Telangana High Court
Smt. M. Ramulamma And Another vs The Regional Manager, Apsrtc, Hyd on 9 November, 2023
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
M.A.C.M.A.No.1974 OF 2008
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act by the appellants/claimants, aggrieved by the
award and decree, dated 29.03.2004 passed in O.P.No.524 of
1997 on the file of Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accident Claims
Tribunal-Cum-II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy
District (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 on 11.04.1997 while
Sri M. Mallikarjun @ Mallesh was proceeding on his scooter
bearing registration No.AP-11-C-6776 from Bailramalaguda
towards Hyderabad side on the left side of the road and when
he reached near Karmanghat cross roads at about 0930
hours, the driver of the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP-9-Z-6977
who was proceeding in the same direction drove the said RTC
bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the
Scooter from its behind, as a result of which the deceased fell
down and the said RTC bus ran over him and deceased died
NBK, J
MACMA_1974_2008
on the spot. The Police Saroornagar registered a case in
Cr.No.208 of 1997 under Section 304-A of IPC against the
driver. Thus, the mother of the deceased has claimed
Rs.2,50,000/- towards compensation for the untimely death of
the deceased.
4. Before the Tribunal, the respondent filed counter and
denied the manner of accident narrated by the petitioner and
stated that he is not liable to pay the compensation and
prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the
following issues:
1) Whether the accident occurred on 11.04.1997 at
about 09:30 am due to rash and negligent driving of
driver of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP-09-Z-6977?
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any
compensation, if so, how much?
3) To what relief?
6. During trial, on behalf of the petitioners, PW-1 to PW-3
are examined and Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-6 are marked. On the other
hand, on behalf of respondent, driver of the APSRTC bus was
examined as RW-1 and no documents are marked.
NBK, J
MACMA_1974_2008
7. After considering the oral and documentary evidence
available on record, the Tribunal though held that the accident
was not occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving
of the driver of APSRTC bus but however awarded an amount
of Rs.50,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from
28.04.1997 to 19.03.2001 and again from 05.01.2004 to till
the date of realization with costs. Aggrieved by the said
award and decree, the claimant No.2 has filed the present
appeal.
8. Heard both sides and perused the record.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant strongly
contended that the learned Tribunal erred in finding that the
driver of the offending vehicle was not rash and negligent and
was carried away by the judgment in criminal proceedings
wherein the driver was acquitted. He further contended that
the learned trial judge ought to have believed the evidence of
PW-3 an eye witness to the accident and grossly erred in
rejecting his evidence on the faulty ground that he is not an
list of witness in criminal proceedings.
NBK, J
MACMA_1974_2008
10. A perusal of the impugned award would show that the
Tribunal has framed Issue No.1 as to whether the accident
has occurred due to rash and negligent act of driving of the
driver of the bus and came to the conclusion that the accident
had not occurred due to negligence of the driver of the bus.
For an instance, even if we assume that the accident occurred
on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of
APSRTC as contended by the learned counsel for the
appellant, no cogent evidence is adduced on the aspect of
rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending
bus. Therefore, the learned tribunal in the impugned
judgment held that the accident occurred not due to the
negligence of the APSRTC driver, but however the learned
tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation
under "No fault liability", is very reasonable one.
11. In view of the foregoing discussion, I see no reason to
interfere with the finding of the Tribunal and there are no
grounds to interfere with the findings arrived at by the
Tribunal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
NBK, J
MACMA_1974_2008
12. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed, confirming the
award and decree dated 29.03.2004 passed in O.P.No.524 of
1997 on the file of the on the file of Chairman, Motor Vehicles
Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-II Additional District Judge,
Ranga Reddy District. There shall be no order as to costs.
13. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand
closed.
______________________
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
09.11.2023
VRKS
NBK, J
MACMA_1974_2008
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
M.A.C.M.A.No.1974 OF 2008
09.11.2023
VRKS
