IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3367]

WEDNESDAY ,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 385/2016

Between:

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

...APPELLANT

AND

Nuzhat Jahan Another and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Appellant: N VASUDEVA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent(S): P PRABHAKAR RAO The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-X Additional District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam (hereinafter called as 'the Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.421 of 2011 dated 04.04.2015.

2. The appellant is the A.P.S.R.T.C./owner of Bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 2032 (hereinafter referred to as "crime bus"). The respondent No.1 herein is the sister of one Mir Abed Hussain (hereinafter referred to as "deceased") and respondent No.2 is the driver of the said crime bus.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the tribunal.

4. The case of the claimant, in the petition before the Tribunal is that:

i). On 04.03.2011 at about 08.00 p.m., the deceased went to the family function and while returning home, died in the accident near Saleem Function Hall, A.C.Guards, Nampally, Hyderabad due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime bus by the 1st respondent.

ii). Being dependent, petitioner claimed compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- against the driver and owner of the crime bus.

5. The respondent No.2 filed counter denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the claimant is not the dependent on the earnings of the deceased and that

the accident occurred not due to the negligence of the 1st respondent and thereby, prays to dismiss the petition.

6. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material:

• "1.Whether the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 11Z 2032 in the motor accident dated 04.03.2011?
• 2.Whether the petitioner is entitled for any amount towards compensation? and
• 3.To what relief?"

7. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimant, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.3 were exhibited. On behalf of the respondents, no oral and documentary evidence was adduced.

8. On the material, the Tribunal, having come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the crime bus by its driver and that the petitioner is dependent on the earnings of the deceased, held that the

claimant is entitled for the compensation of Rs.1,40,000/-, with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

9. It is against the said award; the present appeal was preferred by the appellant/APSRTC.

10. Heard Sri Aravala Ramarao, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant/APSRTC and Sri R.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the 1st respondent/claimant.

11. Sri Aravala Ramarao, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant/APSRTC submits that there is no material on record to say that the accident occurred was due to the negligence on the part of the 1st respondent; that no eyewitness was examined by the petitioner to prove the negligence; that the claimant is not the dependent on the earnings of the deceased and thereby, prays to consider the present appeal.

12. Sri R.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the 1st respondent/claimant submits that the Tribunal after

considering the material placed on record, rightly concluded that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the crime bus and the claimant is entitled for compensation being dependent on the earnings of the deceased; that there are no grounds urged by the appellant to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal and thereby, prays to dismiss the appeal.

13. Now, the only point that arises for determination is "whether the award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside, if so, to what extent?"

14. POINT:

It is not in dispute about the death of the deceased in the accident. As could be seen from the material on record on 04.03.20211 there was an accident occurred and the deceased while proceeding from Saleem Function Hall, A.C.Guards, Nampally, the crime bus driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner dashed against him, resulted, the deceased died on the spot.

15. On this point, the Tribunal discussed at length at paragraph Nos.9 and 10 of its order and categorically found that there is negligence on the part of the driver of the crime bus. Even P.W.2 is not the eyewitness to the incident, the documentary evidence adduced by the petitioner i.e., Exs.A.1 to A.3, which are not in dispute, is sufficient to prove the negligence on the part of the driver of crime bus.

16. On the other hand, the respondents did not adduce any oral and documentary evidence to prove its contention. Admittedly, the driver of the crime bus, who is best witness to speak about the incident, served notice before the Tribunal, but he remained exparte and did not enter into the witness box to say that the accident occurred was not due to his negligence and he is best witness to speak about negligence.

17. Thereby, viewing from any angle, the contention raised by the appellant that the accident occurred was not due to any negligence on the part of the driver of the crime bus has no legs to stand.

18. As far as the compensation awarded to the petitioner is concerned, the Tribunal after thoroughly calculating the earnings of the deceased, when claim is made for Rs.3,00,000/-, rightly awarded an amount of Rs.1,40,000/ towards compensation. It is also to be noted that as per the claimant, being sister and deserted by her husband, she is dependent on the earnings of the deceased. To rebut the same, the respondents did not produce any material on record. As such, this Court is of the considered opinion that the award passed by the Tribunal warrants no interference. Thus, this appoint is answered accordingly.

19. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated.

Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed.

______________________ JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS

Date: 14.08.2024 Krs

87

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS

M.A.C.M.A.No.385 of 2016

DATE: 14.08.2024

Krs