The Ap State Road Transport ... vs Lakkakula Rajalaxmi 4 Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 1139 Tel

                                   1                                RRN,J
                                                      MACMA No.966 of 2015


 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

                    M.A.C.M.A.No.966 of 2015

JUDGMENT:

This MACMA is filed by the appellant/respondent RTC

under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 aggrieved by the

order and decree dated 26.08.2013 passed in M.V.O.P.No.119 of

2011 by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IX

Additional District Judge, Kamareddy (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. The claim petition was filed by the petitioners under

Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act for compensation amount of

Rs.5,00,000/- owing to the death of Sharath Kumar (hereinafter

referred to as "deceased"), who is son of petitioners No.1 and 2,

brother of petitioner No.3 and grandson of petitioners No.4 and 5 in

a motor accident.

3.1 Brief facts of the case are that on 05.10.2010, the

deceased was travelling in APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP-10-Z-8995

and when the bus was stopped at Guru Raghavendra Colony, and

while the deceased was getting down from the bus, the driver of the

bus without observing the same, drove it in a rash and negligent 2 RRN,J MACMA No.966 of 2015

manner. As a result, the deceased fell down from the bus,

sustained injuries and died on the spot. Hence, the claim petition.

4. The respondent/Transport Corporation filed a counter

affidavit alleging that there was no negligent on the part of the

driver of the bus, and the deceased himself tried to get down from

running bus and fell down, as such, it is not liable to pay the

compensation amount to the petitioners. It is further contended

that the father of the deceased made an application dt.25.04.2011

to the Depot Manager, Kamareddy Depot, claiming compensation of

Rs.1,50,000/- for the death of his son and the respondent paid

Rs.1,50,000/- to petitioners No.1 to 3 towards full and final

settlement of the compensation amount. Petitioners No.1 to 3 gave

an undertaking that they would not file any claim petition against

the respondent. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. To prove the case of the petitioners, they examined

PWs.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.A1 to A8. To prove the case of the

respondent, RW.1 was examined and got marked Exs.B1 to B6.

6. On consideration of the evidence available on record, the

Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded

compensation of Rs.2,44,000/- payable by the

respondent/Transport Corporation. Challenging the same, the

present appeal is filed by the respondent/Transport Corporation.

                                    3                                RRN,J
                                                      MACMA No.966 of 2015

7. Heard both sides and perused the record.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/RTC

contended that the Tribunal erred in holding that the deceased died

due to rash and negligent driving of the RTC bus. Further

contended that income proof of the deceased was not filed and the

father of the deceased made an application on 25.04.2011 to the

Depot Manager, Kamareddy, claiming compensation of

Rs.1,50,000/- for the death of deceased and the same was paid

towards full and final settlement by the respondent/Transport.

Accordingly, prayed to allow the appeal.

9. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners also

contended that the Tribunal was justified in passing the impugned

order which calls for no interference and 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

petitioners under various heads, to a tune of Rs.2,44,000/- which

is reasonable. In these circumstances, this Court is not inclined to

interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal and the MACMA is

liable to be dismissed.

                                   4                                RRN,J
                                                     MACMA No.966 of 2015

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

the order and decree dated 26.08.2013 passed in M.V.O.P.No.119 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