APHC010166022019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] THURSDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 460 of 2019 Between: 1. THE VICE CHAIRMAN CUM MD, APSRTC, RTC HOUSE, PANDIT NEHRU BUS STATION, VIJAYAWADA. ...APPELLANT AND 1. MALLAVALLI BINDUSRI, D/O.VAMSI KRISHNA, BEING MINOR REP.BY HER MOTHER MALLAVALLI JYOTHI, W/O.VAMSI KRISHNA, R/O.NO.32-13-53/39, NAVODAYA COLONY, SUNNAPU BATTELA CENTER, MUGHALRAJPURAM, VIJAYAWADA-10, KRISHNA DISTRICT 2. MUKKU RAMBABU, S/O.VENKATESWARA RAO, HINDU, AGED 32 YEARS, APSRTC DRIVER, GOVERNORPET RTC DEPOT, R/O.D.NO.4/25, KESARAPALLI VILLAGE, KOTHAPALLI, GANNAVARAM MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Courtto allow the MACMA by setting aside the Judgment and Decree dated 23-08- 2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.98 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District and pass 2 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 to condone the delay of 107 days in presenting the appeal filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 23-08¬2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.98 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District and pass IA NO: 2 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 to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the Judgment and Decree dated 23-08-2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.98 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District including the execution proceedings, pending disposal of the above M.A.C.M.A and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. VENKATESWARLU SANISETTY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. RAMA RAGHAVENDRA RAO KOTARU The Court made the following: 3 JUDGEMENT: 1. Questioning the order dated 23.08.2018 in M.V.O.P.No.98 of 2016 on the file of The Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal–cum–II Additional District Court, Vijayawada, the present appeal is preferred by APSRTC contending that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were referred before the Tribunal. The case of the petitioner was that, on 28.09.2015, the petitioner along with her mother boarded Auto to go to school. After alighting from Auto, when they were crossing the road, the offending RTC Bus bearing registration number AP 11 Z 4226 driven by the 1st respondent driver, came in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the petitioner. As a result of which, the petitioner fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries and she was shifted to M.J. Naidu hospital, Suryaraopet, Vijayawada for treatment. The Doctor after noticing the crush injuries sustained by the petitioner conducted a major surgery to her right thigh. As the petitioner’s foot also crushed under the wheels of the offending bus, due to which the skin along with muscle up to bone stripped off, for which the petitioner underwent surgery to her left foot, in which skin grafting was done. Later, a case 4 was registered against the 1st respondent driver, and the same was investigated into and the charge sheet was filed. 3. In view of the injuries sustained by the petitioner, she approached the Tribunal by filing petition under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, claiming the compensation of Rs.13,00,000/-. It was contended that the petitioner was aged about 5 years as on the date of accident and was studying UKG in Navodaya Public School, Madhu Gardens, Vijayawada. It was further stated that, in view of injuries sustained by her, she became permanently disabled as both her legs were shortened. It is also contended that she is unable to live normal life and play along with children as she was before. Further it was averred in the claim petition that her future prospects, especially marital prospects had got seriously affected. It was further stated that an amount of Rs.2,75,000/- was spent towards treatment and requested to allow the petition by awarding compensation of Rs.13,00,000/-. 4. The 1st Respondent / Driver of the offending vehicle remained ex-parte. The 2nd Respondent has filed a counter affidavit denying the averments made in the claim petition. It was contended by the 2nd respondent that there was no negligence on the part of the 1st respondent driver and denied the contention of the petitioner that she 5 has spent an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- for treatment. It is also further deneid that there was permanent disability as contended by the petitioner. Inter-alia, it was stated that, the claim made by the petitioner was excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 5. In order to prove the case of the petitioner, her mother was examined as PW.1 and Dr.M.Subramanyam, who treated the petitioner, was examined as PW.2. She also filed the documents which were marked as Ex.A1 to A.11. On the other hand, the respondents neither adduced any oral evidence nor filed any documentary evidence. 7. Considering the oral and documentary evidence put forth by the petitioner, the Tribunal by order under challenge, awarded an amount of Rs.10, 00,000/- together with an interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of petition to till the date of realization, fastening the liability on respondents. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is preferred. 8. Heard Sri Aravala Ramarao, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Rama Raghavendra Rao appearing for the 1st respondent. Despite service of notice, there is no appearance for the 2nd respondent. 9. Perused the material available on record. The counsel 6 appearing for the appellant would submit that the accident was occurred due to negligence of the petitioner and there was no negligence on the part of the 1st respondent / driver of the offending vehicle. In order to substantiate the same, the respondent neither adduced any oral evidence nor filed any documentary evidence. On the other hand, the petitioner got examined her mother as PW.1, who was eye witness to the accident. PW.1 categorically deposed that the offending vehicle came in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the petitioner. Though the PW.1 was cross-examined at length, nothing was elicited to disprove her evidence. Apart from the same, a case was registered against the 1st respondent driver and the same was investigated into, later charge sheet was filed against him. Further, copies of FIR and charge sheet were filed before Tribunal and same were marked as Ex.A1 and A2. A perusal of the contents of the above documents would go to show that the accident was occurred due to negligence of the 1st respondent driver. As already noted supra, nothing was placed on record to disprove the same. In the absence of any evidence, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the accident was occurred due to negligence of the 1st respondent driver. Accordingly, said contention of the counsel for appellant is rejected. 10. Coming to the quantum awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, it is apparent from the record that the petitioner has suffered following 7 injuries: 1. Crush Injury on right thigh. 2. Fracture distal femur on right femur. 3. De-gloving injury on left foot. She was treated in the hospital as in-patient for a period of 50 days and the following treatment was given to her: 1. K Wire fixation to distal femur. 2. VAC Therapy 3. Wound debridement of left foot with skin grafting 4. K Wire removal 5. Multiple Debridement. 11. Further, a perusal of evidence of PW.2 Doctor who conducted surgeries would go to show that, in view of multiple surgeries, the condition of the petitioner was so complicated as she could not get to normalcy. Apart from the same, there is shortening of limbs and she may not have physical strength life that of a normal person. From the above evidence of PW.2 Doctor, it is clear that the petitioner cannot attend to her day to day activities as she was before. Further, she suffered mental agony apart from the pain and suffering which cannot be compensated in terms of money. Further, a perusal of evidence of PW.2 would go to show that the petitioner has to undergo further surgeries to which she has to spend an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. Further, the Tribunal after taking consideration of the injuries sustained 8 by her, had opined that, her earning capacity and marital prospects were drastically affected. As already observed supra, she cannot lead normal life as she was before. By taking into consideration of totality circumstances, the Tribunal has awarded the just compensation. Though the counsel for appellant would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was excessive, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no force in the contention of the counsel for the appellant and there are no merits in the appeal. 12. Accordingly, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Petition shall stand closed. _______________________ JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR Date: 07.05.2026 JAK 9 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR 69 M.A.C.M.A NO: 460 of 2019 Dated 07th May, 2026 JAK