APHC010766392018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA M.A.C.M.A. NO: 2802 OF 2018 Appeal filed under Section 173 of the M.V. Act Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree of the Motor Accidents Tribunal-Cum-Judge-Cum-V Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram passed in M.V.O.P No. 586 of 2C15 dated 12.6.2018 the above named Appellant begs to present this Memorandum of Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. Between: A.P.S.R.T.C. Rep. by its Managing Director Musheerabad, Hyderabad, now at Vijayawada Vijayawada. ...APPELLANT/2''° RESPONDENT AND Mattaparthi Anand Rao, S/o. Bapanaiah Aged about 58 years. Fancy Business Gowtham Nagar, Kothapeta, Kappisettivaripalem, Kothapeta Mandal East Godavari District. ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER Musti Venkata Satya Subrhmanya Surya Ramanjaneya Narasimha Murthy, S/o. Satya Subrahmanyam 35 years, resident of Pedapatnam village Mamidikuru mandal, Driver of RTC Bus bearing No. AP-05X-0044. ...RESPONDENT/1®^ RESPONDENT lA NO: 2 OF 2018 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 execution of decree passed by Motor Accidents, Tribunal Judge cum - V Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Rajamhendravaram passed in MVOP No.586 of 2015,dt. 12-06-2018. cum Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI S V RAMANA Counsel for the Respondents : SRI SIMHACHALAM BARAPAREDDY The Court made the following JUDGMENT : 1 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA M.A.C.M.A.No.2802 of 2018 JUDGMENT: I. Introduction:- 1.[i] The 2""^ respondent [APSRTC] before the Motor Accidents Claims Additional District Judge, East Godavari at MACV], in M.V.O.P.No.586 of 2015, Tribunal-cum-V Rajamahendravaram [for short feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 12.6.2018 passed therein, imposing liability to pay compensation of Rs.6,61,000/- with incidental relief as against the claim made for Rs. 10,00,000/-, filed the present appeal, questioning the liability and quantum of compensation awarded. 2. The 1®* respondent herein is the claimant and the 2'"'^ respondent herein is the driver of the bus bearing No.AP 05 0044 [for short the ‘offending vehicle’]. For the sake of convenience, parties will be herein after referred to as the claimant and the respondents, as and how they are arrayed, before the 3. learned MACT. Case of the claimant, in brief: On 17.01.2015 at about 10.00 a.m., while the petitioner was travelling on a motor cycle, from Kothapeta to Rajahmundry and when reached near Choppella locks, within the limits of Alamuru Police Station, 4. [i] \ . 2 the 1 respondent, driver of the offending vehicle came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motor cycle on which the claimant was travelling, with the result the claimant suffered crush injury to his left leg, pillion rider also suffered injuries. The claimant was shifted to Government General Hospital, Rajahmundry from there to Government General Kakinada and left leg of the claimant Hospital, was amputated above knee. [ii] The claimant was aged ‘55’ years, doing fancy business and earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. But due to the accident he has suffered in multiplefolds including permanent disability due to amputation of leg. Hence, entitled for compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/-. 5. The 1 respondent-driver of the offending vehicle Case of the Respondent No.2/ADpellant-APSRTf!- remained ex parte. III. 6. Negligence of the claimant is cause for the accident, petitioner/claimant shall prove the negligence of the 1 The respondent. Age, nature of the injuries suffered, all other relevant aspects occupation and income of the claimant treatment undergone, disability suffered and substantiating the claim made. 7. On the strength of pleadings, learned MACT issues for trial; settled the following 1) Whether the accident occurred due driving of the crime vehicle i.e., RTC bus bearing No.AP 05 Z 0044 by the first respondent and caused the accident in question? to rash and negligent ■ < i • 3 2) Whether the petitioner himself contributed to the accident i question? in 3) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation amount if so, to what amount from whom? 4) To what relief? IV. Evidence before the learned MACT: 8. Oral and Documentary evidence:- For the Claimant For the Respondents Exhibit Description Exhibit Description No. No. EX.A1 Attested copy of F.I.R. in Cr.No.16 of 2015 of Alamuru Police Station Nil- EX.A2 Attested copy of Wound Certificate. EX.A3 Attested copy of M.V. Inspector Report. EX.A4 Attested copy of charge sheet. Ex.A5 Photocopy of Disability Certificate Ex.XI X-rays Ex.X2 Case Sheet Witnesses examined Witnesses examined PW.1 M.Ananda Rao RW.1 M.V.S.S.R.Narasimha Murthy [Driver of the offending vehicle] [Claimant / Petitioner] PW.2 Dr.D.Promod Kumar [Who treated the injured] V. Findings of the learned MACT:- 9. [i] Evidence of claimant as PW.1 coupled with the crime record including charge sheet, is sufficient to believe the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. 