaint from the 3rd petitioner/brother of the deceased, Bantumilli Police registered a case in Cr.No.118 of 2016, under Sections 304(A) and 337 IPC. The said crime was investigated into and police filed charge sheet against the 1st respondent/driver on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bantumilli. It was further stated that, due to the sudden demise of the deceased, the family members of the deceased approached the Tribunal against the respondents seeking to pay compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. 5. The respondents filed counter affidavit denying the averments made in the claim petition. They also disputed the manner in which the accident had occurred, inter alia contending that there was no negligence on the part of the 1st respondent. It was further stated that, the deceased was standing on the footboard of the bus and while the bus was moving he slipped from the footboard and fell down from the bus and therefore the deceased himself was responsible for the occurrence of the accident. It was further contended that the claim made by the 6 petitioners was excessive and the respondents are not liable to pay compensation. 6. In order to prove the case of the petitioners, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and got marked documents in Exs.A1 to A9. On the other hand, the driver of the offending bus was examined as RW.1 and did not mark any documentary evidence. After threadbare enquiry, the Tribunal by order under challenge awarded an amount of Rs.11,36,000/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. 7. Heard Sri Aravala Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and Sri Manikanta, counsel appearing for Sri Suri Babu Pappula, counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3. 8. Perused the material available on record. 9. The counsel for the appellant would submit that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself, inasmuch as he was standing on the footboard at the time of the accident. In order to prove the said contentions, the driver of the offending bus was examined who deposed that the deceased was standing on the footboard of the bus and while the 7 bus was moving the deceased slipped and fell down, thereby accident was occurred. A perusal of evidence of RW.1 it is nothing but reiteration of the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents in the claim petition. Except the evidence of RW.1, there is no other material available on record to hold that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself. 10. On the other hand, the brother of the deceased was examined as PW.2, who categorically deposed that he was also travelling in the same bus along with the deceased. A perusal of the evidence of PW.2 would show that, the 1st respondent/driver of the bus drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner at high speed thereby lost control and dashed against the railing of Lajjabanda Murugu Canal Culvert, as a result of which the left portion of the bus up to foot board was removed, thereby, the deceased and another person by name Y.Visweswara Rao, fell on the road and the rear wheels of the offending bus ran over the stomach and legs of the deceased and the other person. Immediately the deceased was shifted to Government General Hospital, Machilipatnam, and from there he was taken to Government General Hospital, Vijayawada, where the deceased 8 died while taking treatment. He also deposed that the complaint given by him was investigated into and a charge sheet was filed against the 1st respondent/driver. He further deposed that the 1st respondent was convicted by trial court and on preferring appeal he was acquitted. 11. Apart from the same, the petitioners also marked the attested copy of the Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report dated 24.12.2016, as Ex.A4. A perusal of the contents of the said report shows that footboard was completely damaged which is located at center of the bus on the left side. This observation of the Motor Vehicle Inspector in Ex.A4 supports the evidence of PW.2. Therefore, the contention of respondents that the deceased fell from the footboard cannot be believed. 12. In the above circumstances, the Tribunal having considered the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the 1st respondent/driver, inasmuch as he drove the vehicle at high speed and dashed the railing at Lajjabanda Drain Canal Culvert. Accordingly, it is held that the 1st respondent was responsible for the occurrence of accident. Further, the counsel for the appellant would submit that the compensation awarded by 9 the Tribunal was excessive, despite the fact that there was no material available before the Tribunal. In this connection it is pertinent to note that, except making bald averments in the counter affidavit that the petitioners are not entitled to receive compensation, nothing is placed on record by the respondent to substantiate the same. 13. On the other hand, it was the specific case of the petitioners that the deceased was working in Sri Sai Siva Sitha Ramanjaneya Rice Mill and was earning Rs.2,50,000/- per annum, apart from cultivating land which was taken on lease. In order to substantiate the same, the petitioners filed copy of salary certificate issued by the owner of the rice mill who was examined as PW.3. Further, PW.3 in his evidence deposed that, the deceased used to work in his rice mill and he was paid an amount of Rs.400/- per day. Further, he deposed that he has issued salary certificate which was marked as Ex.A6. During the cross- examination PW.3 admitted that no date is mentioned on Ex.A6 and it was not stated to whom the same was issued. He further admitted that, there is no entry in the register that was maintained to show that he was paying Rs.400/- to the deceased. In view of the admission made by PW.3, the Tribunal disbelieved his 10 evidence that he was paying an amount of Rs.400/- per day to the deceased. 14. Though Tirumala Durga Anjaneyulu, the owner of the land from whom the deceased stated to have taken lease was examined as PW.4, his evidence is not helpful to the petitioner, inasmuch as during the cross-examination he has admitted that there is no written lease deed between him and the deceased. In the absence of the substantial evidence placed on record, the Tribunal did not take into consideration of the evidence of PWs.3 & 4. After appreciating the evidence and facts of the case, the Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased as Rs.200/- per day, as the average income of coolie would be around Rs.200/- as on the date of the accident. Accordingly, the Tribunal by following judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court awarded compensation of Rs.11,36,000/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization. 15. The counsel for the appellant contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was excessive and there was no material available before the Tribunal to award compensation, a perusal of the record, it is apparent that, though the claimants have stated that the deceased was earning 11 Rs.2,50,000/- per annum, the same was disbelieved by the Tribunal and his income was fixed at Rs.200/- per day notionally and accordingly computed the compensation. 16. Having regard to the submissions made by the counsel on either side, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order under challenge, and accordingly the contention of the counsel for the appeal is liable to be rejected. In the result, there are no merits in the present appeal and 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.03.07.2026 DSB Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No 12 181 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR MACMA No.414 of 2019 Date 03.07.2026 U DSB