APHC010270682006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) Thursday, the thirty first day of July two thousand and twenty five The Honourable Ms. Justice B .S. Bhanumathi M.A.C.M.A.No: 361 of 2006 Between: M/s New India Assurance Company Limited, Tirupathi K.Sujatha and two others Counsel for the Appellant: 1. Amancharla Satish Babu Counsel for the Respondents: 1. V. Eswaraiah Chowdary M.A.C.M.A.No. 1617 of 2011 Between: A.P.S.R.T.C. K. Sujatha and two others Counsel for the Appellant: 1. P. Vinayaka Swamy Counsel for the Respondents: 1. Amancharla Satish Babu 2. P. Govind Reddy The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Thursday, the thirty first day of July two thousand and twenty five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B .S. Bhanumathi M.A.C.M.A.No: 361 of 2006 M/s New India Assurance Company Limited, Tirupathi and ...Respondent Counsel for the Appellant: Amancharla Satish Babu Counsel for the Respondents: M.A.C.M.A.No. 1617 of 2011 and ...Respondent Counsel for the Appellant: Counsel for the Respondents: Amancharla Satish Babu The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3311] Thursday, the thirty first day of July two thousand and twenty five ...Appellant espondents ...Appellant Respondents 2 MACMA Nos.361 of 2006 & 1617 of 2011 COMMON JUDGMENT: MACMA 361 of 2006 This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the respondent No.2 against the award and decree dated 17.12.2004 in M.V.O.P.No.344 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati. MACMA 1617 of 2011 This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the respondent No.3 against the award and decree dated 17.12.2004 in M.V.O.P.No.344 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati. 2. Since both the appeals arise out of the same decree and award, a common judgment is pronounced. 3. The respondent No.1 / claimant filed petition seeking compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for the injuries suffered in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 17.07.2000 when she was hit by a R.T.C. bus bearing No.AP 03 V 3349 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and she was treated in S.V.R.R.G.G.Hospital, Tirupati and also in a private hospital for the injuries suffered in the accident and spent Rs.25,000/- and needs further treatment. She claims that she was aged 24 years and earning Rs.3,000/- per month working in the bakery along with her husband at the time of the accident, but due to the accident, she is unable to earn and that and she suffered the injuries viz., 1) fracture of mid traft of tibia, 2) fracture of mallem, 3) swelling over lower one third of right leg, 4) swelling over medial aspect of ankle and 5) swelling over dorsum of right foot. 3 MACMA Nos.361 of 2006 & 1617 of 2011 4. The respondent No.1 remained ex parte. The petition was opposed by the respondents No.2 and 3 by filing separate counters. 5. On behalf of the claimant, she was examined as P.W.1 and Dr. S.Venkateswara Rao was examined as P.W.2 and Ex.A.1 - Certified copy of F.I.R. in Cr.No.72 of 2000, Ex.A.2 – Certified copy of charge sheet in C.C.No.595 of 2000, Ex.A.3 – Certified copy of wound certificate of the petitioner, Ex.A.4 – Permanent disability certificate issued by Regional Medical Board, S.V.R.R.Hospital, Tirupati, Ex.A.5 – Inpatient medical slip issued by S.V.R.R. Hospital, Tirupati in favour of the petitioner, Ex.A.6 – Medical bills issued by Venkateswara Nursing Home in favour of the petitioner, Ex.A.7 – Inpatient medical expenses bills No.2 issued by the Venkateswara Nursing Home, Vizianagaram, Ex.A.8 – X-ray were marked. No witness was examined by the respondents, but a copy of policy of insurance was marked as Ex.B.1. 6. Holding that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus, the Tribunal made all the three respondents jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 7. After evaluating the evidence, the Tribunal awarded Rs.500/- for transportation; Rs.53,459/- for medical expenses; Rs.100/- damage to clothes; Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering; another sum of Rs.20,000/- towards permanent disability and Rs.1,19,340/- towards future loss of earnings by calculating permanent partial disability @ 30% by relying on the evidence of P.W.2 as against 20% stated by the Medical Board said to have issued Ex.A.4 and thus, in total, compensation of Rs.2,13,799/- was awarded with interest @ 9% p.a. payable from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realisation. 8. Aggrieved by the award, the insurance company preferred the appeal stating that the Tribunal erred relying on the evidence of P.W.2 contrary to the disability assessed by the Medical Board and more over the claimant is not suffering from any permanent disability and that the income of claimant was also taken high without any basis. The insurance company further stated that 4 MACMA Nos.361 of 2006 & 1617 of 2011 the Tribunal erred in exonerating A.P.S.R.T.C. / respondent No.3 from the liability, which is not correct. 9. Aggrieved by the award, the A.P.S.R.T.C. preferred the appeal contending that the bus was hired and as per the terms of agreement, the owner of the bus shall be liable for the claims arising out of the accident and the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and that the policy of insurance goes with the vehicle and the liability of the insurance company does not get ousted on transfer of the vehicle for a temporary period and that the quantum and rate of interest are high. 10. At the time of granting order of stay, in both the appeals, a direction was given to the appellants to deposit half of the amount awarded by the Tribunal as per the decree within the stipulated time permitting the claimant to withdraw the same without furnishing any security. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant / insurance company submitted that the main grievance of the appellant is the rate of disability adopted by the Tribunal by relying on the evidence of P.W.2 while completely ignoring the rate of disability assessed by the Medical Board. There is no set principle that it is only the assessment made by the Medical Board shall be considered. Generally, the assessment by the Medical Board is preferred to the mere oral evidence of a doctor who deposes before the Tribunal without the actual examination of a claimant, but if the doctor who deposes before the Tribunal evaluates the disability by examination of a claimant, his evidence, being substantial evidence, can be considered like any other evidence subjecting it to the test of credibility in the light of the evidence stated in chief and cross examination and any other evidence. When no person from the Medical Board which is said to have issued a certificate of disability is examined, the substantial evidence of a doctor which, even after test in cross examination, stands credible, the same can be the basis to evaluate the nature and degree of disability. Therefore, in each case, depending on the evidence before a 5 MACMA Nos.361 of 2006 & 1617 of 2011 Tribunal, nature and degree of disability shall be assessed and it cannot be contended that the oral evidence of a doctor cannot be considered at all. 12. Therefore, in this case, since the Tribunal relied on the evidence of P.W.2, only after considering his evidence in entirety, there is no need to interfere with the award of the Tribunal on this aspect. 13. Insofar as the liability challenged by the A.P.S.R.T.C. is concerned, unless the terms of the agreement between A.P.S.R.T.C. and the owner of the bus is placed in evidence, the contention of A.P.S.R.T.C. cannot be appreciated. As can be seen from the evidence on record, no such agreement was placed in evidence. Therefore, the A.P.S.R.T.C. cannot raise the plea in the appeal. 14. Thus, this court does not see any merit in the appeal and therefore, both the appeals are liable to be dismissed. 15. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ B. S. BHANUMATHI, J Dt.31.07.2025 PNV