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)(Tel) 2416

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY
The APSRTC – Appellant
Versus
Madire Ramulu – Respondent
MACMA 2305/2019



##PAGE1##

1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2305 and 2954 of 2019

DATE: 28.01.2026

M.A.C.M.A. No.2305 of 2019:

Between:

The APSRTC,

Musheerabad, Hyderabad,

Rep. by its General Manager

(presently at Pandit Nehru Bus station,

Vijayawada, Krishna District)

…..Appellant

AND

Madire Ramulu and another

….Respondents

M.A.C.M.A.No.2954 of 2019

Between:

Madire Ramulu and another

…..Appellants

AND

The APSRTC,

Musheerabad, Hyderabad,

Rep. by its General Manager

(presently at Pandit Nehru Bus station,

Vijayawada, Krishna District) and another

….Respondents

COMMON JUDGMENT

M.A.C.M.A.No.2305 of 2019 is filed by the APSRTC, under

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the judgment

and decree dated 30-11-2018 passed by the Chairman, Motor

##PAGE2##

2

Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge at Nalgonda

(hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in M.V.O.P.No.679 of 2016,

whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.2,58,400/-

together with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of

petition till the date of the ward with subsequent interest @ 6% per

annum from the date of award till the date of realization in favour of

the claimant, Madire Ramulu, for the injuries sustained by him in a

road accident, whereas the claimant filed M.A.C.M.A.No.2954 of 2019

seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

.

2 For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be

referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 11-07-2016, at about 9:00

a.m., the claimant was riding a TVS Jupiter moped bearing

No.TS-05-EM-1068 from Pylon Colony towards Nellikal Primary

School and when he reached the outskirts of Hill Colony, near

Vinayaka Temple in Nalgonda District, an APSRTC bus bearing No.AP-

29-Z-1501 coming from Hyderabad side towards Macherla side,

collided with the motor cycle, due to which the claimant sustained

multiple grievous injuries. The claimant was initially taken to

Government Hospital, Nagarjunasagar, and subsequently referred to

Max Cure Hospitals, Madapur, Hyderabad, where he was treated as

an in-patient from 11.07.2016 to 18.07.2016. Stating that the

##PAGE3##

3

claimant incurred substantial medical expenses during treatment, he

filed the aforesaid claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- against

the APSRTC (the owner of the bus) and the driver of the APSRTC bus

i.e., respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively.

4. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.2 remained ex parte.

Respondent No.1-APSRTC, while contesting the petition, denied

negligence on the part of the bus driver and alleged that the claimant

himself drove into the bus in a rash manner. The APSRTC not only

challenged the maintainability of the petition but also raised issues of

contributory negligence and non-joinder of necessary parties and

sought for dismissal of the petition.

5. The Tribunal, on appreciation of oral and documentary

evidence, found negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and

awarded Rs.2,58,400/- with interest @ 7% per annum from the date

of filing the claim to the date of award and @ 6% per annum

thereafter. While the APSRTC preferred MACMA.No.2305 of 2019

challenging liability and quantum, the claimant filed MACMA.No.2954

of 2019 seeking enhancement of compensation.

6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the APSRTC contended

that the Tribunal erred in holding that the accident occurred due to

rash and negligent driving of the bus driver; that there was no

##PAGE4##

4

negligence on the part of the bus; that the accident was caused due to

the rash and negligent driving by the claimant riding the motorcycle;

and that the Tribunal failed to consider that the owner and insurer of

the motorcycle were not made parties, resulting in non-joinder of

necessary parties. Learned Standing Counsel further contended that

the Tribunal erred in awarding various heads of compensation

including medical expenses, transp

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