4 fiij The evidence of RW. 1.the driver of the offending vehicle is not of any use. \ The claimant suffered right ankle. Ex.AS-Disability but the disability of one limb, causing total loss of Claimant i But he can crush injury on left leg and Certificate is issued for fracture of pensionary benefits contributing for functioning of earning capacity, when entire body and seen, it can be found that the discharging his previous IS prevented and restricted from activities. carry out his activity in lesser fivj The income of scale, the injured/claimant can be notionally taken at Rs.5,000/-, which comes to Rs.60,000/- P a.. Then the loss of iincome comes to Rs.5,61,000/- upon application of muitiplicand 11’ and adopting =6,60,000 x85»/.]. Further, the oiaimant is compensation under other hearts i = heads i.e., a sum of Rs.60,000/- conveyance and and other disability at 85% [(60,000x11 = entitled for the for pain and suffering and Rs. 10,000/- for extra expenses, the claimant is entitled for nourishment, Rs.10,000/ - for damages to cloths permanent disability. ln all Rs.20,000/- for loss Rs.6,61,000/-. yi- GrounHc/^fj For the A umeritsjnth^ eal: respondAHt-APfiPTr. Learned MACT failed 10. [ij to appreciate that IS not established. rash and negligent driving ofthe Offending vehicle i 5 [ii] Learned MACT failed to take note of the negligence of the claimant in riding the motor cycle. [iii] Learned Tribunal erred in taking the income at Rs.5000/- notionally without any basis [iv] The age of the claimant and disability adopted are also baseless. Compensation awarded under various heads and rate of interest are all excessive. For the Claimant: 11. [i] Finding of the learned MACT on the point of negligence of driver of the offending vehicle and disability of the claimant are reasonable. But the learned MACT should have taken the disability at 100%, and income at Rs.10,000/-as claimed and awarded more compensation than what claimed and erred in awarding compensation of Rs.6,61,000/-. Perused the pleadings and the entire material on record. Thoughtful 12. consideration is given to the arguments advanced by the both sides. Now the points that arise for determination in this appeal are that - 13. 1) Whether the pleaded accident dated 17.01.2015 has occurred due to the exclusive rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle viz., the 1®* respondent, before the learned MACT? 2) Whether the claimant is suffered injuries due to the pleaded accident and entitled for compensation? If so, to what quantum? And what is the liability of the 2'^'^ respondent-APSRTC/appellant? 6 3) Whether the compensation of Rs.6,61,000/- awarded by the learned MACT is just and reasonable? Or require any interference by way of reduction or enhancement? If so, to what tune? 4) What is the result of the appeal? Points No.1 Precedential Guidance: 14. It is relevant to note that in view of the summary nature and mode of enquiry contemplated under Motor Vehicles Act and social welfare nature of legislation the Tribunal shall have holistic view with reference to facts and circumstances of each case. It is sufficient if there is probability. The principle of standard of proof, beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied or the injury on account of road accident. The touch stone of the case, the claimant shall have to establish is preponderance of probability only. The legal position to this extent is settled and consistent. while considering a claim seeking compensation for the death 15. This Court finds it relevant to note the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court made in Bimla Devi and others Vs. Transport Corporation, which reads as under: In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of Himachal Road 1 15. a manner 2009 (13) see 530 F 1 The standard of proof beyond preponderance of probability, reasonable doubt could not have been applied. For the said purpose, the High Court should have taken into consideration the respective stories set forth by both the parties..” Analysis Of Evidence:- Oral Evidence:- [i] Claimant as PW.1 reiterated his pleadings and stated about the occurrence