Dismissed

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Sankuru Sudheer

Andhra Pradesh HC10 Sept 2026MACMA/214/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal by APSRTC challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The court upheld the finding that the accident was caused by the negligence of the RTC bus driver, relying on the FIR, charge sheet, and criminal judgment convicting the driver. The court found no merit in the argument that the compensation was excessive, as the appellant failed to adduce any evidence to rebut the claimant's medical proof of injuries, surgeries, and disability.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; appellant directed to deposit compensation of Rs. 2,12,360/- with interest at 7.5% per annum within two months.

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation… — Motor Accident Claims | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

TCDS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.214/2020

¶3

[3505]

¶4

APHC010082042020

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶6

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶7

FRIDAY, THE 11^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026

¶8

PRESENT

¶9

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR

¶10

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 214/2020

¶11

Between:

¶12

ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, RTC COMPLEX, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT

¶13

...APPELLANT

¶14

AND

¶15

SANKURU SUDHEER, S/O.SESHAIAH, AGED 28 YEARS, PRIVATE ELECTRICIAN, R/O.PEDAKAKANI POST AND MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT

¶16

KESAVANA VASU, S/O.VENKATESWARA RAO, RTC DRIVER, ADAVULADEEVI POST, NIZAMPATNAM MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. (THE 2 RESPONDENT IS NOT NECESSARY PARTY IN THIS APPEAL)

¶17

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶18

Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Court pleased to allow the MACMA by setting aside the Order and Decree dated 03-09-2019 passed in M.V.O.P No. 163 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur

¶19

IA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶20

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 condone the delay of 32 days in presenting the appeal filed against

¶21

¶22

TCDS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.214/2020

¶23

the Order and Decree dated 03-09-2019 passed in M.V.O.P No. 163 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Guntur-cum-11 Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur

¶24

IA NO: 2 OF 2020

¶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 03-09-2019 passed in M.V.O.P No. 163 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Guntur-cum-II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur including of execution proceedings pending disposal of the above M.A.C.M.A

¶26

Counsel for the Appellant:

¶27

1.P VENKATA RAO SC For APSRTC

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶29

1.A RAJENDRA BABU

¶30

The Court made the following:

¶31

¶32

TCDS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.214/2020

¶33

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR

¶34

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.214 of 2020

¶35

JUDGMENT:

¶36

The present appeal is filed by Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (A.P.S.R.T.C.), aggrieved by Order dated 03.09.2019, questioning the quantum of compensation passed in M.V.O.P.No.163 of 2017 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur.

¶37

2 . For the sake and convenience, the parties are referred to, as they were mentioned in the Tribunal.

¶38

3 . The petitioner filed Claim Petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity ‘the MV Act’) and the rules made thereunder, seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- on account of injuries sustained by him in the accident, in which, the bus belonging to A.P.S.R.T.C. was involved.

¶39

4 . It is the case of the petitioner that on 01.08.2016 at about 5.00 p.m., he was coming on motor cycle from Ravikampadu Village, when he reached near Jampani Sugar Factory, the bus belonging to A.P.S.R.T.C., bearing registration No.AP 28 Z 1138, driven by its driver/1^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, and hit the petitioner’s motor cycle, as a result, the petitioner fell down on the road. In the accident, the petitioner received multiple injuries and he was immediately shifted to Government

¶40

¶41

TCDS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.214/2020

¶42

Hospital, Tenali, for treatment. Later, he was shifted to Vasudha Hospital, Kothapeta, Guntur, for better treatment. A case in Crime No.37 of 2016 under Section 338 I.P.C. was registered against the 1^st respondent/driver. It is further case of the petitioner that he underwent two (2) surgeries and spent huge amounts towards the same. It was further stated that in view of the injuries, he lost the capacity to earn. Further it was stated that he was the only earning member in the family. In view of the injuries received by him, he approached the Tribunal by filing the above claim petition seeking to pay compensation.

