Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Vs Shayed Beejohn

ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR, MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD, PRESENTLY AT PUNDIT NEHRU BUS STATION, VIJAYAWADA, AMARAVATHI, A.P.

¶12

...APPELLANT

¶13

AND

¶14

SHAYED BEEJOHN, W/O. LATE SHAMSHEER, MUSLIM, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDENT OF RAMNAGAR, 4TH LANE, OPP. RIMS, ONGOLE TOWN AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶15

SHAYED NAGOOR VALI, S/O. LATE SHAMSHEER, MUSLIM, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, RESIDENT OF RAMNAGAR, 4TH LANE, OPP. RIMS, ONGOLE TOWN AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶16

SHAYED ZAREENA, D/O. LATE SHAMSHEER, MUSLIM, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, RESIDENT OF RAMNAGAR, 4TH LANE, OPP. RIMS, ONGOLE TOWN AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶17

2

¶18

SHAYED FAYAZ, S/O. LATE SHAMSHEER, MUSLIM, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, RESIDENT OF RAMNAGAR, 4TH LANE, OPP. RIMS, ONGOLE TOWN AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶19

ANAGANANI RAM BABU, S/O. VEERA VASANTHA RAO, APSRTC DRIVER E.NO. 358235, VALLURI PALEM POST, THOTA VALLUR MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. (R 5 IS NOT NECESSARY).

¶20

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶21

Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying the High Court may be pleased to allow the MACMA by setting aside the Order and Decree dated 06-08-2019 passed in M.V.O.P No. 343 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge, Prakasam at Ongole and pass

¶22

IA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶23

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 55 days in presenting the appeal filed against the Order and Decree dated 06-08-2019 passed in M.V.O.P No. 343 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cumPrincipal District Judge, Prakasam at Ongole and pass

¶24

IA NO: 2 OF 2021

¶25

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 06-08-2019 passed in M.V.O.P No. 343 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge, Prakasam at Ongole including of execution proceedings pending disposal of the above M.A.C.M.A and pass

¶26

3

¶27

Counsel for the Appellant:

¶28

1.ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC)

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶30

1.P NAGENDRA REDDY

¶31

The Court made the following:

¶32

4

¶33

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR

¶34

MACMA No.197 OF 2021

¶35

JUDGMENT :-

¶36

The present appeal is filed by APSRTC aggrieved by order dated 06.08.2019 in MVOP.No.343 of 2017 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principle District Court) Prakasam at Ongole.

¶37

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were referred before the Tribunal.

¶38

The petitioners are wife and children of one Sri Shayed Shamsheer (Herein after referred as deceased) filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.11,00,000/together with interest @ 12% per annum on account of the death of the deceased in the accident that was occurred on 21.04.2011 in which the offending RTC bearing registration number AP 28 Z 5980 was involved.

¶39

It is the case of the petitioners that on 21.04.2011

¶40

while the deceased was on the duty stopped the lorry on the road margin near Dornala village at about 04.00 am. It is their

¶41

5

¶42

further case that the 1^st respondent/driver of the offending RTC bus drove the bus in rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the stationed lorry from behind. As a result of which the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. It is further case of the petitioners that the deceased was hale and healthy at the time of the accident and he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month as the lorry driver and used to contribute the entire income towards his family. In view of the sudden demise of the deceased, in the said accident, the petitioners approached the Tribunal by filing petition seeking to pay compensation of Rs.11,00,000/-.

¶43

The 1^st respondent/driver of the offending RTC bus remained exparte. The 2^nd respondent filed counter affidavit denying the averments made in the claim petition interalia contending that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the deceased as he stopped the lorry in the middle of the road without taking any precautionary measures on the wrong side. The claim petition was further resisted on the ground that the same is not maintainable in as much as the insurer of the lorry was not made as a party respondent to the

¶44

6

¶45

claim petition. It is further contended that the compensation claimed is excessive. With the above pleadings, the 2^nd respondent prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

¶46

In order to prove the case of the petitioners, petitioner No.1 was examined as PW1 and also examined PW2. They have marked Exhibits A1 to A7. On behalf of the respondents, the driver of the offending bus was examined as RW1 and no documentary evidence was marked. Considering the oral and documentary evidence placed before the Tribunal, the claim petition was partly allowed by awarding compensation of Rs.8,62,000/- together with the interest @ rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition to till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the same the present appeal is filed.

¶47

Heard, Sri G Gopinath learned counsel representing Sri Aravala Rama Rao, standing counsel for the appellant and Sri Madhusudhan Reddy learned counsel representing Sri.P.Nagendra Reddy for respondents/claimants.

¶48

Perused the record.

¶49

7

¶50

The counsel for the appellant strenuously

¶51

contended that the accident was occurred due to negligence of the deceased in as much as he stopped the lorry in the middle of the road without taking precautionary measures. In order to prove the said contention, the driver of the bus was examined as RW-1, who reiterated, the averments made in counter affidavit filed by the 2^nd respondent. On perusal of the cross examination of the RW-1, it is succinctly clear that though RW1 has stated that he has given the complaint to the police informing that the accident was occurred due to negligence of the deceased, he categorically admitted that he has not placed anything on record to substantiate the said contention. On the contrary, the police has registered a crime and same was got investigated into and charge sheet was filed. A perusal of Ex.A1 & A2 i.e., copies of F.I.R and charge sheet, would go to show that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending RTC bus. In view of the above discussion, it can be held that the accident was occurred, in view of rash and negligent driving of the offending RTC bus, accordingly this issue is answered against the appellant.

¶52

8

¶53

The other ground that was raised by the appellant

¶54

is that the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of the necessary party i.e., the insurance company of the lorry. On a careful perusal of the pleadings and the evidence placed on record, it is clear that the appellant did not plea the ground of contributory negligence. In the absence of the same, there is no necessity to add, the insurer of the lorry as party respondents. Accordingly this issue is also rejected.

¶55

Coming to the quantum of compensation, awarded

¶56

by the Tribunal is concerned the same was fixed by following the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “ Sarala Varma and others Vs. of Delhi Transport Corporation”. Though the counsel for the appellant has contended that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, in order to prove the same the appellant neither adduced any oral evidence or produced any documentary evidence in support of its contention. In the absence of any material of record, the order under challenge does not warrant interference of this court. In view of the aforesaid reasonings,

¶57

9

¶58

there are no merits in the appeal and accordingly the same is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.

¶59

As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any

¶60

shall stand closed.

¶61

________________ T.C.D.SEKHAR, J

¶62

26.02.2026