THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CMA Nos.4760 of 2004 Between Tegela Laxman Rao and another v. APSRTC THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CMA No.4760 of 2004 Judgment: 1) This appeal is preferred against the judgment passed in OP No.48 of 2001 dated 13-10-2004 by the court of the VI Addl. MSC-cum-the XX Addl. Chief Judge, Secunderabad in dismissing the claim petition filed by the claimants. 2) The claimants moved the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for award of compensation for the death of one Anasuya @ Bharathamma allegedly in a motor accident. According to the claimants, on 23-5-1998 at about 12.30 p.m. while the deceased was boarding the RTC Bus bearing No.AP 10Z 4683 at the Mehedipatnam Bus Stop the driver of the said bus suddenly started the bus with a jerk and therefore the deceased fell down from out of the bus and sustained severe injuries and died on the same day. The Tribunal on evidence held that there does not appear any material to show that the death of the victim was on account of rash and negligent act of the driver of the bus and dismissed the claim petition. The Tribunal also held that there cannot be any no fault liability since there is no motor accident and therefore the claimants are not entitled for any compensation even under no fault liability. 3) Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Tribunal did not appreciate the facts in proper manner and without considering the documentary evidence, dismissed the claim petition. 4) It is represented that the deceased tried to get into a moving bus and that in her attempt to get into the bus and she lost the control and fell down and died. Ex.A.4 is the death report issued by the S.I. of the Police and Ex.A.5 is the post mortem report. Ex.A.3 is the certified copy of the inquest report. On behalf of the claimants P.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and none were examined on behalf of the respondent-corporation. According to the claimants the evidence of Exs.A.1 to 5 proves the death of the deceased in the accident occurred on 23-5-1998. Except bare observations of the Tribunal that there cannot be any rash or negligent act on the part of the driver of the bus, the Tribunal did not appreciated the evidence on proper perspective, and as such, in the interest of justice I am inclined to remit back the matter to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication with liberty to the parties for adducing of evidence, if any. 3) In the result, the CMA is allowed and the impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law. _______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J kk /10-12-2010 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CMA Nos.4760 of 2004 10-12-2010