Dismissed

The Managing Director, Apsrtc v. Thejavath Pandu Naik

Telangana HC27 Feb 2025MACMA/2350/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Telangana High Court dismissed an appeal filed by APSRTC against a Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Award. The court rejected the bus operator's claim of driver negligence and upheld the Tribunal's compensation assessment as just and reasonable.

What did the court decide?

The Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed and there shall be no order as to costs.

The Managing Director, Apsrtc Vs Thejavath Pandu Naik — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³²⁵³ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

¶6

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APP EAL NO: 2350 OF 2016

¶7

Appeal filed Under Section^'173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Judgment and decree in M.V. O.P.No 666/20'13, dated. 14'.07-2015 on the fite of the Judge, Family Court- Cum-Vl Additionat District and Sessions Judge, At Nalgonda.

¶8

Between :

¶9

The Managing Director, APSRTC, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

¶10

...Appellant/Respondent

¶11

AND

¶12

The.lavath Pandu Naik, S/o.Laxma, Age 40 years, Occ. lce Cream Business, R/o. llapuram Village of Miryalguda Mandal of Nalgonda District.

¶13

...RespondenUPetitioner

¶14

Counsel for the Appellant : SRt CHANDRA SEKHAR N (SC FOR APSRTC)

¶15

Counsel for the Respondents : ANNAPURNA SREERAM

¶16

The Court delivered the following ; JUDGMENT

¶17

ADARSINI HONO URABLE SMT.JUS^{TICE M.G.PRTY}

¶18

M.A.C.M.^{A.No.235OoF 2016}

¶19

JUDGMENT:

¶20

Aggrieved^{by the order and decree dated l4'O7 '2015} (hereinafterwillbereferredas.impugnedorder,)passedbythe Iearned^{Judge, Family Court-cum-Vl AdditionalDistrict and} Sessions^{Judge, at Nalgonda (hereinafterwill be referredas} Tribunat,)ino.P.No.666of2o13,therespondent/Corporation has frled^{the presentAppealto set asidethe impugned order'}

¶21

For the^{sake of convenience' the parties hereinafterare} referrecl^{as [hey werearrayed beforethe Tribunal'}

¶22

3 The bricf^{facts of the case as can be seen from the record} are as^under

¶23

The petitioner^{filed claim petition under Section 166 of tlre} a) Motor^{Vchiclc Act claiming compensationofRs' l 'O0'0OO/} on account^{of thc inlurtes} against^{the resPondent/ APSTRC} trafhc^{accident occurredon} sustained^{bY him inthe road} 27.06.2013^{As per the petitioner' on 27 '06 '2O 13 he lcft house} toselllcecreamonTVSxLbearingNo.AP35Cg4Taandw,as returning^{at about 06'00 PM' when he reached near Rajiv} Chowk,^{Miryataguda town, one APSRTC bus bearing No'AP 28 Z} 384 driven^{by its driverin a rash and negligentmannerdashed} .-^{against his TVS XL from rear side' as a result' the petitioner}

¶24

¶25

recerved grievous injuries. Immediatery, he \,irs shifted to sri Sat5raparameswary Orthopedic Hospital, Miryalaguda and took treatment as in-patient trom 22.06.2O13 to 15.07.2013.

¶26

Based on the complaint, Mirylaguda II Town police registered a case in Crime No. 156 of 20 13 unde _ Section 33g of IPC against the driver of ApSTRC. It is further n)ntended that the accident occurred only due to the rash and ncgligent driving of the APSTRC bus driver, as such, respondenrs are liable to pay compensation.

¶27

Respondent filed counter dcnied the aver-ments of the claim petition, age, avocation, income and further contended that the claim o[ compensation is excessive and exorbitant and that there is no rash ancl negligencc on the part o ttre RTC bus driver. Hence, respondcnts arc not liable to pay r:ompensation aIld prayed to dismiss lhe pctrtion.

¶28

6' Based on the above plcadings, the Tribunai rramed the following issues:

¶29

i) Whether the accident occurred on 27.O6.2,O13 utas due to the rash end negligent driuing of the diuer of ApSfRC bus bearing No.Ap 28 Z 3g4 ttnd whether the cla nant T. pandu Naik sustained injuie:;?

¶30

i0 Wltether the cloimant is entitled for compen.;ation, if so, to tDhat amount and from uhom?

¶31

¶32

MCP.J

¶33

iii) To uthat reliej?

¶34

In order to establish his claim before the learned Tribunal, PWs. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.Al to AS were exhibited on behalf ol the petitioner. On behalf of respondent, no oral and documentary are adduced.

¶35

The learned Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, passed the impugned order awarding an amounr of Rs.98,7OO/- with interest @g% per annum from the date of petition till date of deposit. Aggrieved by the same, the Appe[[ant/APSRTC filed the present Appeal to set a side the impugned order.

¶36

Heard Sri Nrlampuri Chandrashekar, learned Standing Counsel for the Appellant/APSRTC, Smt S.Annapurna, learned counsel for the Respondcnt/Claimant and perused the uater-ial available on record including the grounds of Appeal.

¶37

It is to be sccn that injured claimant has not preferred any appeal sceking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learncd Tribunal.

¶38

I 1. First and loremost contention of the learned Standing 't ,Counsel^{forthe appellant/APSTRC, there} is no rash and

¶39

¶40

negligence on the part of the RTC bus driver ; in fact^the accident occurred due to the negligence of the petititrner.

