APHC010209182022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] THURSDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.193 of 2022 Between: 1. THE APSRTC, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HOLDING ITS OFFICE AT X-ROADS, MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD, NOW AT VIJAYAWADA. ...APPELLANT AND 1. KOMMURI HARISH, S/O K.CHANDRASEKHAR, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, STUDENT, RIO BESIDES BLISS HOTEL, TIRUPATI, CHITOOR DISTRICT. 2. M BABU, S/O M.MUNINADHAM, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O K.PATTANAM, THAMANMPALLI MANDAL, CHITTTOOR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant: 1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent(S): The Court made the following: 2 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.193 of 2022 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENTS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.193 of 2022 J U D G M E N T: Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘Corporation’) filed the present appeal, assailing the order dated 25.10.2021 passed in M.V.O.P.No.46 of 2014 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge’s Court, Tirupati, by which compensation of Rs.2,35,000/- was awarded to the claimant (respondent No.1) on account of the injuries sustained by him a motor accident. 2. Parties will be referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: (i) This is a case arising out of motor accident, which resulted in injuries to the claimant. The claimant was aged about 20 years and was pursuing B.Tech course as on the date of accident. On 19.09.2011, while the claimant was proceeding on motor bike along with his friend, Mr. Naveen, who was riding pillion, the bus bearing registration No.AP11-Z-6477, owned by the respondent- Corporation and driven by the 2nd respondent, came in rash and negligent manner and dashed their bike and dragged the bike for a distance of about 60 meters, resulting in the claimant, rider of the 3 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.193 of 2022 bike, sustaining grievous injuries to right leg, knee and other parts of body. The pillion rider also sustained injuries. They were shifted to hospital for treatment and Crime No.121 of 2011 came to be registered on the file of Traffic Police Station, Tirupati, for offence under Section 337 I.P.C., which was later altered to Section 338 I.P.C. Police investigated the crime and eventually filed charge sheet against 2nd respondent/driver of the bus. The claimant was shifted to Remedy Hospital at Tirupati for better treatment, where he underwent major surgery for insertion of rod in his right leg and subsequently, another surgery for its removal. For undergoing medical treatment, he had incurred about Rs.1,32,000/-, besides other expenditure of Rs.1,60,000/-. Therefore, he laid claim under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- . (ii) The 1st respondent-Corporation as well as 2nd respondent-driver of the bus filed separate counters, denying the manner in which the accident occurred and contending that there was no negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent-driver of the bus in causing the accident. They also disputed the quantum of claim. (iii) On behalf of the claimant, he himself was examined as P.W.1, besides examining the doctor, who treated him, as P.W.2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A13 and Ex.C1. Respondents have examined the driver of the bus as R.W.1 and no documents were marked. 4 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.193 of 2022 (iv) Based on the pleadings of parties, the Tribunal has framed the following issues and additional issues for consideration: 1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC bus bearing registration No.AP11-Z-6477 of respondent on 19.09.2011 and whether the petitioner K. Harish who was proceeding on his motor bike bearing No.AP04-AG-8870 sustained injuries as a result of the accident? 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation and if so, to what amount? 3) To what relief? Additional issues: 1) Whether the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of 2nd respondent driver? 2) Whether the petition is bad for misjoinder of the parties to the 2nd respondent? 3) Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation from respondent No.2? 4) Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim enhanced compensation amount as prayed for? 5) To what relief? (v) With regard to the issue of negligence, the Tribunal, based on the evidence let in by both the claimant as well as respondents, came to conclusion that the evidence of claimant outweighed that of the respondents and, accordingly, held that the accident occurred solely due to the negligent act of the 2nd respondent/driver of the bus. Having decided the issue of negligence 5 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.193 of 2022 against the driver of the bus, the Tribunal proceeded to decide the other issues regarding quantum and awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant and Rs.1,35,000/- towards medical expenses incurred by him, thereby awarding a total compensation of Rs.2,35,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization. (vi) Assailing the same, the present appeal is preferred. 4. Heard Sri G. Gopinadh Yadav, learned counsel representing Sri Aravala Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for appellant. Perused the record. 5. Though notice was taken out on 1st respondent/claimant, the same was returned with endorsement ‘no such person’. As notice was taken out on the same address as shown in the claim petition, the same amounts to deemed service. The 2nd respondent, being driver of the bus, is shown as not necessary party. 6. Learned counsel for appellant mainly challenged the impugned order on the ground of quantum of compensation. He contended that the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for injuries and Rs.1,35,000/- towards medical expenses, without any proper basis and supporting evidence and, therefore, the impugned order is clearly perverse. 6 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.193 of 2022 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the point that arises for consideration in the present appeal is: “Whether the impugned order of the Tribunal, granting compensation of Rs.2,35,000/- to the claimant on account of injuries sustained by him, suffers from any perversity, thereby warranting interference by this Court? POINT: 8. The claimant initially laid claim for Rs.3,00,000/-, which was later amended, enhancing the claim to Rs.6,00,000/-. The claimant asserted that the injuries sustained by him in the accident had resulted in a permanent disability of 40%. However, in the absence of positive evidence to substantiate the said claim, the Tribunal disbelieved the claim regarding permanent disability. Nevertheless, the nature of injuries sustained was spoken to by P.W.2, the doctor who treated the claimant. According to his testimony and the medical records, the claimant sustained the following injuries: “1) Swelling, deformity, shortening of right thigh with abnormal mobility and crepitus right thigh suggestive of fracture shaft of femur right. 2) Prominence posteriorly in right gluteal region suggestive of posterior dislocation of right hip with fracture of head of femur.” 7 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.193 of 2022 The above two injuries were grave in nature and the claimant had to endure severe pain and suffering on account of the said injuries. Considering this aspect, the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering. 9. Further, the claimant exhibited medical bills under Exs.A4, A5 and A8, claiming an amount of Rs.1,35,000/-. The factum of the injuries sustained and the treatment undergone was not disputed. P.W.2 - doctor testified regarding the treatment provided to the claimant. Accordingly, the Tribunal, having considered the veracity of Exs.A4, A5 and A8, allowed medical expenses to the tune of Rs.1,35,000/-. 10. The amounts granted by the Tribunal under the above two heads, in the considered opinion of this Court, are just and reasonable and cannot be said to be excessive. Having considered the matter in its entirety, this Court finds no perversity in the impugned order of the Tribunal warranting interference in this appeal. The point is answered accordingly, and the appeal, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. 11. Accordingly, this Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. The appellant-Corporation is directed to deposit the balance amount of compensation as determined and awarded by the 8 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.193 of 2022 Tribunal under the impugned order, after deducting the amount, if any, already paid, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On such deposit being made, the 1st respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the same. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date: 31.07.2025 IBL 9 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.193 of 2022 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN M.A.C.M.A.No.193 of 2022 Dt: 31.07.2025 IBL