IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Date: 16.02.2026 Between:

The Managing Director, APSRTC, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and another. … Appellants AND Thota Santosh and two others … Respondents

JUDGMENT:

Aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 22.12.2015 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned order’) passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – I Additional District Judge, Nizamabad (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in M.V.O.P.No.483 of 2011, the appellants, who were arrayed as the respondent Nos.1 and 2 before the learned Tribunal, have preferred the present Appeal seeking to set aside the impugned order.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

I. BRIEF FACTS

3. The brief facts of the case as borne out from the record, are that the petitioner/claimant (respondent No.1 herein) filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the M.V.Act”), seeking compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- from the respondent Nos.1 to 4 for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident that occurred on 20.05.2011. It was pleaded that on 20.05.2011, while the claimant was proceeding on his motorcycle and reached the outskirts of Baridpur near Krishi Darshan, an RTC Bus bearing registration No. AP 11 Z 3432 coming from opposite direction, was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the car bearing registration No.AP 13 R 1440. Owning to the impact, the driver of the said car lost control and the car, in turn, dashed against the motorcycle of the petitioner. As a result thereof, the claimant sustained fracture injuries. Immediately, the claimant was shifted to Amrutha Laxmi Hospital, Nizamabad and from there, to Yashoda Hospital, Secunderabad, wherein he underwent surgeries as inpatient from 21.05.2011 to 03.06.2011. The claimant further took treatment at Shree Durga Hospital, Nanded, where Dr. Hari Prasad treated him from 08.07.2011 to 22.07.2011. The claimant alleged to have sustained substantial medical expenditure for his treatment and also severe pain and hardship. The claimant alleged to have remained bed-ridden for six months and sustained 100% permanent disability. A criminal case in Crime No.210 of 2011 was registered at Dichpalli Police Station for the offence under Section 337 of IPC against the driver of the offending vehicle. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the authorities of RTC and the respondent No.3 is the owner of the car, which was insured with respondent No.4. Hence, the claimant filed the claim petition against respondent Nos.1 to 4 seeking compensation.

4. Before the learned Tribunal, the respondent No.3 (owner of the car) remained exparte and whereas the respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed a common written statement. Respondent No.4 (insurance Company) filed a separate counter. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 specifically denied the injuries sustained by the claimant, the treatment said to have been taken by the claimant, age, avocation and income of the claimant. It was further contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the car, as such, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 alone were liable to pay the compensation. On the other hand, the respondent No.4/Insurance Company denied the averments of the petition as well as the averments of the counter filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2. It was further contended that the driver of the car was driving the car cautiously and that the RTC Bus dashed the car from behind.

II. EVIDENCE

5. On behalf of the petitioner, PW1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A24 were marked. On behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2, RW1 was examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked. On behalf of respondent No.4, its Executive (Legal), was examined as RW2, however, no documentary evidence was adduced.

6. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal awarded