Telangana High Court
The Managing Director, Apsrtc., vs Goddeti Sarjeeva Prasad Prasad on 10 March, 2023
Bench: Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao
1 RRN,J
MACMA No.676 of 2014
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.676 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 18.12.2012, passed in M.A.T.O.P.
No.608 of 2011, by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, (FTC-I), Khammam
(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.2,50,000/- on account of
injuries sustained by him. It is stated that on 09.10.2010,
the petitioner and one Ravi were travelling on Hero Honda
Passion bearing No.AP-22-AA-9324 towards Kodada to collect
some amount and when they reached the outskirts of
2 RRN,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.676 of 2014
Nelakondapally near the old bus stand, the driver of the bus
bearing No.AP11-Z-1383, drove it in a rash and negligent
manner and dashed the motorcycle of the petitioner, due to
which, the petitioner and said Ravi sustained grievous
injuries and fractures. 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 and
2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A9. The respondent examined
RW.1 but no exhibits were marked.
6. On appreciation of the evidence on record, the
Tribunal allowed the M.A.T.O.P. in part by awarding
compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner. Challenging
the same, the present appeal is filed by the respondent/RTC.
7. Heard both sides and perused the record.
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
3 RRN,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.676 of 2014
appreciate that the negligence was on the rider of the
motorcycle, and failed to consider the evidence of RW.1.
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 Tribunal
cautiously weighed the evidence on both sides and awarded
compensation to the petitioner/claimant under various
heads, to a tune of Rs.1,00,000/- 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 18.12.2012, passed in
4 RRN,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.676 of 2014
M.A.T.O.P. No.608 of 2011 by the Tribunal. There shall be no
order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
_____________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
10th day of March, 2023
PNS
