APHC010817622014 2025:APHC:3284 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3367]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NOS: 4152/2014 and 634/2016 Between in M.A.C.M.A.No.4152 of 2014:

Gadidala Rama Devi and Others ...APPELLANT(S)

AND Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport ...RESPONDENT Corporation Between in M.A.C.M.A.No.634 of 2016:

The Ap State Road Transport Corporation ...APPELLANT(S)

AND Gadidala Rama Devi and Others ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant(S) in M.A.C.M.A.No.4152 of 2014:

D KODANDARAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent in M.A.C.M.A.No.4152 of 2014:

Aravala Ramarao The Court made the following:

COMMON JUDGMENT:

These appeals are directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge at Kadapa (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.231 of 2012 dated 30.07.2014.

2. Since these appeals arisen out of same accident and as the material facts are common, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. M.A.C.M.A.No.4152 of 2014 is preferred by the claimants, who are wife, children and mother of one Gadidala Ramanaiah (hereinafter called as ‘the deceased’) respectively, before the Tribunal for enhancement of compensation. The respondent is the owner/APSRTC of the Bus bearing No.AP 11Z

1591 (hereinafter referred as “crime bus”).

4. M.A.C.M.A.No.634 of 2016 is preferred by the APSRTC/owner of the crime bus.

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

6. The case of the claimants, in the petition before the Tribunal is that:

i). On 14.10.2011 at about 07.45 a.m., while the deceased along with his elder brother proceeding as passengers in an auto bearing No.AP 04 Y 5137, when their auto was crossing dharga of Sibyala village, situated on T.Sundupalli to Rayachoty main road, the crime bus driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, dashed the said auto, resulted the deceased sustained fatal injuries. While undergoing treatment, the deceased was succumbed to injuries on the same day at about 08.10 a.m.

ii). The deceased was aged about 32 years, doing cultivation and earning rupees one lakh per annum. Being dependents, they claimed compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- against the APSRTC/owner of the said crime bus.

7. The respondent/APSRTC filed written statement denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the auto, but not driver of the crime bus; that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties i.e., owner and insurer of the auto; that the compensation claimed by the claimants is excessive, thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition.

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

“1.Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No.AP.11.Z.1591, resulting the death of the deceased by name Gadidala Ramanaiah on

14.10.2011?

2.Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so to what amount and from whom? and

3.To what relief?”

9. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, PW.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.6. No oral and documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondent.

10. On the material, the Tribunal, having concluded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime bus by its driver, held that claimants are entitled for the compensation of Rs.6,93,000/-, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondent, for the death of the deceased in the accident.

11. It is against the said order; these appeals are preferred by the claimants and APSRTC respectively.

12. Heard Sri Rasineni Harish, learned counsel representing Sri D.Kodandarami Reddy, learned counsel f