The Apsrtc vs Posani Madhuraiah , Madhunaiah
2025 Latest Caselaw 5489 Tel

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 5489 Tel
Judgement Date : 15 September, 2025

Telangana High Court

The Apsrtc vs Posani Madhuraiah , Madhunaiah on 15 September, 2025

                                  1



      THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

                   M.A.C.M.A.NO.579 OF 2021

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the RTC, aggrieved by the Order and

Decree dated 01.10.2014 in M.V.O.P.No.741 of 2012 passed by the

Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III

Additional District Judge, Karimnagar (for short "the Tribunal")

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to

as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal is that on

07.05.2011 the petitioner along with his family went to

Sulthanabad in an auto and got down in the bus stand at about

18:30 hours to go to Godavarikhani and that while the petitioner

was going to the bus stand, one RTC bus bearing No.AP-11-Z-217

coming from Godavarikhani being driven by respondent No.1 in a

rash and negligent manner at a high speed, dashed the petitioner

from behind, as a result the petitioner sustained crush injury to

his left leg and other bleeding injuries. Immediately, he was shifted

to Aditya Orthocare Hospital and incurred huge medical expenses.

Thus, he claimed a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-.

4. The respondent No.1 remained ex-parte.

ETD,J MACMA No.579_2021

5. The respondent No.2 has filed counter denying the

averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the

accident age, avocation and income of the petitioner. It is further

contended that there is no negligence of the bus driver and that the

accident occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner and thus

submitted that they are not liable to pay any compensation.

6. Based on the above pleadings, trial Court has framed the

following issues for trial:-

1. Whether the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle i.e., APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP-11-

Z-217 driven by its driver?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?

3. To what relief?

7. To prove his case, petitioner got examined PWs 1 & 2 and got

marked Exs.A1 to A13. On behalf of the respondents, RW1 was

examined.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a

compensation of Rs.2,74,000/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the

present appeal is preferred by the RTC.

9. Heard the submissions of Sri N. Chandra Shekar, learned

Standing Counsel for TSRTC and Sri Ramachander Rao

Vemuganti, learned counsel for respondent No.1.

ETD,J MACMA No.579_2021

10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the

accident occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner when he

tried to cross the running bus to reserve his seat, and that there is

no negligence of RTC driver. He further argued that without there

being any income proof the tribunal has assessed the monthly

income to be Rs.5,000/- and has also granted huge amounts

under various heads. He therefore, prayed to reduce the

compensation.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has

submitted that the RTC driver has admitted his guilt in his cross

examination before the tribunal and stated that he has paid fine.

He further submitted that the accident occurred only due to the

rash and negligence of the bus driver and therefore, prayed to

uphold the orders passed by the tribunal.

11. In view of the above rival contentions, the points that arise

for consideration in this Appeal are as follows:-

1. Whether there was any contributory negligence on part of the petitioner in the occurrence of accident?

2. Whether the compensation granted by the tribunal is just and reasonable?

3. Whether the order and decree of the tribunal need any interference?

4 To what relief ?

ETD,J MACMA No.579_2021

12. Point No.1:

a) The contention of the appellant counsel is that the accident

occurred due to the sole negligence of the petitioner.

b) The contents of the charge sheet reveal that it is filed against

the driver of RTC bus and the recitals of the charge sheet are that

the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the

RTC bus bearing No.AP-11-Z-217 by its driver as it dashed the

petitioner who was going to the Godavarikhani bus stand resulting

in crush injury to the left leg. RW1/the driver of RTC Bus was

examined before the tribunal and it is elicited during his cross

examination that he admitted his guilt in the criminal court and

paid fine. The contention of the appellant counsel is that the said

admission cannot be taken into consideration as the criminal

proceeding shall not have any binding on this case. PW1 is the

injured witness. His evidence also is of utmost importance.

Considering facts and circumstances of the case, the evidence of

PW1 and based on the recitals of charge sheet, it is held that the

accident occurred due to the rash and negligence of the RTC driver

and that there is no negligence of the petitioner herein.

Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

ETD,J MACMA No.579_2021

13. Point No.2:-

a) The petitioner is stated to have sustained grievous injures

i.e., crush injury to his left leg and was admitted into hospital for

treatment of his injury i.e., Grade-III compound fracture. The

medical certificate/Ex.A3 reveals the said injury sustained by the

petitioner. Ex.A5 is the disability certificate issued by the medical

board showing that he sustained 15% of disability in the accident

and he has also filed a bunch of medical prescriptions under Ex.A6

eliciting that he underwent continuous treatment and had to

purchase several medicines. The bills filed under Ex.A7 are

supported by the prescriptions under Ex.A6. The discharge

summaries of Aditya Ortho Care Hospital are filed under Ex.A8

and A9 which reveal that the petitioner was admitted on

07.05.2011 and was discharged on 22.05.2011 and on the second

occasion he was again admitted on 28.11.2012 and discharged on

29.11.2012 and thereafter, he went for follow up treatment many a

times.

b) PW2/Dr. V. Chandra Shekar, is an Orthopedic Surgeon in

Aditya Hospital, his evidence reveals that the petitioner was treated

for fracture of his left leg. The above evidence reveals the details of

the treatment underwent by the petitioner, which also shows that ETD,J MACMA No.579_2021

he must have suffered acute pain and suffering during the said

period.

c) The Tribunal has awarded reasonable amounts under the

heads of pain and suffering to an extent of Rs.25,000/-,

Rs.30,000/- towards transportation and extra-nourishment and

Rs.84,539/- towards the medical bills submitted by the petitioner.

Further, his earnings were assessed as Rs.5,000/- per month and

functional disability is assessed as 15% and has awarded

Rs.1,35,000/- towards loss of future earnings occurred due to the

disability and hence has arrived at a compensation of

Rs.2,74,000/- which is found to be just and reasonable.

Point No.2 is answered accordingly.

14. Point No.3:-

In view of the finding arrived at Point No.1, there is no need

to interfere with the order and decree passed by the Tribunal and

therefore, the same is upheld.

Point No.3 is answered accordingly.

15. Point No.4:-

In the result, the appeal is dismissed upholding the Order

and Decree dated 01.10.2014 in M.V.O.P.No.741 of 2012 passed by ETD,J MACMA No.579_2021

the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III

Additional District Judge, Karimnagar. No costs.