Telangana High Court
The Apsrtc., vs Battapothula Roshamma on 9 June, 2022
Bench: G Sri Devi
HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
M.A.C.M.A.No.1087 of 2014
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles
Act, aggrieved by the order and decree, dated 24.08.2011
passed in O.P.No.795 of 2009 on the file of the Chairman, Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Special Sessions Judge for Trial of
SCs/STs (POA) Cases-cum-Additional District Judge, Nalgonda
(for short "the Tribunal").
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be
hereinafter referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the claimants filed a
petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of one
Battapothula Padmaiah (hereinafter referred to as "the
deceased"), who died in a motor vehicle accident. It is stated
that on 17.09.2009 the deceased and others were boarded an
Auto bearing No.AP 24 X 6813 in order to go to Kattangur Village
and when the auto reached the outskirts of Pamanagundla
Village, one R.T.C. bus bearing No.AP 28 Z 1987 driven by its
GSD, J
Macma_1087_2014
driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed
the auto, due to which, the deceased and other inmates of the
auto sustained grievous injuries and the deceased died on the
spot.
4. Before the Tribunal, the respondent filed its counter
putting the claimants to strict proof of all the allegations and
also contended that there was no negligent on the part of the
driver of the R.T.C. bus and the accident occurred only due to
the negligence of the driver of the auto in which the deceased
was travelling. It is also denied the age, avocation and income
of the deceased.
5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were
framed before the Tribunal:-
1) Whether the deceased Battapothula Padmaiah S/o.
Narsimha, died in the accident due to rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus
bearing No.AP 28 Z 1987?
2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim
compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3) To what relief?
GSD, J
Macma_1087_2014
6. On behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined
and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the respondent,
neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced.
7. After considering the oral and documentary evidence
available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident was
occurred due to the negligent driving of the driver of the RTC
bus and arrived the total compensation at Rs.8,10,000/- but
restricted the compensation amount to Rs.5,00,000/- on the
ground that the claimants claimed only Rs.5,00,000/-.
Challenging the same, the present appeal came to be filed by
the R.T.C.
8. Heard and perused the record.
9. A perusal of the impugned judgment would show that the
Tribunal has framed Issue No.1 as to whether the accident had
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the R.T.C. bus by
its driver, to which the Tribunal after considering the evidence
of P.W.1 coupled with the documentary evidence, has
categorically observed that the accident has occurred due to the
rash and negligent driving of the driver of the R.T.C. bus and
GSD, J
Macma_1087_2014
has answered in favour of the claimants and against the
respondent. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the
finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the
rash and negligent driving of the driver of R.T.C. bus.
10. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, a
perusal of the material available on record, after considering
the age and avocation of the deceased, the Tribunal has
granted just compensation. Therefore, I see no reason to
interfere with the quantum of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal. Hence, the M.A.C.M.A. is devoid of merits and the
same is liable to be dismissed.
11. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. There shall be
no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
__________________
JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
09.06.2022
gkv
