Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellant; appeal dismissed with no order as to costs and pending applications closed, leaving intact the Tribunal's award of Rs.1,42,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. against respondent No.2/appellant APSRTC

Issue for consideration

Whether the 13.02.2011 accident was caused by the negligence of respondent No.1-Driver of the APSRTC bus, as contended against the appellant's plea of no negligence on the driver's part (deceased alleged to have been negligent). +1 more

Court's answer

This Court held that the accident occurred due to the negligence (rash and negligent driving) of respondent No.1-Driver, who drove the bus without taking precautions and without the conductor's help while reversing; the appellant's contention of no negligence was rejected.

Ratio / Principle

This Court held that the Tribunal had arrived at just compensation and the appeal did not warrant interference; the quantum objection of the appellant was not accepted.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Sole-judge judgment of T.C.D. Sekhar, J. (07.03.2026), High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, dismissing APSRTC's Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.207/2020 (filed under Order 41 of CPC, with IA No.1/2020 condoning 118 days' delay and IA No.2/2020 for stay) against the Judgment and Decree dated 10.07.2019 in M.V.O.P. No.33/2018 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nandigama, which awarded claimant Saliketi Suresh Rs.1,42,000/- plus interest @ 7.5% p.a. for the death of his mother Saliketi Sarojini on 13.02.2011 at the RTC bus stand, Jaggaiahpet, when the reversing APSRTC bus AP11Z3071 struck her (Crime No.10 of 2011, Section 304(A) I.P.C. against driver Nelakurthi Guru Prasad). The Court found the FIR and charge sheet (Exs.A1 and A3) showed rash and negligent driving, noted the driver took no conductor's help while reversing, rejected the appellant's no-negligence contention, held the Tribunal had arrived at just compensation, and dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs, pending applications closed; respondents did not appear despite service of notice.

[3505]

APHC010082352020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

SATURDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 207/2020

Between:

ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,, REP. BY VICE CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR, PNBS, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

...APPELLANT

AND

SALIKETI SURESH SURESH BABU, S/O (LATE) SUNDARA RAO, HINDU, AGED 25 YEARS, RIO NANDIGAMA MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

NELAKURTHI GURU PRASAD, S/O. NARASIMHA RAO, HINDU, AGED 40 YEARS, DRIVER OF RTC BUS BEARING NO.AP 11 Z 3071, RIO CHINNA MODUGUPALLI VILLAGE, VATSAVAI MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. (2 RESPONDENT IS NOT A NECESSARY PARTY TO THE APPEAL)

...RESPONDENT(S):

Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased topleased to allow the MACMA by setting aside the Judgment and Decree dated 10-07-2019 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 33 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Motor Accidents claims Tribunal-cum-XVI Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Nandigama

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

2

pleased to condone the delay of 118 days in filing the appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated 10-07-2019 passed in M.V.O.P.No.33 of 2018 on the File of the Court of Motor Accidents claims Tribunal-cum-XVI Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Nandigama

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 pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the Judgment and Decree dated 10-07-2019 passed in M.V.O.P.No.33 of 2018 on the File of the Court of Motor Accidents claims Tribunal-cum-XVI Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Nandigama including the execution proceedings, pending disposal of the above M.A.C.M.A

Counsel for the Appellant:

1.K SRINIVASA PRASAD SC For APSRTC

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

The Court made the following:

3

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 207/2020

JUDGMENT:

The present appeal is filed by APSRTC, aggrieved by order dated 10.07.2019, in MVOP No.33/2018, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nandigama.

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

The petitioner filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the death of his mother Saliketi Sarojini in the accident that was occurred on 13.02.2011 in which the bus belonging to the APSRTC bearing registration No.AP11Z3071 was involved.

It is the case of the petitioner that the deceased was physically handicapped. While the deceased was standing at the platform of RTC bus stand, Jaggaiahpet, the offending vehicle came at high speed driven in rash and negligent manner by respondent No.1-Driver, hit the deceased thereby she sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. A case in Crime No.10 of 2011 was registered under Section 304(A) I.P.C., against respondent No.1-Driver. On account of the death of the deceased, the claimant filed the above petition seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-.

4

Respondent No.1-Driver remained ex-parte.

Respondent No.2 filed counter-affidavit denying the averments made in the claim petition inter-alia contending that the respondent No.1-Driver is not responsible for the cause of accident and the said accident was occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. It was further contended that the claim amount was excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

In order to prove the case of the petitioner, the petitioner himself was examined as PW1 and marked Exs.A1 to A10. On behalf of the respondents, the driver of the offending bus was examined as RW1 and no documentary evidence was produced. Considering the oral and documentary evidence of the parties, the tribunal by order under challenge awarded an amount of Rs.1,42,000/- towards compensation under various conventional heads. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Despite service of notice, there is no appearance for the respondents. Perused the record.

The present appeal is filed on two grounds. The first ground is that there is no negligence on the part of respondent No.1-Driver of the offending bus and the quantum fixed by the tribunal is excessive. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the deceased in as much as she was physically handicapped and was not vigilant while the bus was

5

reversing. To substantiate the same, the driver of the offending vehicle was examined as RW1 who deposed in similar lines with the averments made in the counter-affidavit of respondent No.2. On the other hand, the petitioner filed a copy of FIR and charge sheet which were marked as Exs.A1 and A3. A perusal of the contents of the said documents, would go to show that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus. As can be seen from the record, it is not the case of the driver of the offending bus that while the bus was reversing, he took help of the conductor. In such circumstances, it can be held that the driver of the offending bus without taking precautions, driven the bus in rash and negligent manner and thereby hit the deceased. From the above, it can be held that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the respondent No.1Driver. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant in this regard cannot be accepted and the same is rejected.

Coming to the quantum awarded by the Tribunal, it had taken income of the deceased as Rs.50/- per day and after deductions, had computed the compensation as Rs.1,42,000/- and directed respondent No.2/appellant herein to pay the same together with interest @ 7.5% p.a. Though the learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the compensation awarded by the tribunal is excessive, this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal had arrived at just compensation. In the circumstances, the appeal does not warrant interference of this Court.

6

Accordingly, the Appeal 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

07.03.2026 TPS

7

62

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR

MACMA.No.207 OF 2020

07.03.2026 TPS