IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU M.A.C.M.A No.1206 OF 2008 BETWEEN: The Managing Director, APSRTC Hyderabad, Rep. by its Regional Manager …. Appellant AND Paramadevara Pushpamma W/o. P. Dharma Raju and others …. Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU M.A.C.M.A No.1206 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: Andhra Pradesh State Road Trasnport Corporation filed this appeal questioning order dated 02-08-2006 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Medak at Sangareddy in O.P. No.590 of 2005. Though there is no dispute about quantum of compensation of Rs.3,18,000/- granted by the Tribunal, the appellant contends that RTC driver was not negligent and that at any rate the lower Court did not consider contributory negligence on the part of the auto driver. 2. It is case of the claimants that APSRTC bus bearing No.AP11Z-4142 dashed auto, in which the deceased was traveling as passenger, form behind due to which the auto rammed behind a water tanker going ahead of it and thereafter RTC bus crushed the auto resulting in death of the deceased. 3. APSRTC contends that the bus was going at a speed of 30 KMPH in second gear and that a water tanker was going in front of the bus and that the ill fated auto overtook the bus and went in between the bus and the water tanker and that when driver of water tanker stopped it by applying sudden brakes, the auto rammed into backside of the tanker and the passengers sustained injuries and that water tanker rolled on the auto and touched the front portion of the bus. 4. The appellant’s counsel contends that it was an inevitable hit of the bus in view of the above incident, which took place in front of the bus. 5. During enquiry in the lower Tribunal, driver of auto was examined as PW-2, driver of RTC bus was examined as RW-2 and conductor of RTC bus was examined RW-1 and they spoke to manner of the accident. Evidence of PW-2 is to the effect that RTC bus hit his auto from behind, due to which the auto was crushed in between water tanker and RTC bus. In my opinion, evidence of conductor RW-1, whose current duties are otherwise, may not be of any help to this Court. RW-2 who is driver of RTC bus is the appropriate person who can speak to his version. It is his evidence that the auto overtook the bus and that when the driver of water tanker, going ahead of the auto, applied sudden brake, the auto rammed behind the water tanker and ultimately the auto was crushed in between the water tanker and RTC bus. The question is which version is probable and believable. 6. The lower Tribunal pointed out that criminal case record relating to this accident point out fault on the part of RTC bus only. It was PW-2 who gave Ex.A-1 first information report to the police stating his version. Though RW-2 in cross-examination says that he also went to the police station, admittedly, he did not give any report to the police in writing and did not make any attempts to give any written report to the police. 7. If really the accident occurred due to fault of water tanker driver who is stated to have applied sudden brakes, then nothing prevented PW-2 to give any report against water tanker driver. PW-2 has no affinity for the water tanker and no grouse against RTC bus. The first version of PW-2 contained in Ex.A-1 shows that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of RTC bus by RW-2. Further, as per charge sheet filed by the police, investigation revealed that RTC bus was at fault and RW-2 was responsible for this accident with his rash and negligent driving. If really RW-2’s version is correct, then RTC bus should not have hit the auto even after the auto ramming into the water tanker. There cannot be any dispute that RTC bus hit the auto from behind. Further question is whether hitting of auto by RTC bus from behind was prior to the auto ramming into back of water tanker or after to it. According to PW-2 who is one of the victims in this case, RTC bus hit the auto in the first instance from behind by coming in rash and negligent manner due to which the auto rammed behind the water tanker. 8. This is not a case of head-on collision to share the liability or to contribute negligence by both the drivers. This is a case of hitting of the auto by RTC bus from behind. Having regard to the entire oral and documentary evidence on record, the lower Court rightly held that RW- 2 who was driving RTC bus was the person solely responsible for the accident due to his rash and negligent driving. I see absolutely no reasons to come to a different conclusion from that of the lower Court. I find that there was no negligence much less contributory negligence on the part of auto driver or water tanker driver. 9. Hence, the appeal is dismissed with costs. ___________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU, J June 17, 2010. KTL