of accident and negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. EX.A1 is the F.I.R. and Ex.A4 is the Charge Sheet laid against the driver of During the cross-examination of PW.1, it was 16. the offending vehicle, suggested that the negligence of the claimant is the cause for the accident, but he has denied the same. RW.1, driver of the offending vehicle, stated that while the bus reached near Dondakayala Market, near Choppella locks, he has noticed a TVS XL vehicle with a load of four bags, hanging to the motor cycle and two plywood planks and one Iron Chair kept in between the driver of the motor cycle and the pillion rider, and Driver of the motor cycle drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, took right turn to cross the road. On seeing the same, he has slow down the bus and sounded horn. But the claimant continued rash and negligent driving and dashed the bus and fell down. During his cross examination, RW.1 has denied the suggestion that his negligence is the cause for the accident. [ii] [iiij As per the between front and true, there is less chance for crime vehicle is claimant. Upon including the offending vehicle the movement of the \ version of RW.1, the claimant has hit the bus on the road. If that is the rear tyre side and tell down the crush ini coming from behind, and bus ran injury. As per the charge sheet, the over the left leg of the considering the evidence manner in which the and nature of injury suffered accident occurred particularly, the noticed and inferred cause negligence or accident, of the concluding that the exclusive crime vehicle viz RW i ic xv ’ ''s the cause for the was coming from behind and that the driver has motor cycle, it can be safely concluded of the offending vehicle i that negligence of the driver for the accident and IS the exclusive 'here is no material indicating either the negligence of the claimant contribution of Therefore, the claimant and against the negligence of the driver of the cri for occurrence of the point framed is answered accordingly, in favour respondent-APSRTC accident. Point No.2-- 17. Point No.2-- 17. With the documentary evidence Charge sheet, the pleaded injuries stands compensation is clear, is the just and reasonable evidence of pw.1 Ex.M-F.I.R., and PW.2 and the contents of and Ex.A4- and claimant sustaining the of the claimant for the remains for consideration is what compensation to which the claimant is entitled? Ex2-Wound Certificate occurrence of the accident proved and the entitlement Only the point that // ■/ ' 9 18. A reference to parameters, for quantifying the compensation various heads, addressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court is found necessary, to have standard base in the process of quantifying the compensation, to which the claimant is entitled. With regard to awarding just and reasonable under (i) quantum of compensation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Baby Sakshi Greola ManzoorAhmad Simon and Anr}, arising out of SLP(c).No.10996 of 2018 on 11.12.2024, considered the scope and powers of the Tribunal in vs. awarding just and compensation within the meaning of Act, after marshaling entire case law, more particularly with reference to the earlier observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court made in Kajal V. Jagadish Chand and Ors.^ referred to various heads under which compensation can be awarded, in injuries cases vide paragraph No.52, the heads are as follows:- S. No. Head Amount (In f) 1. Medicines and Medical Treatment Loss of Earning Capacity due to Disability Pain and Suffering Future Treatment Attendant Charges Loss of Amenities of Life Loss of Future Prospect Special Education Expenditure Conveyance and Special Diet 10. Loss of Marriage Prospects xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Total Rs. ...xxxxxx ^2025 AIAR (Civil) 1 ^2020 (04) see 413 10 (ii). Hon’ble Apex Court in Yadava Kumar Vs. Manager, National Insurance No. 10. by referring to Sunil Kumar of multiplier method i Divisional Company Limited and Anr.,* vide para 1/s. Ram Singh Gaud‘,as to application in case of injuries while calculating loss of future to Harden Kaur Vs. Rajasthan earnings, in para 16 referring Transport Corporation^ State as to fixing of quantum of compensation with liberal approach, valuing the life and limb of Individual iin generous scale, in para 17 observed that The High Court and the Tribunal must realize that there is a distinction between expression compensation compensation and damage. The for damage but compensation i may include a claim . 