APHC010099852019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] MONDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 239/2019 Between: 1. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATIONC, KADAPA CITY, KADAPA DISTRICT ...APPELLANT AND 1. PEDDA PALEGANDLA PALARAJU, R/O. GURRACHINTHAPALLI VILLAGE, PENDILIMARRY MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT 2. YEDUGARI GOVINDA REDDY, BUS BEARING NO. AP 04 Z 0032, R/O. VEERAPUNAYUNIPALLI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Courtmemorandum of Civil Miscellaneous appeal before this Hon'ble court being aggrieved by the order and decree dated 05-12-2018 in MVOP No. 636/2016 on the file of the motor accidents claims tribunal cum I Additional district judge, Kadapa IA NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to stay of all further proceedings including the execution proceedings in MVOP No. 636 of 2016 on the file of the motor accidents claims tribunal cum I Additional District Judge, kadapa,Kadapa district 2 MACMA.No.239 of 2019 Counsel for the Appellant: 1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PAPUDIPPU SASHIDAR REDDY 3 MACMA.No.239 of 2019 The Court made the following: 1. Questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal by order dated 05.12.2018 in M.V.O.P No.636 of 2016 on the file of Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- I Additional District Judge, Kadapa, the present appeal is preferred by APSRTC. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were mentioned in the claim petition. The petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 166 (1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with the Rules made thereunder, claiming compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/-, in view of the injuries sustained by him in the accident that occurred on 20.02.2016 due to the negligence of Bus bearing Registration No.AP 04Z 0032 belonging to the 2nd respondent Corporation. 3. The case of the petitioner was that on 20.12.2026, he was going to Cherlopalli on a Motorcycle bearing Registration No.AP 04AC 0212, when he reached Gurrlachintalapalli, Kadapa - Pulivendula Main Road, the offending vehicle driven by its driver/1st respondent, came at high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the Motorcycle. As a result of which, the petitioner and the pillion rider Mallamma fell down and sustained serious injuries. Immediately, they were shifted to RIMS Hospital, Kadapa for treatment. Smt. Mallamma, the pillion rider gave a complaint before the police and the same was registered in Crime No. 15 of 2016 on the file of 4 MACMA.No.239 of 2019 Pendlimarry Police Station. After investigating into the said Crime, a charge sheet was filed against the 1st respondent/driver of the offending vehicle. It was further case of the petitioner that he sustained contusion with laceration and of right lobe of liver involving segments 7 and 8, mild moderate hemoperitoneum and fracture of Superior pubic ramus on left side of 8th rib fracture and other parts of the body. It was his further case that he was shifted to SVIMS Hospital, Tirupati for better treatment, where he underwent surgery in which right ICD insertion was done and liver laceration was treated conservatively. Subsequently, the petitioner took treatment as outpatient in the said hospital. Further, he consulted a private orthopedic surgeon at Kadapa and spent an amount of Rs.60,000/- towards treatment and medicine apart from the same, he also incurred Rs.25,000/- towards transportation and attendant charges, it was further stated that the petitioner became permanently disabled and lost earning capacity. In those circumstances, he approached the tribunal. 4. The 1st respondent/driver of the offending Bus remained exparte. 5. The 2nd respondent filed counter affidavit denying the averments made in the claim petition. It was further contended that the accident was occurred due to negligence of the petitioner himself and he had no valid driving license as on the date of accident. It was further contended that the compensation claimed was excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 5 MACMA.No.239 of 2019 6. In order to prove the case of the petitioner, the petitioner himself was examined as PW-1 and Dr. J. Nagesh was examined as PW-2. He also marked documents in Exs. A1 to A7. 7. On the other hand, the 2nd respondent neither adduced oral evidence nor marked any documentary evidence. Considering the oral and documentary evidence put forth by the petitioner, the tribunal, by the order under challenge, allowed the claim petition. Questioning the same, the present appeal is filed on the ground that the compensation awarded by the tribunal was excessive. 8. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Mohammed Shaik Sultan, learned counsel representing P.Shasidhar Reddy, appearing for the claimant. 9. Perused the record. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the accident was occurred due to negligence of the petitioner himself and there was no negligence on the part of the 1st respondent. In order to substantiate the same, the 2nd respondent/appellant neither examined any witness nor filed any documentary evidence. On the other hand, the petitioner was examined as PW-1 who deposed in tune with the averments made in the claim petition. Apart from the same the petitioner also filed copies of FIR and charge sheet, which were marked as Exs. A1 & A3. A perusal of the contents of the above 6 MACMA.No.239 of 2019 documents would show that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the 1st respondent offending vehicle. As already observed supra, the respondents have not placed anything on record to disprove the same. In the absence of any evidence on their behalf, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the finding of the tribunal, accordingly, the contention of the appellant in this regard is rejected. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant would also contend that the compensation awarded by the tribunal was excessive and the petitioner did not place any material on record to show that he was earning an amount of Rs.4,500/- per month. A perusal of the record, it is clear that the petitioner claimed that he was earning an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month. However, the tribunal did not take into consideration of the said aspect, in as much as the petitioner failed to file any documentary evidence to prove the same and in those circumstances, the income of the petitioner was fixed as Rs.4,500/- as by treating him as daily wage earner. Accordingly, the compensation was computed by taking into consideration of relevant factors and multiplier. Though the tribunal had observed that the petitioner is entitled to receive an amount of Rs.3,30,000/- towards compensation under various heads, but the same was restricted to Rs.3,00,000/- on the ground that the petitioner had claimed only Rs.3,00,000/-. This observation of the tribunal is not sustainable under law, in as much as the Hon’ble apex Court and this Court, time and again, have held that the courts are bound to award just compensation, 7 MACMA.No.239 of 2019 especially while dealing with matters arising out of beneficial legislation. Further, this view is fortified by the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ramla and Others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Others,1. In the circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to receive an amount of Rs.3,30,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petitioner till the date of realization. 10. In view of the above, there are no merits in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. However, the appellant is directed to deposit the amount of Rs.3,30,000/- towards compensation as indicated above, together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum within a period of two (02) months from the date receipt of copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR Date: 04.05.2026. RMD 1 (2019) 2 SCC 192: AIR 2019 SC 404 8 MACMA.No.239 of 2019 18 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR MACMA NO: 239/2019 Date: 04.05.2026 RMD