Andhra Pradesh High Court
MACMA/2098/2006 of PENUMATCHA TAGORE RAJU Vs V.APPA RAO & ANR on 9 July 2026
for orders : Date of pronouncement : 10.07.2026 Date of uploading : APHC010376032006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] FRIDAY, THE 10th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL
Date of reserved for orders :
Date of pronouncement : 10.07.2026
Date of uploading :
APHC010376032006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE 10th DAY OF JULY 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2098/2006
Between:
PENUMATCHA TAGORE RAJU, S/O.VENKATA NARSIMHA RAJU
R/O.KOTTURU, H/O.PATAVALA VILLAGE, TALLAREVU MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
AND
1. V APPA RAO ANR, S/O.NARAYANA RAO, HINDU DRIVER OF RTC
BUS BEARING NO.AP 10 Z 2193, APSRTC DEPOT R/O.TUNI, EAST
GODAVARI DISTRICT.
2. THE
AP
STATE
ROAD
TRANSPORT
CORPORATION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR THE MANAGING
DIRECTOR, AP STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, MUSHEERABAD, CROSS ROADS, HYDERABAD.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Court.
Counsel for the Appellant:
JOSYULA BHASKARA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. K SRINIVASA PRASAD SC For APSRTC
2. B G UMA DEVI
The Court made the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT:
1. The present appeal arises out of the award dated 20.07.20051 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Kakinada2, in M.V.O.P.No.154 of 20023.
2. The appellant is the claimant, who is son of one Penumatcha Narasimha Raju4, before the Tribunal. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the driver and owner/APSRTC of the RTC Bus bearing No.AP 10Z 21935.
3. The present appeal is preferred by the claimant against the finding of the Tribunal that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties i.e., all the legal heirs of the deceased, thereby, the claim application is dismissed.
4. Heard Sri J.Bashkara Rao, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and Ms.B.G.Uma Devi, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC.
1hereinafter called as ‘Impugned award’ 2 hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’ 3 hereinafter called as ‘Claim petition’ 4 hereinafter called as ‘deceased’ 5 hereinafter called as ‘crime bus’
5. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant would submit that the sisters of the claimant are not necessary parties to the petition and the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation to the claimant for the death of the deceased. He further submits that if the Court opined that they are proper and necessary parties to the claim petition, the claimant would have take steps to implead them as parties, thereby, prays to consider the present appeal.
6. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for the APSRTC submits that the daughters of the deceased, who are admittedly also legal representatives of the deceased, are not shown as parties, due to which the Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim application, thereby, the Court may pass appropriate orders.
7. Having regard to the above submissions and on perusal of the record, it is categorical that the petitioner is not shown the daughters of the deceased either as claimants or respondents. If they are not come forward to seek compensation for the death of the deceased, he would have shown them as respondents to proceed with the matter, but he did not do so. However, when the Tribunal gave categorically findings that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.1/driver of the crime bus, resulting death of the deceased, without assessing the compensation entitled by the claimant, came to the conclusion that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
8. In that view, it is very much required to remand the matter to the Tribunal for assessment of the compensation entitled by the claimant after impleading all the proper and necessary parties.
9. Accordingly, the present M.A.C.M.A. is allowed by setting aside the order dated 20.07.2005 passed in M.V.O.P.No.154 of 2002 by the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Kakinada. Consequently, the matter is remand to the Tribunal by giving liberty to the claimant to implead his sisters, who are daughters of the deceased. Further directed the Tribunal to dispose of the matter within three (3) months from the date of impelad of all the necessary parties by the appellant/claimant, since it an old case of the year, 2002. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed.
________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 10.07.2026 Krs
THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
M.A.C.M.A.No.2098 of 2006
( JUDGMENT )
DATE: 10.07.2026
Krs