'W I’SS not taken place, by pecuniary relie.f Tbas. In tbe .alter of cornpulallon of approach will be slightly more broad based than what I assessment of damages. At the are the same position, way of grant of compensation, the IS done in the matter of same time it is true that there cannot be any rigid matter of determination of compensation." cr mathematical precision in the (iii). In Rajkumar \/s. AJay Kumar Bnd Another^ vide para No. 19, summarized principles to be followed in the process the Hon’ble Apex Court of quantifying the practical aspects from which compensation after referring to socio economic and come and the practical may face in the process of getting disability the claimants difficulties, the parties assessed ''2010(10)SCC 341 ^2007(14) see 61 " 1992(2) see 567 '2011 (1) see 343 . / / 11 / ' and getting all certificates from either the Doctors, who treated, or from the medical boards etc., it is observed that ... We may now summarise the principles discussed above : (i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity, (ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as percentage of permanent disability). (Hi) The doctor who treated an injured-claimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety, (iv) The same permanent disability may result In different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation orjob, age, education and other factors...” In Sidram vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr.^ vide para No.40, the Hon’ble Apex Court referred to the general (iv) principles relating to compensation in injury cases and assessment of future loss of earning due to permanent disability by referring to Rajkumar’s case and also various heads under which compensation can be awarded to a victim of a motor vehicle accident. In Sidram’s case, reference is made to a case in R.D. Hattangadi V. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd.^. From the observations (V) “ 2023 (3) see 439 ®1995(1)see 551 12 made therein, it can be QPmpensation in hypothafinai nature of the di<tf=ihinfY with ObiRntiue stanrlarrl^ SSnsidemtion^fmatfnr whi^h isjnevitable. understood that while fixing amount nf ^^^^^SLaccidenUUnvolve!, consideration guess wnru sympathy linked \A,iff^ have to he viewc^rf Mjstexclude all §Qme_ amount nf ^^‘^^Si-BuLMMrnse^lements SSSessmdarnaaes. the: Cn„^ % the In rest in AnaiysisofEWden^; Oral EvidAnrn-, 19. fij Claimant left leg and suffered General Hospital, Kakinada assessed at 85%. He has added that earning Rs.10.000/- due to accident his denying the income as PW.1 stated that he has suffered crush injury, to operation at Government right leg and disability he was doing fancy business amputation, undergone apart from fracture to ri and per month and life is spoiled, and disputing validity of Ex.A5 contributing the During the same for the family but cross-examination, except nothing more is elicited. fii] The evidence Orthopedic, Rangaraya Medical of PW.2, Dr.Promod College, Kakindada i Kumar, Professor IS as follows: of ^ . On 17.01.2015 Kakinada and I 1) Thereexamined him and found the foi ow,p 's a crush injury on leffln 'ejunes: I on ieff leg and potts fracture of right ankle Hospital. - / 13 On 17*^ January, 2015, above knee amputation was conducted as the crush injury of left leg became gangrene. On 06.02.2015 the fracture on right leg was operated and fixed with plate and screws. On 16.02.2015 the patient was discharged from the Hospital. The general condition of the patient at the time of discharge was good. Four X- rays were taken at the time of admission of the petitioner and there is also case sheet. Ex.XI contains four X-rays. Ex.X2 is case sheet of the petitioner. I cannot say as to the percentage of disability of the petitioner due to the said injuries and the same can be stated by only the medical board constituted by three members (Superintendent of the Hospital, Professor of the Orthopedic and Assistant Professor of Orthopedic and that the said three person will decide the percentage of the disability). The disability certificate shown to the petitioner is not a valid one for medico legal purpose and that it is meant for pension benefits issued by the Government. Cross-examination; The medical board will be constituted for assessing percentage of disability on case to case basis on reference. Ex.A5 condition of the patient will be entered in the system by SADAREM. Medical Board will assess the [percentage of disability by examining the patient and conducting necessary tests.” Documentary Evidence:- 20. Ex.A2 is the wound certificate reflecting the following injuries: 1) A Laceration of size 2 x 0.5c,m. on Lateral Corner of right eye, Red Colour, no bleed. 