1 APHC010074402019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 153 of 2019 Bench Sr.No:-14 [3505] Yeggina Sanjeeva Reddy ...Appellant Vs. Pilla Chennugandla Bhaskar and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** CORAM : SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR DATE : 12th August 2026 Present : Advocate for Appellant: S V MUNI REDDY Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): L V S PRASAD BABU PUVVADA 2 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR MACMA No.153 OF 2019 JUDGMENT:- 1. The present appeal is preferred by claimant feeling aggrieved by order dt.05.12.2018 in MVOP No.210 of 2017, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Family Court- cum-VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa. 2. The case of the petitioner was that he was aged about 30 years and he was mason by avocation and was earning Rs.400/- per day. On 27.12.2016, the petitioner along with three others got into Auto bearing Registration No.AP04TX 1653, so as to attend mason work at Kadapa. When the Auto reached Mittameedipalli, the 1st respondent, who was the driver of the auto drove the same in rash and in negligent manner at high speed and applied sudden break, so as to avoid stray dogs, which came across thereby, he lost control over the auto and the auto turned upside down. As a result, the petitioner claims that, he sustained severe bleeding injuries on the left dorsum of right knee joint. The petitioner was shifted to RIMS Hospital, Kadapa and from there he was taken to MM Hospital for treatment on 11.01.2017. It was the further case of the petitioner that the petitioner underwent 3 surgery for fracture of 4th metacarpal and discharged on 12.01.2017. It was further stated that again he was admitted in M.M. Hospital on 18.01.2017 and underwent surgery for fracture of 4th metacarpal of right hand on 19.01.2017 and discharged on 25.01.2017, with an advice to take follow up treatment. It was further case of the petitioner that he had spent an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards surgeries, medicines and other ancillary charges at MM Hospital, Kadapa. 4. In view of the injuries sustained by him, he became permanent disability and he was facing difficulty in taking food with his right hand as his fingers are not functioning and he is unable to walk. In those circumstances, he approached the Tribunal by filing the above mentioned petition seeking to pay compensation of RS.15,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him. 5. The respondent Nos.1 & 2/driver and owner of the offending auto remained ex-parte. The 3rd respondent filed counter affidavit inter alia denying the averments mentioned in the claim petition. It was further contended that, if at all any compensation was payable, the same has to be paid by the 2nd respondent/owner of the auto. It was further contended that the injuries received by the petitioner were simple in nature and all 4 are curable and there is no permanent disability as claimed by the petitioner. It was further stated that the compensation claimed by the petitioner was excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 6. In order to prove the case of the petitioner, he was examined as PW-1 and Dr.C.Sanjeevaiah was examined as PW-2. The petitioner filed documents which were marked in Exs.A1 to A21. On the other hand, the respondents neither adduced oral evidence nor marked documentary evidence. After enquiry, the Tribunal by order under challenge partly allowed the claim petition by granting Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation together with interest @ 9% per annum by fastening liability on respondent Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the present appeal is preferred by the claimant. 7. Heard Sri S.V. Muni Reddy, counsel appearing for appellant. Sri L.V.S.Prasad Babu, counsel for respondent No.3. As the respondent Nos.1 & 2 remained ex-parte before the Tribunal, this Court proceeded with the hearing of the appeal. 8. Perused the material available on record. 5 9. The counsel for the appellant would strenuously contend that the Tribunal without properly appreciating the case of the petitioner, awarded a meager compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-. He would further submit that the petitioner had filed ample evidence on record, so as to establish that he has incurred considerable amount of money towards the surgeries and in proof of the same medical bills, X-rays etc., are filed. He would further submit that by virtue of the injuries sustained by him he became permanently disabled, which was assessed at 35% by PW-2. 10. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would submit that the documents marked by the petitioner cannot be relied on, inasmuch as Ex.A7 (Discharge Certificate), Ex.A10 (Admissions Slip) dt.18.01.2017 issued by MM Hospital, Kadapa and Ex.A13 (four medical prescriptions) do not contain the signatures. Apart from the same, he would further submit that the disability certificate produced by the petitioner also cannot be taken into consideration, for the reason that the same was not issued by the Doctor, who neither treated by the claimant nor conducted surgery. 6 11. Further, it was categorically admitted by PW-2 that he had neither treated the petitioner nor a member of the Medical Board, so as to assess the petitioner to issue disability certificate. He would further submit that by appreciating the evidence on record, the Tribunal had awarded just compensation to the petitioner and the order under challenge does not require interference. A perusal of the averments made in the claim petition, it is stated that, the petitioner has sustained five surgeries. 12. Though, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had undergone two surgeries for the injuries sustained by him and thereafter he took follow-up treatment, nothing is placed on record to substantiate the same. Further, nothing prevented the petitioner to examine the Doctor, who treated him. In the absence of evidence to substantiate his case, the contention of the counsel for the appellant cannot be countenanced. Further, the disability certificate issued by PW-2 also cannot be relied on inasmuch as rightly observed by the Tribunal that, the person who issued the said certificate neither treated the claimant nor he was a member in the Medical Board. In such circumstances, reliance can be placed on Ex.A19. A 7 perusal of the Ex.A3-wound certificate dt.20.01.2017 issued by RIMS, Central Hospital, Kadapa, it is clear that the injuries 1 to 3 are simple in nature and injuries 4 to 5 are grievous in nature. For proper appreciating on the case on hand, the injuries sustained by the petitioner are extracted hereunder:- “(1) A laceration of about 3x3x2 cm over left dorsum of foot with irregular margins. Fresh bleed present. (2) A laceration of about 3x3x2 cm over right knee joint region with irregular margins. Fresh bleed present. (3) A laceration of about 2x0.5x0.5 cm just above right eye blow with irregular margins. (4) Complaints of pain in left hip joint region. On examination, tenderness present. Restriction of movement present. (5) Complaints of pain over right hand. On examination swelling and tenders present.” 13. Further, after examining the petitioner, the Civil Assistant Surgeon, RIMS Central Hospital, opined as under:- “Based on the specialist report and findings I am of the opinion that above injuries No.1, 2 & 3 are simple in nature and injuries No.4 & 5 are grievous in nature and might have been caused due to blunt force. Age of the wound is within 6 hours prior to my examination.” 14. From the above, it is succinctly clear that the injuries sustained by the petitioner are simple in nature, and other injuries though opined as grievous in nature, the opinion of the Doctor was fracture and dislocation. 8 15. In such circumstances, this Court does not any illegality with the findings of the Tribunal as the same were given, after meticulously going through the evidence on record, it arrived at an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation under various conventional heads. 16. Though, the counsel for the appellant would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was meager, this Court is not in agreement with the said contention, inasmuch as nothing is placed on record to substantiate the claim of the petitioner/claimant. 17. For the reasons recorded supra, this Court does not find any merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR 12.08.2026 DR 9 46 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MACMA No.153 of 2019 Date: 12.08.2026 U DR