¶43

5 . The 1^st respondent/driver of the R.T.C., bus remained ex-parte. The 2^nd respondent A.P.S.R.T.C. resisted the claim of the petitioner by filing counteraffidavit. It was averred in the counter-affidavit that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner and therefore, the question of payment of compensation by A.P.S.R.T.C., does not arise. It was further contended that there was contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner, therefore, if at all any liability has to be fixed, the same has to be fixed proportionately. It was further averred that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties inasmuch as the petitioner did not make the insurer of the motor cycle, as party respondent to the claim petition. With the above pleadings, it was prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

¶44

6 . In order to prove the case of the petitioner, he was examined as PW.1 and Doctor Ch. Bulli Reddy, who treated the petitioner, was examined as

¶45

¶46

TCDS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.214/2020

¶47

PW.2. He also filed documents, which were marked in Exs.A1 to A8. Exs.X1 and X2 were marked, through PW.2. On the other hand, the driver of the offending bus was examined as RW.1, however, no documentary evidence was placed on record on behalf of the respondents. Considering the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the Tribunal by order under challenge awarded compensation of Rs.2,12,360/- under various heads. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed questioning the quantum of compensation apart from other grounds.

¶48

7 . Heard Sri N.S. Rupesh, learned counsel representing Sri P. Venkata Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri G. Krishna Kireeti, learned counsel representing Sri A. Rajendra Babu, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶49

8 . Perused the material available on record.

¶50

9 . Learned counsel for the appellant would strenuously contend that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner/claimant himself and there was no negligence on the part of the 1^st respondent/driver. In support of his contention, he relied on the evidence adduced by RW.1/driver of the offending bus. A perusal of the evidence of RW.1 would go to show that he has deposed in tune with the averments made in the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.2. Therefore, the evidence of RW.1 cannot be believed. On the other hand, the petitioner has filed a copy of FIR in Crime No.37 of 2016 on the file of Vemuru Police Station. Apart from the same, he

¶51

¶52

TCDS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.214/2020

¶53

also filed copies of charge sheet and judgment rendered in C.C.No.343 of 2016 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge Court at Tenali.

¶54

10 . A perusal of the above documents, it is clear that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of RW.1/driver of the offending bus. In view of the contents mentioned in Exs.A1 and A2, coupled with the judgment rendered by the Court in C.C.No.343 of 2016, there is no doubt in the mind of this Court to come to a conclusion that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the respondent No.1/driver of the offending bus. Accordingly, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant in this regard is liable to be rejected.

¶55

11 . Coming to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, as can be seen from the record, the petitioner has sustained injuries i.e., right ankle medical malleolus fracture and right ankle posterior malleolus fracture. In order to prove the same, the petitioner filed a copy of wound certificate before the Tribunal and the same was marked as Ex.A3. Further, the petitioner filed documents to show that he was admitted in Vasudha Hospital, Guntur, i.e., a copy of discharge summary, which was marked as Ex.A5 and the bills raised by the said hospital, which were marked as Exs.A6 and A7.

¶56

12 . Apart from the same, it was the specific contention of the petitioner before the Tribunal that he underwent two (2) surgeries in the above hospital and in order to substantiate the same, Doctor Ch. Bulli Reddy, was examined as PW.2. A perusal of the evidence of PW.2 establishes that the petitioner

¶57

¶58

TCDS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.214/2020

¶59

was admitted in the hospital on 01.08.2016. Further, he categorically deposed that the petitioner sustained two (2) fractures and he conducted surgery on 06.08.2016 with open reduction and internal fixation for both the fractures with screws and later, the petitioner was discharged on 12.08.2016. He further deposed that he issued wound certificate, which was marked as Ex.A3. He also assessed the percentage of the disability of the petitioner at 10 to 15%. Further, PW.2 deposed that the petitioner needs one more surgery for removal of implants which may incur an amount of Rs.20,000/- approximately. Further, through PW.2 copies of case sheet and X-Ray were marked in Exs.X1 and X2. After analysing the documentary and oral evidence on behalf of the petitioner/claimant, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.2,12,360/towards compensation. Though, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the same is excessive, as already recorded supra, the respondent No.2/A.P.S.R.T.C., miserably failed to place anything on record to disprove the evidence of the petitioner. In the absence of any evidence on behalf of the A.P.S.R.T.C., the contention that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was excessive cannot be countenanced.

¶60

13 . For the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the order under challenge. Accordingly, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. It is needless to mention that the appellant is directed to deposit the compensation awarded by the Tribunal together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum within a period of two (2)

¶61

¶62

TCDS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.214/2020

¶63

months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶64

As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶65

______________________ JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR

¶66

Date.11.09.2026 CVD

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Sankuru Sudheer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Sankuru Sudheer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases