SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(AP) 63

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J.
Vannam Singaraiah S/o Ramaiah - Appellant 
Vs.
Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) - Respondent 
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 45 OF 2015 And 1247 of 2016
Decided On : 11-03-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : CHALLA AJAY KUMAR
For the Respondent: SANISETTY VENKATESWARLU SC FOR APSRTC

The court established that in cases of composite negligence, a victim should not bear any contributory negligence and is entitled to full compensation from the negligent parties.

Headnote:

(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 166 and 168 - Claim for compensation arising from a motor vehicle accident - The claimant sought enhancement of compensation and questioned apportionment of liability between the APSRTC and the rider of the two-wheeler - The MACT awarded Rs.3,02,906/-; the claimant appealed for higher compensation. (Paras 3, 10, 38)

(B) Negligence - The court found that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the APSRTC bus, rejecting the argument of contributory negligence by the rider of the two-wheeler - The MACT's apportionment of negligence was deemed incorrect. (Paras 25, 26)

(C) Compensation - The court awarded a total compensation of Rs.7,40,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a., emphasizing the need for just compensation in light of the claimant's injuries and loss of earning capacity. (Paras 38, 40)

Facts of the case:
The claimant, a coolie, suffered grievous injuries leading to amputation of his right leg in an accident involving an APSRTC bus. He claimed compensation for medical expenses and loss of income. (Paras 6, 10)

Findings of Court:
The court found the MACT's apportionment of negligence and compensation inadequate, awarding a total of Rs.7,40,000/- to the claimant. (Paras 38, 40)

Issues: The main issues included the determination of negligence in the accident and the appropriate quantum of compensation. (Paras 14, 25)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the claimant was a victim of composite negligence and should not bear any contributory negligence, thus entitled to full compensation from the APSRTC. (Paras 22, 24)

Result: The appeal by the claimant was allowed, and the appeal by APSRTC was dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for both sides.

2. Vannam Singaraiah, claimant in M.V.O.P.No.138 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-the XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge’s Court, Nandigama, Krishna District [‘for short ‘MACT’], is the appellant in M.A.C.M.A.No.45 of 2015 and Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation [for short APSRTC], the respondent before the learned MACT is the appellant in M.A.C.M.A.No.1247 of 2016.

3. Both the appeals are arising out of the decree and order dated 21.10.2014 passed in the same M.V.O.P. The claimant is seeking enhancement of compensation and also questioning the apportionment of liability between the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 11Z 4287 [hereinafter referred as ‘offending vehicle’], and Two Wheeler/TVS Moped bearing No.AP 16 BP 4211, on which he was travelling as pillion rider and reduction of the compensation amount on that ground.

4. The respondent APSRTC is questioning the quantification of compensation as well as apportionment of negligence @75% on the APSRTC where there is involvement of two vehicles.

5. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be herein after referred to as claimant and the respondent as and how they are arrayed before the learned MACT, in the impugned proceedings.

Case of the claimants, in brief, is that –

6. [i] On 27.05.2011 at about 10 hours, when the clamant was traveling as a pillion rider on a two-wheeler i.e., TVS Moped bearing No.AP 16 BP 4211, reached near Dasupalam village, Vatsavai Police Station, Krishna District, ‘offending vehicle’, came in a rash and negligent manner in opposite direction and dashed the bike, causing the accident, due to which the claimant sustained injuries and was shifted to Government Hospital, Jaggaiahpet.

[ii] A case in Crime No.44 of 2011 was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle and he was subsequently charge sheeted.

[iii] The claimant was working as a coolie earning Rs.6000/- per month, suffered grievous injuries on right tibia and fibula and right femur, his leg was amputated, he has undergone treatment as inpatient for one month, taken bed rest for six months, incurred medical expenditure of Rs.1,00,000/-, unable to perform his duty as coolie, hence entitled for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.

7. Case of the respondent, in brief, is that:-

[i] There was no negligence on the part of the driver of the APSRTC bus. Rider of two-wheeler is responsible for the accident; age, occupation, income, disability, etc., pleaded by the petitioner are not correct and they shall be proved strictly. The driver of the bus gave report to the concerned Police and the driver as well as passengers of the bus got the claimant shifted to hospital. In any event the quantum of compensation claimed is excessive.

8. On the strength of pleadings, learned MACT settled the following issues for trial:

1) Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in a Motor vehicle accident occurred on 27.05.2011 at about 10.00 hours, near Dasupalem stage, Vatsavai due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Crime APSRTC bus bearing No.AP11 Z 4287?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation as prayed for? If so, from whom and to what amount?

3) To what relief?

Evidence before the learned MACT:

9. [i] Claimant has taken witness stand as PW1, stated about the accident, negligence, injury sustained by him, treatment undergone. Doctors, Mr.C.V.Dasaraiah and Dr.M.J.Naidu, who treated the claimant was examined as PW2 and PW3. They stated about the treatment given to the claimant.

[ii] On behalf of the respondent, G. Rambabu, driver of the bus was examined as RW.1.

[iii] Claimant relied on the documents, Ex.A1-F.I.R., Ex.A2-Wound Certificate issued by Dr. M.J. Naidu. Ex.A3- Chargr Sheet, Ex.A4-Disability Certificate, Ex.A5- Bunch of Medical Bills Rs. 71,051/-, Ex.A6 - Bunch of Medical Bills for Rs.14,255/-, Ex.A7- Bunch of receipts of Blood Bank etc., Ex.A8-Discharge Summary, Ex.A9- X-


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top