APHC010279922022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3367] TUESDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 243/2022 Between: The Apsrtc ...APPELLANT AND Gosaripalli Shabjan and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: N SRIHARI ( SC FOR APSRTC ) Counsel for the Respondent(S): KOTHAPALLI AISHWARYA CHOWDARY The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge at Anantapuram (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.135 of 2016 dated 04.01.2022. 2. The appellant is the APSRTC/owner of the Bus bearing No.AP 02 Z 0115 (hereinafter referred to as “crime us”). The respondent No.1 herein is the claimant before the Tribunal and respondent No.2 is the driver of the crime bus, respectively. 2 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the tribunal. 4. The case of the claimant, in the petition before the Tribunal is that: i). On 22.10.2012 at about 06.30 p.m., while the claimant along with others proceeding in a jeep bearing No.AP 02 Y 7753, when they reached near Dhone Junction, the crime bus driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, suddenly turned right side, lost control over the same and dashed the jeep which was proceeding on the extreme left side of the road, resulted the claimant and others sustained multiple injuries. ii). He claimed compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- against the driver and owner of the crime bus. 5. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed respective counters denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the accident occurred was due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the jeep, but not 1st respondent/driver of the crime 3 bus; that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties; that the compensation claimed by the claimant is excessive, thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material: “1.Whether the accident occurred on 22.10.2012 at 08.30 p.m., at the junction of NH 44 leading to Dhone Town, Kurnool District occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent of bus bearing No.AP 02 Z 0115? 2.Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the said accident? 3.Whether the petitioner sustained permanent disability as a result of the said injuries? 4.Whether the bus bearing No.AP 02 Z 0115 is owned by the second respondent? 5.Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation and if so, to what amount and from which respondent? and 6.To what relief?” 7. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimant, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined as P.Ws.1 and 2, Exs.A.1 to A.5 and X.1 were 4 exhibited. On behalf of the respondent Nos.2, the 1st respondent/driver himself examined as R.W.1, but, no documentary evidence was adduced. 8. On the material, the Tribunal, having come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash negligent driving of the crime bus by the 1st respondent, held that claimant is entitled for the compensation of Rs.1,70,705/-, with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondents, for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident. 9. It is against the said award; the present appeal was preferred by the appellant/APSRTC. 10. Heard Sri G.Gopinadh Yadav, learned counsel representing Sri Aravala Ramarao, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant/APSRTC and Miss.Kothapalli Aishwarya Chowdary, learned counsel for the respondent/claimant. 11. Now, the point that arise for determination is “whether the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside, if so, to what extent?” 5 12. POINT: It is not in dispute about the injuries sustained by the claimant in the incident, involvement of the crime bus and quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. It is also not in dispute that no appeal was preferred by the claimant as well driver of the crime bus against the findings of the Tribunal. 13. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that Ex.A.1 wound certificate issued by P.W.2 is not a qualified doctor, thereby, his testimony cannot be considered. 14. In view of the above contention, this Court perused the material placed on record. To prove the injuries sustained by the claimant in the incident, he relied upon the testimony of P.W.2 coupled with Exs.A.1, A.4, A.5 and Ex.X.1. On perusal of testimony of P.W.2, it is categorical that he has been working as Orthopedic Surgeon, Government General Hospital at Anantapuram since 2000 and he is working as consultant Orthopedic Surgeon at Meda Nursing Home at Anantapuram. He examined the claimant/injured and found fracture of right humerus, which is grievous in nature, and the said fracture was 6 fixed with rush nails and bone grafting. Ex.A.5 bunch of medical bills are issued by the Meda Nursing Home. The testimony of P.W.2 categorically shows his competence to treat the claimant for the injury sustained in the incident and the operation undergone by the claimant for the said injury. Nothing was elicited during cross examination to disbelieve the testimony of P.W.2. Thereby, the contention of the appellant that P.W.2 is not a qualified doctor has no legs to stand. 15. Coming to the rash and negligence on the part of the 1st respondent/driver is concerned, the testimony of P.W.1 coupled with Exs.A.2 and A.3 and the admission made by R.W.1 that a criminal case is registered against him and charge sheet also filed against him, categorically proved that the incident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent/driver of the crime bus. The Tribunal, after thorough appreciation of the same rightly concluded that the incident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime bus. 7 16. It is needless to say that the Tribunal, by considering the nature of injuries, treatment undergone by the claimant, expenditure incurred by him for the treatment, rightly calculated the compensation entitled by the claimant, which requires no interference. 17. Having regard to the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that no valid grounds urged by the appellant to interfere with the conclusions arrived by the Tribunal, as there is no need to disturb the well-articulated order passed by the Tribunal, the appeal preferred by the appellant is liable for dismissal. Thus, the point is answered accordingly. 18. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS Date: 18.03.2025 Krs 8 514 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS M.A.C.M.A.No.243 of 2022 (J U D G M E N T) DATE: 18.03.2025 Krs