Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The Depot Manager vs Sangati Varamma on 21 October, 2024
APHC010240572021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3367]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL
NO: 374/2021
Between:
The Depot Manager ...APPELLANT
AND
Sangati Varamma and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Appellant:
SOLOMON RAJU MANCHALAFOR (APSRTC)
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
Y NAGI REDDY
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is directed against the order of the Chairman,
Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional
District Judge, Prakasam at Ongole (hereinafter called as 'the
Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.16 of 2014 dated 16.03.2020.
2. The appellant is the owner/APSRTC of the Bus bearing
No.AP 29 Z 3416 (hereinafter referred to as "crime bus"). The
respondent Nos.1 to 5 wife, children, and mother of one Chinna
Koti Reddy @ Chinna Kotaiah (hereinafter called as 'the
deceased') respectively. Respondent No.6 is the driver of the
crime bus.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter
referred to as they arrayed before the tribunal.
4. The case of the claimants, in the petition before the
Tribunal is that:
i). On 05.06.2013 at about 11.45 hours, while the
deceased travelling as pillion rider on the motorcycle
bearing No.AP 27 AH 3335 belongs to one Ravuri
Venkata Rao, when they reached near Culvert,
Tangutur, the crime bus driven by the 1st respondent
in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motorcycle
in opposite direction, resulted the deceased sustained
injuries. While undergoing treatment, he succumbed to
injuries.
ii). Being dependents, they claimed compensation of
Rs.10,00,000/- against the driver and owner of the
crime bus.
5. The respondent No.3/owner/APSRTC filed written
statement denying the averments in the petition and pleaded
that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of
the motorcycle, but not 1st respondent; that the rider of
motorcycle is in drunken state by the time of incident; that the
quantum of compensation claimed by the claimants is
excessive, thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry
basing on the material:
"1.Whether the death of the deceased Sangati Chinna
Koti Reddy occurred on 05.06.2013 due to the rash
and negligent driving of the 1st respondent-driver of
APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 29 Z 3416 and whether
there is any contributory negligence on the part of the
rider of the motorcycle bearing No.AP 27 AH 3335 on
which the deceased was traveling?
2.Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation? If so to what amount and against
whom? and
3.To what relief?"
7. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2
were examined, Exs.P.1 to P.5 were marked. On behalf of the
respondents, none were examined and no documents were
exhibited.
8. On the material, the Tribunal, having come to the
conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash negligent
driving of the crime bus by its driver, held that claimants are
entitled for the compensation of Rs.9,88,000/-, with interest at
9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of
realization against the respondent Nos.1 and 2, for the death of
the deceased in the accident.
9. It is against the said award; the present appeal was
preferred by the appellant/owner.
10. Heard Sri M.Solomon Raju, learned counsel for the
appellant/owner and Miss.Y.Bhanu Sri Akhila, learned counsel
representing Sri Y.Nagi Reddy, learned counsel for the
respondent Nos.1 to 5/claimants.
11. Now, the point that arise for determination is "whether
the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside, if so, to what
extent?"
12. POINT:
It is not in dispute about the death of the deceased in the
incident, involvement of the crime bus as well motorcycle
bearing No.AP 27 AH 3335, quantum of compensation awarded
by the Tribunal. It is also not in dispute that no appeal was
preferred by the claimants against the findings of the Tribunal.
13. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the
appellant/insurer is that by the time of the incident, the rider of
the motorcycle is in drunken state, thereby, resulted to the
incident.
14. Except for the said defence in the written statement,
nothing was elicited during cross examination of P.W.2, who is
rider of the said motorcycle, to attribute any negligence against
him. To substantiate the said contention, on behalf of the
respondents nothing was placed on record. In the absence of
evidence before the Tribunal, basing on the testimony of P.Ws.1
and 2 coupled with Exs.P.1 and P.5, the Tribunal rightly came
to the conclusion that the incident occurred only due to the
rash and negligent driving of the crime bus by the 1st
respondent.
15. It is needless to say that the Tribunal by considering all
these aspects rightly calculated the amounts entitled by the
claimants and awarded compensation, which is not in dispute.
16. In view of the above discussion, no interference warrants
to the findings recorded by the Tribunal regarding all aspects,
since there is no need to disturb the well-articulated order
passed by the Tribunal, the appeal preferred by the appellant is
liable for dismissal. Thus, the point is answered against the
appellant.
17. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated.
Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed.
______________________
JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS
Date: 21.10.2024
Krs
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS
DATE: 21.10.2024
Krs
