Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
A.P.S.R.T.C. vs Chitra Narasinga Rao on 7 August, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
APPEAL SUIT No.3824 OF 2000
Between:
Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation
rep. by its Divisional Manager Sri Solman Raju,
S/o.N.Venkat, R/o.Visakhapatnam.
... Appellant
AND
1. Chitra Narasinga Rao, S/o.Veerraju, owner of lorry bearing No.AAV
5047, Thagarapuvalasa, Bheemili, Visakhapatnam District.
2. P.Padmanabham, driver of lorry bearing No.AAV 5047,
D.L.No.280/VSP/85.
... Respondents
Counsel for the appellant:
Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:-
This Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short 'the C.P.C.'], is filed by the Appellant/plaintiff challenging the Decree and Judgment, dated 23.09.1996, in O.S. No.5 of 1995 passed by 2 VGKRJ AS 3824 of 2000 the learned II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam [for short 'the trial Court']. The first Respondents herein is the defendants in the said Suit.
2. The appellant/plaintiff filed the Suit for recovery of Rs.96,995.51 paise towards damages of two buses and for loss of earnings.
3. Both the parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court.
4. The brief averments of the plaint, in O.S. No.5 of 1995, are as under:
The plaintiff Corporation owns several route buses and city buses and all being operated within the division through the Depots at several places in the said division of which the sub urban route buses AAZ 3128 and AAZ 3914 were running in route No.25-B between Visakhapatnam old bus stand and Anandapuram. The first defendant is the owner of lorry bearing No.AAV 5047 and the second defendant is the driver of the said lorry. On 02.03.1985 at about 3.30 p.m. the plaintiff's above said two buses were parked on the road margin at the alighting point of Paradesipalem of which one vehicle was going towards Visakhapatnam old bus stand and the other bus was going towards Anandapuram. At that time, the second defendant drove the lorry bearing No.AAV 5047 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the plaintiff's bus bearing No.AAZ 3914, which was parked on the left side road margin, due to which the front right side corner of the bus was heavily damaged, after that, the second defendant could not control the lorry and dashed the other bus bearing No.AAZ 3128 on its back right side portion and caused damage to the said bus. Police filed a case against the second defendant. The plaintiff incurred a sum of Rs.8,179.91 paise for the bus bearing No.AAZ 3 VGKRJ AS 3824 of 2000 3128 and an amount of Rs.400/- towards the cost of repair of bus bearing No.AAZ 3914. The plaintiff could not operate the said buses from the date of accident i.e., 02.03.1985 to 07.05.1985 as the buses were held up at regional work shop for repairs, the plaintiff has sustained loss of earnings.
The plaintiff has issued a legal notice to the defendants claiming the costs of damages as well as the loss of earnings, both the defendants have received the said legal notice, but neither paid the amount nor given reply.
5. The first defendant filed a written statement by denying the averments mentioned in the plaint and further contended as under: -
The second defendant is no more driver under the first defendant since 1985. The first defendant sold away the lorry bearing No.AAV 5047 in 1985 itself and the vehicle is now not with this defendant. The first defendant contend that because of the negligent driving and negligent parking of the plaintiff's vehicles, the accident had taken place. The particulars of the damages are not averred in the plaint and this defendant did not receive any notice from the plaintiff. The suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties i.e., Insurance Company and the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit and hence the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.
6. The second defendant remained exparte before the Court below itself.
7. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:
(i) Whether the accident is due to negligent driving of second defendant?
4 VGKRJ AS 3824 of 2000
(ii) Whether the plaintiff sustained loss of earnings of Rs.88,415.60 ps?
(iii) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
(iv) Whether the defendants are liable to pay the suit amount to the plaintiff.
(v) To what relief?
8. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the Plaintiff, PW1 to PW3 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 were marked. On behalf of the Defendants DW1 to DW3 were examined, but no documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of defendants.
9. After completion of the trial and on hearing the arguments of both sides, the trial Court dismissed the suit without costs vide its judgment, dated 23.09.1996, against which the present appeal is preferred by the appellant/plaintiff in the Suit questioning the Decree and Judgment passed by the trial Court.
10. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned Standing Counsel for A.P.S.R.T.C. appearing on behalf of appellant. None appeared for respondents.
11. Having regard to the pleadings in the suit, the findings recorded by the trial Court and in the light of rival contentions and submissions made on behalf of appellant before this Court, the following point would arise for determination:
Whether the trial Court is justified in dismissing the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff and whether the 5 VGKRJ AS 3824 of 2000 decree and judgment passed by the trial court needs any interference?
12. Point :
The case of the appellant is that on 02.03.1985 at about 3.30 p.m., the buses of the plaintiff bearing Nos.AAZ 3128 and AAZ 3914 were parked on the road margin at the alighting point of Paradesipalem, at that time, the lorry bearing No.AAV 5047 belongs to the first respondent driven by the second respondent came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the bus bearing No.AAZ 3914 on its front right side corner and thereafter dashed to another bus bearing No.AAZ 3128 on its back side portion and caused damages and that the appellant sought for damages.
13. The plaintiff relied on the evidence of PW1, who is the Depot Manager of Waltair Depot, who worked on 14.03.1996 i.e., on the date of giving evidence. As per his evidence, he is not having any personal knowledge about this case and he was transferred to Waltair Depot in the year 1993. The averments in the plaint goes to show that the damages to the buses were caused due to the negligent act of the driver of the first defendant lorry i.e., second defendant. Therefore, the burden heavily rests on the appellant/ plaintiff to prove the rash and negligent act of the second defendant driver. Admittedly PW1 is not an official/manager, who worked in A.P.S.R.T.C. Depot on the date of accident and he has no personal knowledge about the accident according to him. Absolutely, there is no other evidence on record to show about the rash and negligent act on the part of the lorry driver i.e., the second defendant. As stated supra, though the plaintiff relied on the evidence of PW1, as per 6 VGKRJ AS 3824 of 2000 his evidence, he has no personal knowledge about the case on hand, therefore, his evidence fails to establish the alleged rash and negligent driving of the second respondent. As per the evidence of PW1, the police has booked a criminal case against the driver of the lorry for his rash and negligent driving, but no document is filed by the appellant to prove that the police also booked a case against the lorry driver for his rash and negligent driving. Absolutely there is no evidence on record to show that because of the rash and negligent driving of the second respondent, the buses of the plaintiff were damaged. In the absence of any evidence on record, it is not safe to come to conclusion that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry of the first defendant i.e., second defendant.
14. The appellant claimed damages of Rs.96,995.51 paise. Admittedly, no single document is produced by the appellant before the Court below to show that they sustained loss of earnings of Rs.88,415.60 paise due to the negligent driving of the second defendant. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered view that the plaintiff failed to establish that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the second defendant and the appellant also not produced any single document to show that they sustained loss of Rs.88,415.60 paise, because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.AAV 5047. By giving cogent reasons, the learned trial Judge rightly dismissed the suit and I do not find any illegality in the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court. Therefore, the decree and judgment passed by the trail Court is perfectly sustainable under law and it requires no interference. The point is answered accordingly.
7 VGKRJ AS 3824 of 2000
15. In the result, the Appeal Suit is dismissed confirming the decree and Judgment dated 23.09.1996, in O.S.No.5 of 1995 passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Appeal shall stand closed.
_________________________ V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J Date: 07.08.2024 sj 8 VGKRJ AS 3824 of 2000 22 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO APPEAL SUIT No.3824 OF 2000 Date: 07.08.2024 sj