2) A Laceration of 2x0.5c. m. above left eye brow. Red colour. No bleed. 3) A laceration of 1x0.5cm on Lateral Corner of Left eye. Red Colour, No bleed. 4) A Grazed Abarasion of 5 x 3cm over lateral corner of left eye Red colour, no bleed 5) Crush injury over lower 1/fS^ of left leg with complete amputation Except for a skin tag connecting with main par. Ex.A5 is the Disability Certificate, indicating the following aspects : “Physical (Locomotor/Orthopaedic) Disability. The disability is in relation to his: Left Lower Limb. Sub-type of disability: Post Traumatic Amputation. 21. 14 Cause of Disability: Accident. Post Traumatic Amputation. Re-assessment of this case is not recommended. Percentage ofdisabiiity in his case is 85% [Eighty Five percent] He meets the foilowing physicai requirements for discharge of his duties. F-can perform worfr by manipuiating with fingers. PP-can perform work by pulling and pushing, L-can perform work by lifting, B- S-can perform work by sitting, RW- can perform work by bending, can perform work by reading and writing. ” 22. From the evidence of PWs.1,2 and Exs.A2 and A5 and other medical record, the following aspects are clear: 1) Claimant suffered crush injury. 2) Claimant suffered amputation of left leg. 3) Claimant suffered fracture conducted, inserting plates and 4) Claimant was aged ‘55’years. 5) Claimant was doing business. of right left and I screws. operation was 23. Third party evidence is not there to indicate what the claimant. No documentary proof i the socio-economic circumstances was the income of is available. Further, upon considering his age and occupation, etc., and also income of the claimant taken by the learned per month found proper. The contention appellant APSRTC found fit to be rejected. the year of the accident, the i MACT at Rs.5000/- contra by the 24. The claimant is a self-employed person and aged about ‘55 even as per his claim. Therefore not adding of future prospect etc., is aiso found did not consider However, the learned MACT proper. awarding of ■ ^ 15 7-‘- compensation under all, relevant heads and the entitlement of the claimant for compensation requires reconsideration in this factual scenario. 25. In view of the reasons and evidence referred above, the entitlement of the claimant for reasonable compensation in comparison to compensation awarded by the learned MACT is as follows: S.No. Head Granted by the learned MACT Fixed by this Appellate Court Nil- Rs.25,000/- 1. Medicines Treatment [Medical Expenditure] Loss of earning capacity due to disability and Medical Rs.5,61,000/- 2. Rs.5,61,000/- Rs.60,000/- Pain and suffering Rs.60,000/- 3. Rs. 10,000/- Nil Future Treatment 4. Nil Rs. 10,000/- 5. Attendant Charges Rs.20,000/- Rs.20,000/- Loss of amenities of Life and 6. discomfort Rs.20,000/- Rs. 10,000/- Conveyance and special diet 7. Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 10,000/- Damage to clothing and other expenses 8. Rs. 7,16,000/- Rs.6,61,000/- Total Further, whether the compensation can be enhanced in the absence of an appeal or cross appeal by the claimant is the next question. The legal position as to powers of the Appellate Court particularly while dealing with an appeal in terms of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, where the award passed by the learned MACT under challenge at the instance of the Insurance Company (Respondents) and bar or prohibition if any to 26. \ 16 enhance the compensation, quantum of compensation and awarding just and reasonable or cross objections even in the absence considered by the Division of any appeal was Bench of this Court i"1 a case between A/at/ona/ ^^see/amma Insurance Company Limited vs. E. ^nd others^° | framed therein M.A.C.M.A. No.945 in °f 2013, white of the judgment answering point No.3 as follows; vide, para 50 which reads r--- compensation this Cnnf Court/TribunJ?^^'^^^^'^ enhance the anZSrTn °f lheapne«!J° oroross-ohjaotton hy the Snte'?" 