##PAGE1##

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. No.879of 2019

DATE: 29.01.2026

Between:

APSRTC, Rep. by its Managing Director,

Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

…..Appellant

AND

Sri Shaik Arshadand two others.

….Respondents

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the appellant/Corporation under Section

173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the award and decree

dated 23.09.2014 passed in M.V.O.P.No.458 of 2010 by the Additional

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Judge, Family Court-cum-IV

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad (hereinafter referred

as “the Tribunal”), whereby the Tribunal awarded total compensation

of Rs.1,04,789/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of

petition till the date of realization for the injuries sustained by the

respondent No.1-injured.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that on 18.12.2009 at about

19.00 hours, while the respondent No.1 was traveling as a passenger

2

from Nirmal to Adilabad in an APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP-28-Z-524,

and when the said bus reached near Kuptighat, the driver of the bus

drove it at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and

dashed a lorry bearing No.AP-36-W-953 coming from the opposite

direction. Due to which, the respondent No.1 sustained grievous

injuries, specifically a compound fracture of the Tibia, and was shifted

to the Government Hospital, Adilabad, and subsequently referred to

NIMS, Hyderabad, for further treatment. On a complaint, the Police,

Neradigonda, registered a case in Crime No.159 of 2009 for the

offences under Sections 304-A, 337, and 338 of the IPC against the

driver of the RTC bus. The respondent No.1 filed the claim petition

seeking compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by

him.

3. Before the Tribunal, the respondent No.3-Insurance Company

filed a counter denying the allegations and contending that the

accident occurred due to the negligence of the RTC bus driver. The

appellant-Corporation also filed a counter denying the manner of the

accident and the quantum of the claim. The Tribunal, upon evaluating

the oral testimony of PWs.1 and 2 and the documentary evidence

marked as Exs.A-1 to A-10, held that the accident occurred solely due

to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus.

Aggrieved by the findings on negligence and the quantum of

compensation, the appellant-Corporation preferred this appeal.

3

4. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-Corporation

vehemently argued that the Tribunal failed to see that there was no

negligence on the part of the RTC bus driver and that the accident

was occurred due to the negligent driving of the lorry driver. He

further contended that the Tribunal erred in assessing the age and

income of the injured without proper documentary evidence.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1

submitted that the Tribunal correctly appreciated the evidence on

record and granted just and reasonable compensation.

6. A perusal of the record reveals that the Tribunal, while

determining the issue of negligence, relied upon the evidence of PW.1,

who was an eyewitness to the accident, and the police records in

Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-2, which clearly indicated that the RTC bus driver

was at fault. The respondent-Corporation did not adduce any rebuttal

evidence to disprove these findings. Regarding the quantum of

compensation, the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,04,789/- under various

heads, including Rs.40,000/- for injury, shock, pain, and suffering;

Rs.29,789/- for hospital and medical expenses based on Exs.A-6 to A-

8 and A-10; Rs.15,000/- for transport, extra nourishment, and

attendant charges; and Rs.20,000/- for loss of earnings during the

period of treatment.

4

7. This Court, having considered the evidence of PW.2, the

orthopedic surgeon who treated the respondent No.1 for a compound

fracture of the left Tibia, finds that the medical expenses and the

period of rest were properly established. The findings of the Tribunal

are b