IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU M.A.C.M.A. No.2811 OF 2007 Between: Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation … APPELLANT And Edla Anjaneyulu … RESPONDENT This Court made the following: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU M.A.C.M.A. No.2811 OF 2007 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation questioning award, dated 13.07.2007, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, in M.V.O.P.No.254 of 2004, by which the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.60,325/- with other usual terms as against claim of Rs.1,50,000/- made by the respondent/claimant/injured. 2. The only main point raised by the appellant’s counsel is that the corporation has taken the plea of contributory negligence in the pleading and that the corporation could not examine its witnesses to substantiate the said plea before the lower Tribunal. Sufficient opportunity was given by the lower Tribunal to the corporation to adduce its evidence, but it failed to adduce any evidence. The corporation could have examined driver of the accident vehicle in support of its plea, but it was not done so before the lower Tribunal. Having regard to evidence of the claimant as P.W.1, the lower Tribunal accepted plea of the claimant that the corporation vehicle was at fault and was responsible for this accident. There was no effective cross-examination of P.W.1, in the sense, by way of eliciting any admissions from P.W.1 in favour of the plea of contributory negligence by him. In the circumstances, the lower Tribunal rightly accepted the claimant’s plea that R.T.C. bus bearing No.AP10Z 7080 was at fault. Having regard to evidence of the doctor as P.W.2 and medical evidence produced by the claimant as per Exs.A4 to A7, I do not find any reason to interfere with the quantum of compensation awarded by the lower Tribunal. 3. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs. ______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J November 15, 2010 KL HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU M.A.C.M.A. No.2811 OF 2007 November 15, 2010 KL