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

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 10746

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
V.SUJATHA
A.P.S.R.T.C. – Appellant
Versus
SETTIBATTULA ANANDA RAO – Respondent
MACMA 711/2025



APHC010351262025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3333]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 711 OF 2025 Between:

1. A.P.S.R.T.C., EPRESENTED BY ITS V.C AND M.D, REGIONAL MANAGER, APSRTC BUS STATION COMPLEX AMALAPURAM, E.G.DISTRICT. PIN 533201. APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT ...APPELLANT AND

1. SETTIBATTULA ANANDA RAO, S/O SURYA RAO, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, DOOR NO. 2-184, RAJUPALEM STREET, KOMMARAGIRI PATNAM VILLAGE ALLAVARAM MANDAL, E.G.DISTRICT (DIED).

2. SETTIBATTULA BABY, D/O SURYA RAO AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.

DOOR NO. 2-184, RAJUPALEM STREET, KOMMARAGIRI PATNAM VILLAGE ALLAVARAM MANDAL, E.G.DISTRICT.

3. SETTIBATTULA BAPUJI, S/O SURYA RAO, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, DOOR NO. 2-184, RAJUPALEM STREET, KOMMARAGIRI PATNAM VILLAGE, ALLAVARAM MANDAL, E.G.DISTRICT.

4. SETTIBATTULA MARIYAMMA, W/O LATE ANANDA RAO, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS. DOOR NO. 2-184, RAJUPALEM STREET, KOMMARAGIRI PATNAM VILLAGE, ALLAVARAM MANDAL, E.G.DISTRICT.

5. SETTIBATTULA SURESH, S/O LATE ANANDA RAO, AGED ABOUT

15 YEARS, NOW 21 YEARS, DOOR NO. 2-184, RAJUPALEM STREET, KOMMARAGIRI PATNAM VILLAGE, ALLAVARAM MANDAL, E.G. DISTRICT. (5TH RESPONDENT BEING MINOR AT THE TIME OF FILING OF MVOP REPRESENTED BY MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SETTIBALLI MARIYAMMA (R4).

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS

6. TOTTARAMUDI SRINIVASA RAO, S/O KONDAYYA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, BATNAVELLI VILLAGE AMALAPURAM MANDAL, E.G.DISTRICT 533 222 DRIVER OF APSRTC BUS BEARAING REGISTRATION NO. AP-28-Z-1091 RESPONDENT ...RESPONDENT(S):

Counsel for the Appellant:

1. K SRINIVASA PRASAD SC For APSRTC Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. SIVA PRASAD KATAKAMSETTY

2.

The Court made the following:

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 711 OF 2025 JUDGMENT:-

The APSRTC filed the present appeal challenging the order and decree dated 18.03.2025 passed in M.V.O.P.No.116 of 2019 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Amalapuram, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.7,97,800/- as against the claim of Rs.9,00,000/-, on account of the death of the Settibattula Veeraraju (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) in a motor accident that occurred on 31.12.2016.

2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the claimants is briefly as follows:

The Petitioners No. 1 and 3 are brothers and Petitioner No.2 is sister of the deceased. The deceased was aged 58 years, he was hale and healthy and was earning Rs. 12,000/- per month by doing coolie works prior to his death. On 31.12.2016 while the deceased was standing cautiously on the left side of the road at Bendamurilanka centre of Allavaam Mandal, at 11.00 p.m, the APSRTC Bus bearing Registration No. AP 28 Z 1091 being driven by Respondent No.1, while coming from Amalapuram side towards Odalarevu was driven rashly and negligently and at high speed without blowing horn, gave hit to the deceased due to which the deceased fell on the road, sustained severe injuries and died on the spot. The Allavaram Police registered a case in Crime No.1 of 2017 under Section 304-A of IPC against the driver of the RTC bus. Therefore, the Claimants filed a claim petition.

4. During pendency of the claim petition, the Petitioner No.1 died. The Petitioners No. 2 and 3 were impleaded as Petitioners No.4 and 5 being the Legal Representatives of deceased Petitioner No.1, who are wife and minor son.

5. Before the Tribunal, the Respondent No.1 remained exparte.

6. Respondent No.2/APSRTC filed a written statement denying the material averments made in the claim petition and inter alia contended that there was no rash and negligent act on the part of Respondent No.1 in driving the RTC bus, the road where the incident took place was rough in condition by having full of ditches and uneven and as such there was no

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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top