IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO DATED: 18^th MARCH 2026 Between:

The APSRTC, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, Represented by its Managing Director.

... Appellant - Respondent And Chinthala Srinivas Reddy ... Respondent - Petitioner

JUDGMENT

1. This memorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the MV Act’) assailing the order passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs/STs (POA) Act cases cum Additional District and Sessions Judge) at Nalgonda (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in O.P.No.102 of 2011 dated 08.06.2015.

2. Appellant is the respondent and respondent is the petitioner in the O.P.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant – respondent submits that the learned Tribunal failed to see that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP-28-Z-3426 of Nalgonda Depot, ought not to have held that the corporation is liable to pay compensation as the accident has not occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle and erred in not considering that the respondent – petitioner drove the motor bike in rash and negligent manner and in the meanwhile a tractor bearing No.AP-24-J-3875 came across the road due to which the respondent – petitioner applied sudden breaks at the same time the Corporation bus coming from behind also applied breaks, due to which the respondent – petitioner sustained injuries in the accident. The Tribunal failed to consider that the driver of the tractor bearing No.AP-24-J-3875 is proper and necessary party to the claim petition, wrongly relied on Exs.A1, A3 and A4 to establish that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the crime vehicle, erred in awarding Rs.3,88,280/- towards medicines and treatment. The amount awarded under different heads are also on higher side, interest awarded is also excessive and prayed to allow the appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent – petitioner submits that the learned Tribunal has properly appreciated the facts of the case in right perspective, rightly awarded just compensation, no interference is called for and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

5. Respondent – petitioner has filed claim petition under Sections 140, 166 of MV Act read with Rule 455 of APMV Rules, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the accident.

6. Appellant – respondent filed counter and denied the manner in which the accident has taken place and also contended that it is the respondent-petitioner who is at fault and there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle.

7. The learned Tribunal has framed the issues and thereafter respondent – petitioner is examined as PW1, also examined PW2 – Dr.Chandra Mohan, PW3 – Dr.I.Kameshwar and got marked Exs.A1 to A13. Appellant – respondent did not adduce any evidence.

8. Appellant – respondent has filed the present appeal challenging the manner in which the accident has taken place and also challenged the quantum awarded by the Tribunal.

9. Insofar as the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle is concerned the learned Tribunal has elaborately discussed about the manner in which the accident has taken place in paragraph No.7 of the award and rightly held that it is the driver of the crime vehicle who drove the bus in rash and negligent manner and caused accident and answered the said issue in favour of the respondent – petitioner.

10. Insofar as the quantum is concerned though the respondent – petitioner contended that he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by doing agriculture and real estate business but the learned Tribunal has taken the income of the respondent – petitioner at Rs.4,000/- per month, arrived annual income at Rs.48,000/- (4,000 x 12), considered the evidence of PW2 and taken the disability of the respondent – petitioner a