Case Note & Summary
The litigation arose from a motor accident claim. The appellants, who were the claimants before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District Judge (FTC), Chittoor, filed M.V.O.P.No.7 of 2007 under Section 166(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- for the death of one Eswaramma. The respondents included the owner of the tipper lorry, its insurer, and the Depot Manager of APSRTC. The accident occurred on 12.09.2002 at about 06:15 p.m. when the deceased boarded an APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 09 Z 7964 to go to Ponnai to attend a function. Near M.M.N. Nursery Garden on Chittoor-Puttur Road, a tipper lorry bearing No.AP 03 T 3744 came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the bus. The deceased sustained serious injuries and was treated at Government Head Quarters Hospital, Chittoor as an inpatient for three days, then at Bindu Nursing Home, and again at Government Head Quarters Hospital for four or five days. She died on 31.01.2003. A criminal case in Crime No.111 of 2002 was registered and ended in conviction of the tipper lorry driver in C.C.No.58 of 2003 on admission of guilt under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC. The claimants asserted that all of them were dependents and legal heirs of the deceased. They contended the deceased was aged 55 years, was selling milk and attending agricultural work, and earning Rs.3,000/- per month. The insurer of the tipper lorry denied negligence, contended that the bus driver did not follow traffic rules, and disputed age, occupation, income, dependency, and causal link between accident and death. APSRTC contended that the accident occurred solely due to the tipper lorry driver's negligence, that the injuries were simple and did not lead to death, and that claimants residing separately were not dependents. Evidence included P.W.1 (claimant No.5) speaking about relationship and deceased's occupation/income; P.W.2, an eye witness who travelled with the deceased and stated that the tipper lorry driver was responsible; P.W.3, a neighbour who spoke about income; P.W.4 and P.W.5, medical witnesses who described injuries and opined that injury No.1 was grievous and due to fat embolism could cause death; and P.W.6, Medical Superintendent, who deposed about second-time admission and cerebrovascular accident (CVA), stating that CVA can occur in any elderly person and cannot be related to accident. R.W.1, the tipper lorry driver, stated that the bus tried to overtake a tractor and dashed the tipper lorry. The legal issues involved whether the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim; whether the death was caused by accident injuries or unrelated CVA; whether claimants were dependents; and liability of owner, insurer, and APSRTC. The available judgment text does not include the court's final analysis, ratio decidendi, or decision.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim petition; whether the death of Eswaramma was caused by the injuries sustained in the road accident; whether the claimants are dependents entitled to compensation; and whether the owner, insurer, and APSRTC are liable to pay compensation.
Case Details
M.A.C.M.A. No. 69 of 2012
S V Muni Reddy (Appellants); N Mohan Krishna, Aravala Rama Rao (SC for APSRTC KKAC), T S Rayalu (Respondents)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Motor accident compensation claim appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against dismissal of M.V.O.P.No.7 of 2007 by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.
Remedy Sought
Appellants/claimants sought setting aside of the award dated 13-09-2011 and grant of compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- for death of Eswaramma.
Filing Reason
The claimants alleged that Eswaramma died due to injuries sustained in a road accident on 12.09.2002 caused by the negligent driving of tipper lorry AP 03 T 3744, which collided with APSRTC bus AP 09 Z 7964 in which she was travelling.
Previous Decisions
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District Judge (FTC), Chittoor dismissed M.V.O.P.No.7 of 2007 by award dated 13-09-2011.
Issues
Whether the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim petition despite evidence of conviction of tipper lorry driver and injuries sustained by deceased?
Whether the death of Eswaramma was caused by the injuries sustained in the road accident or due to unrelated cerebrovascular accident?
Whether the claimants are legal representatives and dependents entitled to compensation under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act?
Whether the owner and insurer of the tipper lorry and APSRTC are liable to pay compensation?
Submissions/Arguments
Claimants argued that the deceased, aged 55 years, was earning Rs.3,000 per month by selling milk and agricultural work, and died due to injuries from the accident caused solely by the tipper lorry driver's rash and negligent driving.
Claimants relied on conviction of the tipper lorry driver in C.C.No.58 of 2003 for offences under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC to establish negligence.
Respondent No.2 (insurer) contended that the bus driver was negligent, the deceased's age, occupation, income, and dependency were not proved, and death was not causally linked to the accident.
Respondents 3 and 4 (APSRTC) contended that the accident was due to the tipper lorry driver's negligence, the injuries were simple and did not cause death, and claimants residing separately were not dependents.
Judgment Excerpts
Claimants in M.V.O.P.No.7 of 2007 ... feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of their petition filed under Section 166 (1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, filed the present appeal invoking Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
On the fateful day i.e.12.09.2002 at about 06:15 p.m., she boarded A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No.AP 09 Z 7964 to go to Ponnai to attend a function. When the bus was near M.M.N. Nursery Garden on Chittoor-Puttur Road, the offending vehicle came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus.
As per his opinion, injury No.1 is grievous in nature and injury No.2 is simple in nature. Both the injuries might have been caused due to a road traffic accident. He has also clearly asserted that injury No.1 is grievous and that due to fat embolism it may cause death.
CVA can occur in any elderly person; it cannot be related to any accident and may be a normal phenomenon.
Procedural History
Claimants filed M.V.O.P.No.7 of 2007 before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District Judge (FTC), Chittoor under Section 166(1)(c) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking Rs.2,50,000 compensation. The Tribunal dismissed the petition by award dated 13-09-2011. Aggrieved, claimants filed M.A.C.M.A.No.69 of 2012 before High Court of Andhra Pradesh under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act. The appeal was reserved for judgment on 23-12-2025 and pronounced on 10-04-2026.
Acts & Sections
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Section 166(1)(c), Section 173
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 279, Section 337, Section 338
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 252
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 41
