Dismissed¶¶84

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Golagamudi Subbaramaiah

Andhra Pradesh HC1 Feb 2026MACMA/78/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

APSRTC appeals (MACMA 78 & 167 of 2022, S.173 MV Act, Order 41 CPC) against Nellore MACT-cum-V Addl. District Judge award dated 24.12.2019 in MVOP 502 & 503 of 2017; accident 10.08.2016 at Podalakur-Marupuru, bus AP 29 Z 2987 vs auto AP 26 TE 1672, Crime No.127 of 2016; FIR Ex.A1 and charge sheet Ex.A3 under S.337 & 338 IPC against bus driver; negligence fixed on APSRTC driver; compensation Rs.1,60,000/- (Golagamudi Chandramma) and Rs.1,20,000/- (Golagamudi Subbaramaiah) with 6% interest held just and proper, not excessive; no interference; both appeals dismissed, no costs; Justice V.Sujatha, 02.02.2026.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the Appellant/APSRTC; the impugned Tribunal awards stand, both MACMAs dismissed with no costs. ¶¶84

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

[3333]

APHC010084892022

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

¶5

MONDA Y ,THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUAR Y TW O THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 78 OF 2022

¶8

AND

¶9

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 167 OF 2022 M.A.C.M.A.NO: 78 OF 2022

¶10

Between:

¶11

ANDHRA PRADE S H STATE ROAD TRANSPORT C O RPORATION, REP.BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NELLORE, RT C BUS-STAND, NELLORE, OWNE R OF RTC BUS NO. AP 29 Z 2987.

¶12

...APPELLANT

¶13

AND

¶14

GOLAGAMUDI SU B BARAMAIAH, SON OF PENCHAL A IAH, AGED 55 YEARS, RES I DING AT HARIJANAWADA, LINGAMPALLI, PODALAKUR VILL A GE AND MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. PRESENTLY RE S IDING AT RAMAKOTAIAH NAG A R, NELLORE CITY.

¶15

KUCHIPATI PENCHALAIAH, SON OF PENCHALAIA H , DRIVER OF APSRTC BUS B E ARING NO AP 29 Z 2987, P O DILI DEPOT, RESIDING AT YAD A VA VEEDHI, KALUVOY, NELLORE.

¶16

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

Appeal filed under O rder 41 of CPC praying that the Hi g h Court may be pleased to allow the M A CMA by setting aside the Order and Decree dated 24.12.2019 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 503 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claim' s Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District an d pass

¶18

¶19

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶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 To grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the order and Decree dated 24.12-2019 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 503/2017 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - V Additional District Judge, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District including of execution proceedings, pending disposal of the above MACMA and pass.

¶21

Counsel for the Appellant:

¶22

1.ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC)

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶24

¶25

M.A.C.M.A.NO: 167 OF 2022

¶26

Between:

¶27

ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REP.BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NELLORE, RTC BUS-STAND, NELLORE, OWNER OF RTC BUS NO. AP 29 Z 2987.

¶28

...APPELLANT

¶29

AND

¶30

GOLAGAMUDI CHANDRAMMA, WIFE OF PEDDA SUBBAYYA, AGED 60 YEARS, SC MALA, RESIDING AT LINGAMPALLI THOPU, PODALAKUR VILLAGE AND MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT RAMAKOTAIAH NAGAR, NELLORE CITY.

¶31

KUCHIPATI PENCHALAIAH, SON OF PENCHALAIAH, DRIVER OF APSRTC BUS BEARING NO. AP 29 Z 2987, PODILI DEPOT, RESIDING AT YADAVA VEEDHI, KALUVOY, NELLORE.

¶32

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶33

Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying that the High Court may be pleased to allow the MACMA by setting aside the Order and Decree dated 24.12.2019 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 502 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the

¶34

¶35

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District and pass

¶36

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶37

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 24-12-2019 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 502 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum-V Additional District Judge, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District including of execution proceedings, pending disposal of the above MACMA and pass

¶38

Counsel for the Appellant:

¶39

1.ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC)

¶40

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶41

¶42

The Court made the following:

¶43

¶44

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 78 OF 2022

¶45

AND

¶46

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 167 OF 2022 COMMON JUDGMENT:

¶47

The M.A.C.M.A.Nos. 78 of 2022 under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, (in short ‘M.V.Act’), has been filed by the Appellant/ Respondent No.1/ APSRTC, challenging the Award, dated 24.12.2019, passed in M.V.O.P.No.503 of 2017 on the file the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Nellore (in short ‘the Tribunal), wherein the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- to the Respondent No. 1 herein, as against the claim of Rs. 1,50,000/-.

