Dismissed

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and Another v. Mothukuri Laxmi

Telangana HC11 Feb 2025MACMA/1085/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal by APSRTC against Tribunal award of Rs.4,00,000 to a pedestrian injured when an RTC bus dashed her while she was crossing at a bus stand. The High Court upheld findings of driver negligence and quantum, holding notional income reasonable, and dismissed the appeal with no costs.

What the court decided

AI extract

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³²⁵³ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF^TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

¶6

M.A.C.M.A. NO: 1085 OF 2013

¶7

Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the^order and decree dated 27-11-2012^passed in MATOP No.^{884 ot 2011on the file of} the court of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claim^Tribunal -^{Cum - ll Additional} District Judge, (FTC-l), Khammam.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation,^{Rep. by'} its^Depot Manager, Srikalahasti Depot, Chittoor District.

¶10

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation,,^{Rep. by its Managing} Director, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

¶11

...APPELLANTS

¶12

AND

¶13

Mothukuri Laxmi, Wo.Late Mothukuri Uppalaiah, Occ Coolie,^{Rl/o. lrsulapuram} Village, Bayyaram Mandal, Khammam District.

¶14

...RESPONDENT

¶15

Counsel for the Appellants: SRI KALLAKURI SRTNIVASARAO

¶16

Counsel forthe Respondent: Dr. CHALLA SRINIVASA^REDDY

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

¶19

HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE M. G.PRIYADARSINI

¶20

M.A.C.M.A.No.1O85 OF 2013

¶21

JUDGMEN,T:

¶22

Aggrieved by the order and decree dated 27.ll.2ol2 .(hereinafter will be Yeferred as 'impugned order,) passed by t}re learned Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal * cum - II Additional District Judge, Khammam (hereinafter wil be referred as 'Tribunal') in M.A.T.O.p.No.884 of 2Oll, the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation has filed the present Appeal to set aside the impugned order.

¶23

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

¶24

The brief facts of the case as can be seen from the record are as under:

¶25

a) The petitioner filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act claiming compensation of Rs.4,OO,OOO/against the Respondent/Corporation for the injuries sustained by her in the road traffic accident that occurred on O3.06.2Ol l. The reason assigned by the petitioner for the injuries sustained by her in the accident is that on 03.06.2011 at 6.00 pM she got down from thc bus at Thirumala and at the same time, the

driver of APSRTC^{Bus bearing registration No'AP 29 Z OllT of} Srikalahasthi Depot^{(hereinafterwill be referredas crime} vehicle') drove the same in^{rash and negligent manner at high} speed alrd dashed the^{petitioner.As a result, the petitioner fell} down ald sustained^{severe crush injuries to her legs'}

¶30

b) A case in Crime No.24^of 2Oll^{of ThirumalaPolice Station} was registered against^{the driver of the bus.The petitioner,who} is aged about 40^{years, was earning Rs.150/-per day by doing} coolie work. Due to the^{accident, the petitioner betame} permanently disabled and^{not in a position to attendher normal} duties. The accident^{occurred due to rash and negligent driving} of the crime^{vehicle by its driver and thus, the petitioner} claimed compensation^{of Rs-4,0O,000/-from the} respondent Nos. 1 and 2, who^{are Manager,Srikalahasthi} Depot and Managing Director^{of APSRTCrespectively'}

¶31

Before the learned^{Tribuna-I,in reply to the abovepetition} averments, the respondent^{No.2 filed counterand whereas} respondent No. I^{remained exparte' In the counter, the} respondent No.2 denied the^{manner of the accident,age'} occupation and earnings of the^{deceased.It was contendedthat} the accident occurred due to^{gross negligenceon the part of the}

I t

petitioner at the time of the accident and there was no negligence on the part of driver of t}re ApSRTC Bus. It was further contended that the claim of the petitioner is highly excessive and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶36

Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

¶37

i) Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in motor accident occurred on 03.O6.2O11 due to rash and. negligent diuing of the ApSRTC Bus bearing No.Ap 29 7 0I t 7?

¶38

ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to tohat amount and from uhich of tle respondents?

¶39

iii) To tthat relieJ?

¶40

In ordt'r to establish her claim before the learned Tribunal, PWs I to 3 were examined and Exs.A 1 to A6 were exhibited on behalf of the petitioner. On the other hand, the driver of the crime vehicle was examined as RWl, however, no documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the ApSRTC to deny the claim of I he petitioner.

¶41

The learned Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, passed the impugned order awarding Rs.4,OO,0O0/AS compensation to the petitioner.