¶41

A perusal of Ex.A-1/FIR and trx.A 2 /Chargc Sheet clearly discloses that crime vehicle was driven at high speed andⁱⁿ rash and negligent manner due to which the^le titioner^has suffered grievous inj u rics.

¶42

It is pertinent to state that cxcept taking thc^plerr of^rash and negligence on the part of the^{petit-roner,the} appellant/APsRTC has nor adduced either oral or^clocumentary evidence to prove the same nor giveu complatnt b<: bre the^police authorities that investigation was not properly dorre and a^false case has been foisted against the RTC bus driver Llnder these circumstances, this Court is of the considered oprnlon that the Iearned Tribunal has rightly ansrvcred the f-rrst isslrc of rash and negligence on the part of thc RTC bus drivcr, for which interference o[ this Court is unwarranted.

¶43

Now coming to the compensation amount. the learned counsel for the appell.rnt argued that u,ithout any kind of documentar5r proof, Lhc learned^'lribunal has a.r'ardt:d huge arnount towards compensation. Hence, prayed t,r reduce the same

¶44

¶45

This Court has perused the calculation made by the learned Tribunal for awarding compensalion. As per the petitioner, he is selling ice-cream and claimed compensation of Rs. 1,OO,OOO/-. The learned Tribunal considering the nature of injuries has granted Rs.2O,OOO/- for each of the grievous injury, totaling Rs.4O,OOO/ - for two injuries, for the medical bill Rs.28,4OO/-, for pharmacy bill Rs.6,360/-, for transportation Rs.4,000/-, for extra nourishment Rs. 1O,0O0/- and for loss of income Rs. 15,000/-, which appears to be just and reasonable. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the hnding of the learned Tribunal which are in proper perspective. Hence, in view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appeal is devoid of merit or substance ald liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶46

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand

¶47

closed.

¶48

. SD/. MOHD.ISMAIL
DEpurY REGISTRAR
1'
I.._
/TTRUE COPY// 'becnot I oFFtcER

¶49

To,

¶50

1 The Judge,^{FamilyCourt- Cum-Vl Additional Districtand SessionsJudge'At} Nalgonda.

¶51

2 One CC to^{SRI CHANDRA SEKHAR N (SC FOR TSRTC ZONE 2) Advocate} IoPUCI

¶52

3 One CC to^{SRIANNAPURNA SREERAM Advocate IOPUC]}

¶53

Two CD^CoPies

svs/PSL^lflr

HIGH COURT

DATED:2710212A25

JUDGMENT + DECREE

MACMA.No.2350 of 2016

¶59

,. _ --11'-_ -:.:::-.-
..: :-t. -ii,:.{:if<br>, .i3 ,/. ..t<br>'i'^i.
;
<r l. i,'
r\ ::l c .' irip zoz5 ll ii
. ..,: i)
,.:^ 1 . *:' ,','
: ,. -,. ' t ',.1
i[ . :-j ",.1.,'.,rli ...-,t

DISMISSING THE MACMA

WITHOUT COSTS

6^Gf"I "e-"

.,{tF

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶65

I HURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF I,-LLIITUI\IIY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶66

PRESENT

¶67

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

¶68

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MI SCELLANEOUS APP AL NO: 2350 OF 2016

¶69

Between:

¶70

The Managing Director, APSRTC, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

¶71

... A ppella nUR es pon d e n t

¶72

AND

¶73

F' ---TEf

¶74

Thelavath Pandu Nark, s/o Laxma, Age 40 years, occ. lce cream Business frr. llapuram Village of Miryatguda Mandal of Nalgonda District.

¶75

...RespondenUPetttt on e r

¶76

Appear tired Under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act agarnst the Judgmerr and decree in M v o P No 666/2013, dated. 14-07-2015 on the file of the Judgc Family Court- Cum Vl Additional Drstrrct and Sessions Judge, At Nalgonda.

¶77

This appeal coming on for hearrng and upon perusing the grounds of a ppeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the mat,erial pipers in the Case a rrd upon hearing the arguments of Sri Chandra Sekhar N (SC FOR APSRTC) Advocate for'the Appellant and Annapurna Sreeram, Advocate for the respondents

¶78

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows :

¶79

¶80

1. That the Motor Accrdent Crvrl Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby Dismissed

¶81

That There sttall be no orcler as to costs.

¶82

SD/. MOHD.ISMAIL OEPUTY REGISTRAR .,I' //TRUE COPY/' SECTION OFFICER

¶83

To,

¶84

1 Ilrir .rudqe I arrrtly Cr-rtrrl Culn-Vl Adtjitiortzrl t)tstrict arrd Sesstorrs JLr(l(Jc, l\t N al!lor rd a

¶85

-'^{I rrvr r (i[) Coptt",}

\r r^il'S I Y3

HIGH COURT

DATED:27l02tZLZ|

DECREE

MACMA.No.2350 of 2016

¶91

DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS

¶92

qcoj(o\ h. raatas

The Managing Director, Apsrtc v. Thejavath Pandu Naik

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Managing Director, Apsrtc v. Thejavath Pandu Naik

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

Volkaji Santhosh Vs Yalla Srinivas Reddy

Guduri Venkatesh Vs Pullaiah Selvaraj Darwin

Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Bollaram Sailoo and Another

Smt. Amribai and Another Vs Akheel Ahmed and Anothger

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs Shanawaz Khan

Dharavath Bhadru Vs Bherulal Bhill