27. Observations ^ade by the Division Company Limited Bench of this ^nseeiamma Court in National ^nd others Insurance vs. £. compliance with the vs. Santosh and Others^\ 10 supra) are in case fc/ted observations of Hon’ble Apex Court in ^^•'^kha and Others 28 lnSwre>^/7a ^nd Others '0 Civil Appeal No.476 judges of the Hon’ble vs. Santosh and Others ^ide judgment dated Supreme Court observed ’ case /b/ted 77 21.01.2020, ^upray. of 2020 three that- “/if/s "ell stated that in the reference to the technical the affected of Instance claim accident, the Court ensure that just P^'-^on or the claimants". eompensation it should not take motor approach and m hyper IS awarded to addressing a case where compensation i While 2023 see Online AP 12021) 16 see 467 1725 ■ J /f / 17 // // the High Court has declined to grant enhancement on the ground that the claimants fail to file cross appeal above observations are made. The respondent is the driver of the offending vehicle and offending vehicle is owned by APSRTC and the negligence and 1®* respondent and claimant sustaining injuries due to accident are clear from the record. Therefore, the respondents No. 1 and 2 before the learned MACT are liable 29. to pay compensation. In view of the discussions made and conclusions drawn, the claimant 30. is entitled for compensation of Rs.7,16,000/- and the respondents are liable to pay the same jointly and severally. Point No.2 is answered accordingly. Point No.3 In view of the reasons stated and the conclusions drawn under points 31. 1 and 2, the compensation awarded by the learned Rs.6,61,000/- with interest @6% p.a. is fit to be modified and enhanced to Rs.7,16,000/- with interest @6% p.a.. Point No.3 is answered accordingly. Point No.4. In view of the above discussion and the conclusions drawn under 30. points 1 to 3, in the result, appeal is dismissed. However, the compensation awarded by the learned MACT at Rs.6,61,000/- with interest @6% p.a. under the impugned decree and order [i] 18 dated 12.06.2018 is modified and enhanced to Rs.7,16,000/- @6% p.a. from the date of petition till the with interest date of realization. [ii] .The claimant/petitioner shall enhanced part of compensation, before the pay the Court fee for the learned MACT. tiii] The ciaimant/petitioner is entitled to withdraw the once, on deposit. amount at [iv] No costs in the facts and circumstances. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions Shall stand closed. if any, pending in this appeal SD/- KJ.RAJA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Motor Accidents Tribunal-Cum-Judge-Cum-V Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram 2. One CC to SRI. S V RAMANA Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI. SIMHACHALAM BARAPAREDDY Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer VR Section High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 5. THREE CD COPIES Chp TAC \ i - HIGH COURT DATED;20/06/2025 JUDGMENT + DECREE MACMA No. 2802 OF 2018 X ? 3 Jill 2^5 s $JJ % Current aeciion ^ / S^LPesPATCV^'^® DISIVfISSING THE MACMA APHC010766392018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA M.A.C.M.A. NO: 2802 OF 2018 Between: A.P.S.R.T.C. Rep. by its Managing Director Musheerabad, Hyderabad,now at Vijayawada Vijayawada. ...APPELLANT/2''° RESPONDENT AND Mattaparthi Anand Rao, S/o. Bapanaiah Aged about 58 years, Fancy Business Gowtham Nagar, Kothapeta, Kappisettivaripalem, Kothapeta Mandal East Godavari District. ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER Musti Venkata Satya Subrhmanya Surya Ramanjaneya Narasimha Murthy, S/o. Satya Subrahmanyam 35 years, resident of Pedapatnam village Mamidikuru mandal. Driver of RTC Bus bearing No. AP-05X-0044. ..RESPONDENT/1 RESPONDENT Appeal filed under Section 173 of the M.V. Act Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree of the Motor Accidents Tribunal-Cum-Judge-Cu m-V Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram passed in M.V.O.P No. 586 of 2C15 dated 12.6.2018 the above named Appellant begs to present this Memorandum of Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the appeal and upon hearing the arguments of Sri S V Ramana, Advocate for the appellant and of Sri Simhachalam Barapareddy, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 4. This Court doth Order and Decree: 1. That the Appeal be and the same is hereby Dismissed; However that the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Rs.6,61,000/- with interest @ 6 % p.a. under the impugned decree and order dated 12.06.2018 be and are hereby modified and enhanced to Rs.7,16,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. That the claimant/petitioner be and is hereby directed to pay the Court fee for the enhanced part of compensation, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. That on deposit the claimant/petitioner be and is hereby entitled to withdraw the amount at once That there be no order as to costs in this Appeal. 2. 3. 4. 5. SD/- K.J.RAJA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ^EC^I //TRUE COPY// N OFFICER To, 1. The Motor Accidents Tribunal-Cum-Judge-Cum-V Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram THREE CD COPIES Chp TAC 2. HIGH COURT DATED:20/06/2025 DECREE MACMA No. 2802 OF 2018 8^ ! 3 m. 2025 X o ^ Current Section ^ DISMISSING THE MACMA