¶42

ucr,l Io loas^of2Or3

¶43

Aggrieved by the^{same,the Appellant/APSRTCCorporation filed} the present Appeal^{to set aside the impugned order'}

¶44

Heard Sri Kallakuri^{Srinivasa Rao, learnedStanding} Counsel for the^{Appetlant/APSRTCCorporation,Dr' Challa} Srinivasa Reddy,^{learned counselfor the respondent/claimant} and perused the^{materialavailable on recordincludingthe} grounds of Appeal.

¶45

g. It is to be seen^{that the injured/claimanthas not} preferred any Appeal^{seekingenhancement of the compensation} awarded by the learned^Tribunal.

¶46

The first^{and foremost contentionof the learned counsel} for the appellant is^{that there is no negligence on the part of} driver of the crime^{vehicleand in fact when the bus was} stopping at passengers^{stand, the petitionerhas crossedthe} bus before it is halted^{and thereby the accident occurreddue to} the negligence on the^{part of the petitioner' It was further} contended that the^{learnedTribunal relied on Exs'Alto A4 to} establish that the accident^{occurreddue to rash and negligent} act of the driver of t-Ile^{bus but the same is not conclusiveproof} to hold that the driver of^{the bus was rash and negligent'}

¶47

¶48

r!cPJ M^cir.tNo roas.r20la

¶49

/ /7

¶50

The learned^{Tribunal relied upon oral evidence of PWl} apart from the^{documentaryevidence in the form of Exs'A I} (FIR), A2 (Charge sheet),^{A3 (medical certificate)and A4 (MVI} report). Ex.Al^{is the FIR in Crime No'24of 2O11 of Police} Station Tirrmala^{Traffic and the complaintwas lodgedby one K'} Srinivas. Ex.A2 is^{the charge sheet, whichdisclosesthat the} driver of the^{RTC bus bearing No-AP 29 Z OllT drove the same} in rash and negligent^{manner without due care and} precautionary measures^{collided against thepedestrian} (petitioner herein)^{while she was coming to a side Apart from} the above documentary^{evidence, the learned Tribunalrelied} upon the oral^{evidence of PWl, who was cross examinedby the} learned counsel^{for the respondent No.2' But nothing couldbe} elicited from^{the cross examinationof PWIto establishthat the} accident occurred^{due to negligence of the petitioner' In order} to disprove the contention^{of the petitioner,tJle respondentsgot} examined the driver^{of the crimevehicle as RW1 , who has} reiterated the^{averments of the counter in his chief examination'} In the cross examination,^{he admittedthat police filedcharge} sheet against him stating^{that he was responsible for the} accident. In the^{chief examination,RWI deposed that whilewas} entering into the bus^{stand at Tirumalaand whenhe was}

¶51

¶52

stopping the bus at passengers stand, the injured tried to cross the bus before it is halted. It is not the case of RWI that he has not seen the petitioner while she was crossing the bus. When RWI has seen the. petitioner crossing the bus, he ought to have applied breaks to avoid the bus. It is pertinent to note that the bus was about to stop at the passengers stand and by that time the bus will be very slow to control, more particularly, when the driver of the bus witnesses a passenger crossing the bus. Despite seeing the passenger crossing the bus at the passenger stand, the driver could not control the bus or could not stop the bus to avoid the accident. Thus, it clearly malifests the negligence on part of the driver in avoiding the accident. Hence, it is amply clear that the learned Tribunal after considering all these aspects has answered issued No. I holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus-

¶53

The other contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the APSRTC is that the learned Tribunal erred in considering the earnings of the petitioner at Rs.2,OOO/- per month without there being any conclusive proof and that the learned Tribunal ought to have taken the income of Rs. 15,0OO/- per annum as prescribed under schedule II of Motor Vehicles Act.

) I

The petilioner claimed to be earning^Rs. 150/-^per day by doing coolie work, however, the learned Tribunal did not consider the same on the ground that except the bare statement of PWl, there is no other evidence with regard to earnings of the petitioner. There is no dispute that the occupation of the petitioner is toolie'. In the absence of any concrete evidence and also considering the cost of living during the relevant^point of time, tl.e learned Tribunal has fxed notional income of the petitioner at Rs.2,OOO/- per month, which is appearing to be just and reasonable as the accident occurred in the year 20 I 1. On the other hand, the respondents have also not placed any material to establish that the monthly income of the petitioner arrived by the petitioner is excessive. It is pertinent to note that the notional income as prescribed under schedule II of Motor Vehicles Act is taken into consideration in case of non earning members. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner is a non earning member. In these circumstances, the above contentions of the respondents with^regard to the income of the pelitioner arrived by the^{learnedTribunal,} are untenable.

¶58

It is the contention of^{the learned} Standing Counsel for the APSRTC that learned Tribunal erred in awarding

¶59

¶60

¶61

compensation of Rs.4,OO,0OO/-,^{whichexcessiveand out of all} proportlons.