¶48

The M.A.C.M.A.No. 167 of 2022 under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, (in short ‘M.V.Act’), has been filed by the Appellant/ Respondent No.1/ APSRTC challenging the Award, dated 24.12.2019, passed in M.V.O.P.No.502 of 2017 on the file the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- V Additional District Judge, Nellore (in short ‘the Tribunal), wherein the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 1,60,000/- to the Respondent No. 1 herein, as against the claim of Rs. 2,00,000/-.

¶49

As both Appeals arise out of the same accident, this Court feels it

¶50

appropriate to dispose of by way of a Common Judgment.

¶51

For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the Appeals will be referred to as they are arrayed in the Claim Petitions respectively.

¶52

¶53

The brief facts in both the Appeals are as follows:

¶54

On 10.08.2016 at about 8.30 a.m while the claimant and others were proceeding in a Auto bearing No. AP 26 TE 1672 towards Kisan Nagar from their house for the purpose of their relatives marriage. When they reached Podalakur to Nellore Road, Marupuru, Podalakur Village and Mandal, at that time one driver of APSRTC bus bearing registration No. AP 29 Z 2987 coming in a opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, without blowing horn and dashed the Auto. As a result of which the claimant and others fell down on the road and sustained injuries. The Podalakur Police registered a case in Crime No.127 of 2016.

¶55

The Respondent No.1 filed counter denying the allegations made in the Claim Petition, inter alia contended that the driver of the auto hit the right side back portion of the bus and on hearing the sound the driver of the said bus stopped the bus and observed the back portion of the bus and in the mean time, the said auto without stopping left the place. Immediately, the driver of the bus came to Police Station and lodged a complaint. There is no rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the bus. The amount as claimed by the claimants is excessive and exorbitant.

¶56

The Respondent No.2 remained exparte.

¶57

Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial in M.V.O.P.Nos.502 and 503 of 2017.

¶58

¶59

“1. Whether the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of 2^nd respondent, who was driver of APSRTC bus bearing No. AP 29 Z 2987 and it resulted injuries to claimant?

¶60

2. Whether the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of auto in which claimant was proceeding?

¶61

3. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for claim of compensation, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

¶62

4. To what relief?”

¶63

On behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. On behalf of Respondent No.1/APSRTC, R.W.1 was examined and no documents were marked.

¶64

After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal partly allowed the Claim Petition against Respondent No.1/ Appellant, awarding compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- in M.V.O.P.No. 502 of 2017 and Rs. 1,20,000/- in M.V.O.P.No.503 of 2017 with subsequent interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of the Petition till the date of realization and directed Respondent No.1 to pay the said amount within one month from the date of the order.

¶65

Aggrieved by the said award, the Respondents No.1 /APSRTC preferred these Appeals contending that the Tribunal failed to consider that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the auto, which hit right side back portion of bus and left the place, as such driver, owner and insurer of Auto bearing No. AP 26 TE 1672 are accountable for contributory negligence on their part. It is further contended that the injuries

¶66

¶67

sustained by the Claimants are minor in-nature and that they did not suffer any functional disability. It is further contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant and excessive, therefore, prayed to allow the appeal.

¶68

On the other hand, learned counsel for the Claimants/Respondents in both the Appeal have supported the impugned award and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶69

Now the point for consideration is:

¶70

Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference?

¶71

POINT:

¶72

The main contention of the learned counsel for the Appellant/Corporation is that on the date of the accident, the driver of the auto hit the right side back portion of the bus and on hearing the sound the driver of the bus got down from the bus and observed the back portion of the bus and in the meantime, the auto left the place without stopping. Therefore, there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus.

¶73

However, the Tribunal observed that as Ex.A1-FIR and Ex.A3Charge Sheet were filed against the driver of the APSRTC bus under Section 337 and 338 of IPC, the claimants sustained injuries due to accident taken place on account of the negligence on the part of Respondent No.2, during his employment under Respondent No.1. Though, the R.W-1, who is driver of APSRTC Bus was examined, but nothing was elicited in his evidence, except

¶74

¶75

admitting the fact that RW-1 was the accused as per FIR and Charge Sheet. Therefore, the Tribunal came to a conclusion that the accident occurred due to negligent driving of the Respondent No.1. Accordingly, the Issue No.1 was held in favour of the Claimants respectively.

¶76

So far as the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in M.V.O.P.No. 502 of 2017 is concerned, PW-3 is a Doctor, who treated the injured/ Chandramma, who stated that three fingers of the claimant Chandramma were removed from her right hand and there is a permanent disability for PW-2. Further, due to removal of three fingers of her right hand, she had taken treatment to heal the injuries for 45 days. Therefore, the Tribunal assessed Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of earnings due that period.

