MACMA/299/2019 of AP STATE ROAD Vs BALLELA ASHOK on 28 June 2026

JUDGMENT:-

1. The present appeal is preferred by A.P.S.R.T.C aggrieved by order dated 24.09.2018 in M.V.O.P.No.409 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal-Cum- Family Court-Additional District Judge, Ananthapuram.

2. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as they were referred in the claim petition.

3. The petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing petition under section 140 and 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and the rules made there under, seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident that occurred on 10.07.2013 in which the bus belonging to the appellant bearing registration No AP 11 Z 1849 was involved.

4. It was case of the petitioner that he was aged 19 years as on the date of the accident and was working as JCB operator and he was getting Rs.20,000/- per month as salary. It

TCDS,J MACMA.No.299 of 2019

was further case of the petitioner that on 10.07.2013 while he was going on his motorcycle to meet the owner of JCB, the offending bus came in rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the motorcycle. As a result of which the petitioner fell down on the road and suffered fracture to his right leg, right foot and bleeding injury to his right knee. He was taken to the Jeevan Jyothi Hospital and later shifted to Government General Hospital, Anantapuram for better treatment. A case in Crime.No.74 of 2013 under section 337 Indian Penal Code 1860, was registered on the file of the Narpala Police Station. Later the same was investigated into and charge sheet was filed against the respondent No.2/driver of the offending bus. In view of the injuries sustained by him, the petitioner approached the Tribunal seeking to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- under various heads.

5. The respondent No.1 filed counter affidavit stating that the accident was occurred due to negligence of the petitioner himself, in as much as he attempted to over take the bus from the left side and in the said process the bike got skided and the petitioner fell down on the road. It was

TCDS,J MACMA.No.299 of 2019

specifically pleaded that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending bus. It was further stated that a false complaint has been registered against respondent No.2, so as to claim compensation. It was further averred that the petitioner received only simple injuries and he has taken treatment in Rajiv Aarogyasri scheme for free of cost. It was also pleaded that the claim made by the petitioner was excessive.

6. A separate counter-affidavit was filed by the respondent No.2 stating that the petitioner drove the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner. It was further stated that he came on extreme right side of the road and thereby the accident has taken place. It was further pleaded that there was contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner himself and therefore the respondent No.2 is not liable to pay any compensation as claimed by the petitioner. Inter-alia it was also contended that the petitioner had no valid driving license. With the above pleadings the respondent No.2 prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

7. In order to prove the case of the petitioner, the petitioner himself was examined as PW.1. He also examined

TCDS,J MACMA.No.299 of 2019

PW’s 2 & 3, doctors who treated him. The petitioner had marked documents in Exhibits A1 to A5. Copies of documents were marked in Exhibits C1 & C2 through PW’s 2 & 3.

8. On the other hand the respondent/driver of the offending bus was examined as RW1, and no documentary evidence is marked. Considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence put forth by the parties, the Tribunal by order under challenge partly allowed the claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs.1,45,000/- under various heads. Aggrieved by the same the present appeal is preferred by A.P.S.R.T.C.

9. Heard, Sri.Aravala Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Appellant. Despite service of notice, there is no appearance for respondent Nos.2 & 3. Perused the material available on record.

10. The counsel for the appellant would strenuously contend that there was no negligence on part of the driver of the offending bus. In order to substantiate his contention, the appellant examined the driver of the bus as RW1, who deposed in tune with the averments made in the counter-

TCDS,J MACMA.No.299 of 2019

affidavit. Further the perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the driver of the offending bus, it is categorically averred that the accident was occurred as the petitioner drove the motorcycle on the extreme right side of the road and thereby the accident was occurred. On a conjoint reading of the averments made in the respective counter-affidavit filed by respondent Nos. 1 & 2, it can be said that they have taken contradictory stands. As already noted Supra except making bald averments in the counter-affidavit, nothing is placed on record to substantiate the same. Per Contra the petitioner has filed copies of F.I.R and Charge Sheet which were marked as Exhibit A1 & A3. A perusal of the contents of the above documents would go show that the accident was occurred in view of rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.2/driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C bus. Further if at all the petitioner also responsible for occurrence of the accident, nothing prevented the respondent/appellant to give complaint against the petitioner for his negligence. Admittedly no such complaint was given against him. In such circumstances, the contention of the counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted and the same is here by rejected.

TCDS,J MACMA.No.299 of 2019

11. Coming to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, the petitioner in order to prove his case, has examined Dr.SriRamulu and Dr.K.V.Mohan Reddy as PW’s 2 & 3 respectively. A perusal of the evidence of PW2 would go to show that the petitioner sustained two injuries, viz Bruis over the right leg measuring 2 X 4 cm and the second injury is swelling of right leg and fracture of Tibia. Further the petitioner also marked copies of case sheet and the X-rays in Exhibits A4 & A5 which support the evidence of PW.2. Though PW.2 was cross examined at length, nothing was elicited to disprove his evidence. Further the petitioner also marked documents of discharge summary and case sheet through PW.2. On over all consideration of the case, the Tribunal had awarded compensation of Rs.1,45,000/- together with the interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Though the counsel for the appellant would submit that the compensation awarded was excessive, this Court feels that the claimant has filed ample evidence on record to prove his case.

TCDS,J MACMA.No.299 of 2019

12. Further, as already noted Supra, the appellant has not produced any material to disbelieve the evidence of the petitioner. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the order under challenge, accordingly the appeal is dismissed. It is further directed that the appellant shall deposit the compensation awarded by the Tribunal within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any shall stand closed.

________________ T.C.D.SEKHAR, J

29.06.2026 CMK

Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No

TCDS,J

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR

MACMA NO.299 of 2019 29.06.2026

CMK