¶62

It is pertinent to^{note that the petitioner suffered} amputation of left^{leg abovekneewith TOlo of the disabilityand} she might have^{sufferedphysical as well as mental agony'The} petitioner might have^{incurredconsiderableamounttowards} her treatment at^{various hospitals,medicalexpenses,} transportation,^{extra nourishment, attendantcharges etc'A} perusal of the impugned order^{discloses that the ledrned} Tribuna,l by considering^{all the above aspects has awarded} Rs.4,0O,OO0/-, which^{is justand reasonablq'Except} contending that the^{compensation awarded by the learned} Tribunal is excessive,^{the respondents have not adducedany} evidence on their^{behalfto establishthat the learned Tribunal} has awarded more^{compensation than the compensation} entitled by the^{petitioner.Thus, this Court is not inclinedto} interfere with the^{frndings of the learnedTribunalso far as the} quantum of compensation^{is concerned.}

¶63

L6. In view of the^{above facts and circumstances,this Court} is of the hrm opinion^{that the appellants/respondents failed to} establish any of the^{grounds to set aside the wellreasonedorder}

¶64

\ t

¶65

¶66

passed by the learned Tribunal. Thus, the present Appeal is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.

¶67

In the result, the Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶68

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand

¶69

closed

¶70

¶71

ASSISTANT "out.rAYASREE^REGISTRAR /IrRuE coPY// (\ l--::

¶72

SECTION^OFFICER

¶73

to',l. an" Chairman'^{Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum ll Additional District} ' ' jrfi iric-l)Khammam (with records) 2. one cc^{to sri K'll';;;;'s'i';ilasaRaoAdvocatetoPUCl}

¶74

\ 3. One^{CC to Dr chall;3il'";;;ieddv'Advocate [OPUC]} 4. Two^{CD CoPies}

+tKH/plP

tLti H

HIGH COURT

DATED:1110212025

JUDGMENT+DECREE

MACMA.No.1085 of 2013

¶84

1tl g STdr\A
q
J 'z
2 7 l{AR 2025 oI
*
r Dr'-. o

¶85

DISMISSING TFIE MACMA. WITHOUT COSTS @W

¶86

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶87

TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH^{DAYOF FEBRUARY} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry^FIVE

¶88

PRESENT

¶89

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE^{M.G.PRIYADARSINI}

¶90

M.A.C.M.A. NO: 1085 OF 2013

¶91

Between:

¶92

Andhra Pradesh State Road^{Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Depot} Manager, Srikalahasti Depot, Chittoor^District.

¶93

Andhra Pradesh State Road^{Transport Corporation,, Rep. by its Managing} Director, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad

¶94

...A',ELLANTS

¶95

AND

¶96

Mothukuri Laxmi, W/o.Late Mothukuri^{Uppalaiah, Occ Coolie,R/o lrsulapuram} Village, Bayyaram Mandal, Khammam^District.

¶97

...RESPONDENT

¶98

Appeal filed under Section^{173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order} and decree daled 27-11-2012^{passedin MATOP No. 884 of 2011 on the file of} the court of the chairman,^{Motor Accidentsclaim Tribunal} -^{cum - ll Additional} District Judge, (FTC-I), Khammam.

¶99

This appeal coming on for^{hearing and upon perusing the groundsof appeal,} the Judgment and Decree of^{the Lower Court and the materiat papers in the appeal} and upon hearing the^{arguments of SriKallakuri Srinivasa Rao,} Advocate for the Appellants and of^{Dr. challa Srinivasa Reddy, Advocate for the} Respondent.

¶100

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

¶101

'1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and herebyis

¶102

dismissed; and

¶103

That there shall be no order as^{to costs in this appeal.}

SD/-T.JAYASREE

AS ANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

'1 . The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum ll Additional District Judge (FTC-I) Khammam^{(withrecords)}

¶110

1. Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:1110212025

JUDGMENT+DECREE

MACMA.No.1085 of 20'13

¶116

DISMISSING THE MACMA. WITHOUT COSTS

¶117

@ W

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and Another v. Mothukuri Laxmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and Another v. Mothukuri Laxmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Manager, United India Insuranie Co. Ltd. Vs Mohammad Reshma Begum and 3 Others

Smt. Kasam Umadevi , Umarani and 2 Others Vs the New India Assurance Company Limited and 3 Others

Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Badhula Jyothi , Rajitha and 5 Others

Ammera Banu Vs Tsrtc

Telengana State Road Transport Corporation Vs Ammera Bhanu

Icici Lombard Gen Ins Co. Ltd., Warangal Vs E Jagannath Reddy, Hyderabad and Anr.