¶77

The Tribunal granted compensation under various heads in M.V.O.PO.No.502 of 2017 viz., Attendant Charges Rs. 20,000/-; Medical Charges Rs. 10,000/-; Extra Nourishment Rs. 10,000/-; Transport Charges Rs. 10,000/-; pain and suffering is Rs. 50,000/- and permanent disability is Res. 50,000/-, which totally comes to Rs.1,60,000/-, to the Petitioner therein.

¶78

As far as quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in M.V.O.P.No.503 of 2017 is concerned, PW-3 is the Doctor, who treated the Claimant, categorically stated that Claimant/ Golagamudi sustained five grievous injuries. There is possibility of disability for PW-1. The Tribunal has assessed the loss of earnings is Rs. 10,000/-.

¶79

¶80

1. The Tribunal granted compensation under various heads in M.V.O.PO.No.503 of 2017 viz., Attendant Charges Rs. 10,000/-; Medical Charges Rs. 10,000/-; Extra Nourishment Rs. 10,000/-; Transport Charges Rs. 10,000/-; pain and suffering is Rs. 50,000/- and permanent disability is Rs. 20,000/-, totaling Rs.1,20,000/-, to the Petitioner therein.

¶81

The Tribunal considering the evidence adduced by the Claimants and as well as exhibits relied on by them has rightly awarded the said amounts and held that in all, the Claimant in M.V.O.P.No.502 of 2017 would be entitled for a compensation of Rs. 1,60,000/- and Claimant in M.V.O.P.No.503 of 2017 would be entitled for a compensation of Rs. 1,20,000/- respectively, which is just and proper and cannot be said to be excessive or on higher side. This Court finds no error in the order of the Tribunal granting the said compensation to the Claimant.

¶82

Therefore, this Court finds no error in the Order/ Award of the Tribunal granting the said compensation to the Claimants respectively.

¶83

Viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any grounds to interfere with the award impugned in the Appeals.

¶84

In the result, Both the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed. No costs.

¶85

¶86

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶87

JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶88

Date: 02.02.2026

¶89

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Award dated 24.12.2019 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Nellore, in M.V.O.P.Nos. 502 and 503 of 2017, awarding Rs.1,60,000/- (MVOP 502) and Rs.1,20,000/- (MVOP 503) with interest @6% per annum, challenged by APSRTC in M.A.C.M.A.Nos. 167 and 78 of 2022 respectively.¶¶47
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District · 24.12.2019
Prior proceeding
Accident dated 10.08.2016 at about 8.30 a.m. on Podalakur to Nellore Road, Marupuru, Podalakur Village and Mandal: driver of APSRTC bus No. AP 29 Z 2987 allegedly drove rashly and negligently and dashed auto No. AP 26 TE 1672, injuring the occupants; Podalakur Police registered Crime No.127 of 2016.¶¶54
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.1 (APSRTC) filed a counter denying rash and negligent driving by its bus driver, contending that the auto hit the right side rear portion of the bus and left without stopping, and that the claim was excessive and exorbitant.¶¶55
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.2 (bus driver) remained ex parte before the Tribunal.¶¶56
Prior proceeding
The Tribunal framed four issues for trial in M.V.O.P.Nos.502 and 503 of 2017 (negligence of bus driver; negligence of auto driver; entitlement to and quantum of compensation; relief).¶¶57
Prior proceeding
Trial evidence: claimants examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and marked Exs.A1 to A7; Respondent No.1/APSRTC examined R.W.1 (the bus driver) and marked no documents.¶¶63
Prior proceeding
By award dated 24.12.2019 the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petitions against Respondent No.1/APSRTC: Rs.1,60,000/- in M.V.O.P.No.502 of 2017 and Rs.1,20,000/- in M.V.O.P.No.503 of 2017, with interest @6% per annum, payable within one month.¶¶64
Prior proceeding
Ex.A1-FIR and Ex.A3-charge sheet were filed against the driver of the APSRTC bus under Sections 337 and 338 IPC; R.W.-1 admitted being the accused as per the FIR and charge sheet.¶¶73
Prior proceeding
On that material the Tribunal concluded that the accident occurred due to negligent driving of the APSRTC bus driver (Respondent No.2) during his employment under Respondent No.1, and answered Issue No.1 in favour of the claimants.¶¶75

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Golagamudi Subbaramaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Golagamudi Subbaramaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs S.K.Mohammed lqbal

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Shaik Meeravali

Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Shaik Ashraf Ali @ Shaik Ashraff

The Apsrtc Vs C.Chinnakka

S. Vijaya Kumar, Vs Apsrtc

Apsrtc Vs Murikipudi Adam