IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.3475 OF 2014 DATED THE 10^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 Between:

The APSRTC, represented by its Depot Manager, Puttaparthi Depot, Ananathapur District and another … Appellants And S. Rajitha ... Respondent

JUDGMENT:

1. This Memorandum of Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter called as MV Act, 1988) assailing the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-Additional District Judge, Nizamabad in M.V.O.P.No.594 of 2010 dated 28.01.2014.

2. Appellants herein are the respondents and the respondent herein is the petitioner in M.V.O.P.No.594 of 2010.

3.1. Respondent-petitioner has filed claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act, claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-, on account of the injuries sustained by her in a accident.

3.2. On 03.07.2010, respondent-petitioner was travelling in Toofan vehicle bearing registration No.AP-28-B-4628 along with her family members and when they reached the limits of PS Kondapur at 01.00 a.m., one APSRTC bus bearing No.AP28Z3948 of Puttaparthi Depot being driven in rash and negligent manner dashed Toofan vehicle due to which she received grievous injuries.

3.3. On the complaint, PS Kondapur has registered a case in Crime No.37 of 2010 under Sections 337 and 338 of IPC. As on the date of the accident, respondent-petitioner was aged about 23 years and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by working as a tutor. Due to the accident, respondent-petitioner’s right leg got amputated and she became dependant on others for her future.

4. Appellants-respondents filed counter in the O.P and denied the manner in which the accident has taken place and also denied the age and avocation of the respondent-petitioner and prayed to dismiss the O.P.

5. Learned Tribunal has framed the following issues:

1) Whether the accident occurred on 03.07.2010 at about

01.00 am is due to rash and negligent driving of APSRTC bus No.AP28Z3948 driven by its driver?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitle to claim compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?

3) To what relief?

6. Respondent-petitioner is examined as PW-1, examined PW2- Dr. L. Ramulu and PW3-Mr.G. Murali and got marked Ex.A1 to A13. Appellants-respondents did not lead evidence.

7. Learned Tribunal after going through the material on record has allowed the OP filed by the respondent-petitioner and awarded compensation of Rs.9,72,979/- with interest at 7.5% per annum payable by the appellants-respondents jointly and severally.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants-respondents submits that the learned Tribunal has grossly erred in holding that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of RTC bus bearing No.AP28Z3948 at Puttaparthi Depot, erred in awarding compensation of Rs.9,72,979/- with interest at 7.5% per annum and also erred in relying on the evidence of PW2-Dr. L. Ramulu and prayed to set aside the award passed by learned Tribunal.

9. Learned counsel for respondent-petitioner submits that the learned Tribunal has rightly appreciated the contentions raised by the parties thereon and rightly allowed the OP, no interference is called for and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

10. Heard learned counsels on record and perused the material.

11. Now the point for consideration is: whether the award passed by the learned Tribunal in M.V.O.P.No.594 of 2010 dated

28.01.2014 suffers from any perversity or illegality, if so, does it requires interference of this Court?

12. Appellants - respondents have challenged the manner in which the accident has occurred and also the compensation.

13. Respondent-petitioner filed her evidence affidavit which is in consonance with the claim application. In her cross-examination, she stated that she was sitting in the back seat, after the accident, they woke up and there was traffic jam. She denied the suggestion that bus driver was not at fau