APHC010698752022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3367] WEDNESDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 561/2022 Between: 1. APSRTC, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD PRESENTLY AT PNBS, VIJAYAWADA. ...APPELLANT AND 1. BOMMISETTY HAZARATHAIAH, S/O SUBBAIAH, AGED 30 YEARS, OCC. BELDAR COOLIE, R/O AS PETA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 2. V VENKATESWARLU, S/O VENKATARAMAIAH, AGED 46 YEARS, OCC. RTC DRIVER, OPP. BSNL, ATMAKUR TOWN, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT (R2 IS NOT NECESSARY PARTY) ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying that the High Court may be pleased to set aside Decree and Award dated 11.07.2019 passed in M.V.O.P No. 484 of 2018 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum- III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore and consequently dismiss the claim Petition and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 1129 days in filing the appeal against M.V.O.P No. 484 of 2018, dated 11.07.2019 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -Cum-III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore and to pass 2 IA NO: 2 OF 2022 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 operation of Decree and Award dated 11.07.2019 passed in M.V.O.P No. 484 of 2018 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum- III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 vacate the interim order granted in I.A. No 2 of 2022 in MACMA No. 561 of 2022 Dt.29.12.2022 and pass Counsel for the Appellant: SANISETTY VENKATESWARLU SC For APSRTC Counsel for the Respondent(S): SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge at Nellore (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.484 of 2018 dated 11.07.2019. 2. The appellant is the APSRTC/owner of the Bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 2965 (hereinafter referred to as “crime bus”). The 3 respondent No.1 is the claimant before the Tribunal. The respondent No.2 is the driver of the said crime bus. 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 31.08.2009 at about 11.00 a.m., while the claimant along with others proceeding in an Auto bearing No.AP 26 Y 2338, when they reached St.Marys School on Atmakur-Nellorepalem Road, the crime bus driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner at high speed dashed the said auto, resulted the inmates in the auto sustained severe fracture injuries. Immediately, the claimant was shifted to Government Hospital at Atmakur, in-turn, shifted to Akarsh Orthopedic Hospital at Pogathota and then shifted to St.Joseph Hospital, Nellore for better treatment and he spent an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical bills. Due to the injuries sustained in 4 the accident, the claimant suffering with permanent disability to an extent of 57%. ii). He claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- against the driver and owner of the crime bus, respectively. 5. The respondent No.1/driver remained exparte before the Tribunal. Even the respondent No.2/APSRTC/owner filed vakalat before the Tribunal, neither filed counter nor cross examined the witnesses, remained exparte. 6. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material: “1.Whether the alleged accident occurred on 31.08.2009 at 11.00 a.m., near Sty.Marys school on Atmakur- Nellorepalem road, Atmakur, SPSR Nellore District was due to rash and negligent act of the driver of APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 11Z 2965 and whether it resulted injuries to the petitioner/Bommisetty Hazarathaiah? 2.Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? and 3.To what relief?” 5 7. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimant, he was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.8 were exhibited. 8. On the material, the Tribunal, having come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime bus by the 1st respondent, held that claimant is entitled for the compensation of Rs.4,78,337/-, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondent No.2, for the injuries sustained by the claimant, resulted amputation of his left hand. 9. It is against the said award; the present appeal was preferred by the appellant/APSRTC. 10. Heard Sri Solomon Raju Manchala, learned counsel for the appellant/APSRTC and Sri V.Siva Prasad Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/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?” 6 12. POINT: It is not in dispute about the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident, disability sustained by him due to the said injury and involvement of the crime bus. It is also an undisputed fact that no appeal was preferred by the claimant against the findings of the Tribunal. 13. It is the only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant the Tribunal erred in calculating the compensation entitled by the claimant, since no witness was examined by the claimant to prove the treatment as well medical bills incurred by him, thereby, prays to consider the present appeal. 14. Firstly, this Court would like to determine the cause of incident. Admittedly, none of the respondents appeared before the Tribunal and they remained exparte. As per the testimony of P.W.1 coupled with Exs.A.1 and A.3, it is crystal clear that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime bus by the 1st respondent. As stated supra, none of the respondents denied the said fact before the Tribunal either 7 by filing counter or cross examine P.W.1. Thereby, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the Tribunal after thorough appreciation of the matter rightly came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime bus by the 1st respondent only. 15. Coming to the just compensation is concerned, it is found from the record that the claimant has sustained a permanent disability assessed at 57%, as certified under Exhibits A.4 and A.5. This disability is the direct consequence of injuries sustained in the incident, which necessitated the amputation of the claimant’s left hand. In light of the severity and nature of the disability, the claimant is entitled to just and reasonable compensation under the applicable legal provisions. By considering the said fact and following the renowned pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi1, the Tribunal calculated the compensation entitled by the claimant under the head of loss of earning capacity, by taking the notional income 1 AIR 2017 SC 5157 8 of the claimant at Rs.5,000/- per month, which is not in dispute. 16. Furthermore, the claimant produced Ex.A.8 medical bills to prove the expenses incurred by the him for the treatment. Admittedly, the claimant taken treatment in a private hospital and underwent surgery. On perusal of Exs.A.7 and A.8, they categorically established the nature of treatment undergone by the claimant and amount spent by him towards medical expenditure for the grievous injuries sustained by him, resulted amputation. More so, the appellant/APSRTC did not raise any objection before the Tribunal, to disprove the claim made by the claimant under Ex.A.8. Thereby, the Tribunal by considering the material available on record, rightly calculated the compensation entitled by the claimant, which requires no interference by this Court. 17. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that no valid grounds urged by the appellant to meddle with the findings arrived by the Tribunal in all aspects, as there is no need to disturb the well-articulated order 9 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: 09.07.2025 Krs 10 373 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS M.A.C.M.A.No.561 of 2022 ( J U D G M E N T ) DATE: 09.07.2025 Krs