A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep By Its G.M. Hyd vs Murarishetti Prabhakar, ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1511 Tel

                           1                            RRN,J
                                           MACMA No.2125 of 2014



 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

                M.A.C.M.A.No.2125 OF 2014

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the appellant/respondent R.T.C

under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, aggrieved by the

order and decree dated 23.10.2013 passed in O.P. No.914 of

2010 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal

(Principal District Judge), Nalgonda (for short "the Tribunal").

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be

hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the

Tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a

claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,

1988, claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- on account of

injuries sustained by him. It is stated that on 06.07.2010,

while he was proceeding to market at Kukatpally on his

scooter bearing No.AP28-AH-6475, an APSRTC bus bearing

No.AP10-Z-1007, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent

manner and at high speed came from Kukatpally side and 2 RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.2125 of 2014

dashed the petitioner. As a result, he sustained injuries all

over his body. Immediately, he was shifted to Remedy

Hospital, Kukatpally, and later he was treated in Apollo

Hospital, where he had undergone surgeries and incurred an

amount of Rs.6,50,000/- towards treatment. Hence, the

claim petition.

4. Respondent filed a counter denying the allegations

made in the petition.

5. To prove his case, the petitioner examined PWs.1 to 3

and got marked Exs.A1 to A8 and C1. No oral or

documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the

respondent.

6. On appreciation of the evidence on record, the

Tribunal allowed the O.P. by awarding compensation of

Rs.8,00,000/- to the petitioner. Challenging the same, the

present appeal is filed by the respondent/RTC.

7. Heard both sides and perused the record.

3 RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.2125 of 2014

8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/RTC inter

alia contended that the Tribunal erred in awarding excess

and exorbitant compensation and the Tribunal failed to

appreciate that the negligence was on the rider of the scooter

and also grossly erred in awarding compensation under the

heads of pain and suffering and future medical surgery

expenses. Accordingly, prayed to allow the appeal.

9. Learned Counsel appearing for the

petitioner/claimant contended that the Tribunal was justified

in passing the impugned order, which calls for no

interference by this Court. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the

appeal.

10. This Court having considered the submissions of both

parties is of the considered view that the Tribunal was

justified in passing the impugned order as the evidence

adduced by the petitioner that it was the sole negligence on

the part of the driver of the Bus due to which the accident

occurred, was not rebutted in any manner as the

respondent/RTC failed to adduce either oral or documentary 4 RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.2125 of 2014

evidence. As such, the Tribunal cautiously weighed the

evidence on both sides and awarded compensation to the

petitioner/claimant under various heads to a tune of

Rs.8,00,000/- which is reasonable. In these circumstances,

this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by

the Tribunal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

11. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed by

confirming the order and decree dated 23.10.2013, passed in

O.P. No.914 of 2010 by the Tribunal. There shall be no order

as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand

closed.

______________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J

3rd day of April, 2023 PNS/BDR