APHC010830232015 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: 333/2025 Between: 1. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD. ...APPELLANT AND 1. P RAJA, S/o. P. Venkatappa, Aged about 38 Years, residing at C/o. Raja Tractor works, Tirupati Road, Rachapaleyam Post, Puttur Mandal, Chittoor District. ...RESPONDENT Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying that the Highcourt may be pleased to aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 12.08.2014 in MVOP.No.617 of 2010 on the file of the chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-V Addl. District Judge, Tirupati IA NO: 1 OF 2015(MACMAMP 1677 OF 2015 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 condone the delay of 140 days in filing the MACMA. IA NO: 2 OF 2015(MACMAMP 1961 OF 2015 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 stay all further proceedings including the execution proceedings dt. 12/08/2014 in OP.No. 617 of 2010 on the file of the Chairman, MACT-cum-V Additional district & Sessions Judge, Tirupathi, Chittoor District Counsel for the Appellant: 1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 333 OF 2025 JUDGMENT: The present appeal is filed challenging the order dated 12.08.2014 passed in M.V.O.P. No.617 of 2010 on the file of Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – V Additional District Judge, Tirupati, awarding compensation of ₹1,89,775/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant. 2. (a) Claimant stated to be proceeding on Hero Honda Motorcycle on 09.11.2010, at about 01.00 p.m., RTC Bus bearing No.AP 28Z 4900, which was proceeding towards Srikalahasti in same direction, dashed the motorcycle from behind. Resultantly, the claimant fell down and sustained injuries. He was shifted to SVRRGG Hospital at Tirupati and thereafter shifted to BOTH hospital at Tirupati for better treatment, where he underwent treatment from 12.11.2010 to 24.11.2010. He had sustained grievous injuries and had spent about ₹75,000/- for the treatment. The incident was reported to police and Crime No.74 of 2010 was registered against driver of the bus for offences under Sections 337 and 279 IPC and after investigation, police filed charge 2 CGR, J MACMA. No.333 of 2025 sheet. Petitioner, therefore, had filed the present claim under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of ₹3,00,000/- along with interest thereon. (b) The respondent Corporation filed written statement denying allegations made in the claim petition, the manner in which accident occurred, that the driver of bus was negligent and responsible for the accident, besides disputing age, earnings of the injured. (c) The claimant in support of his case examined himself as P.W.1 and Doctor at BOTH hospital as P.W.2 and marked Exs.A1 to A14. None were examined for respondents, nor were any documents marked. (d) Based on the pleadings and evidence let in by the claimant, the Tribunal framed following issues: 1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of RTC bus bearing No.AP 28Z 4900 by respondent driver on 09.11.2010 and whether P.Raju sustained injuries in the accident? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount? 3. To what relief? 3 CGR, J MACMA. No.333 of 2025 (e) The 1st issue relating to the case of negligence, Tribunal after elaborate consideration and discussion, upon appreciation of evidence let in i.e., Ex.A1 – FIR, Ex.A3 – Charge sheet, besides oral evidence of P.W.1 came to conclusion that the accident occurred on account of the negligence of driver of the bus, particularly as bus has hit motorcycle behind from the back. (f) Having decided the 1st issue against Corporation, proceeded to determine the compensation. The evidence of P.W.2 – Doctor, who issued Ex.A9 – Medical Certificate and the treatment availed, besides the medical bills produced under Exs.A5 to A10, the Tribunal has arrived at the compensation. It had awarded ₹1,10,000/- towards pain and suffering, as claimant had suffered serious injuries i.e., fracture of 5th to 11th ribs on right side, fracture transverse process of lumbar 2nd to 5th lumbars vertebra as certified under Ex.A9. Further, though claimant had claimed ₹75,000/- towards medical expenses, as Exs.A5 to A10 and A14, he only spent about ₹61,475/- towards treatment and ₹8,300/- post treatment, the same alone came to be considered. In total, compensation of ₹1,89,775/- has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. 4 CGR, J MACMA. No.333 of 2025 (g) Assailing the same, the present appeal is filed. 3. Heard Sri Aravala Rama Rao, learned standing counsel for APSRTC, representing on behalf of appellant/respondent. Though notice has been sent to respondent/claimant, none appeared. 4. Learned counsel for appellant contended that the Tribunal has considered to grant ₹1,10,000/- towards pain and suffering, which is without any basis and that too on very high side. He further contended that none were examined to prove the medical bills under Exs.A5 to A10, A14. Tribunal ought not to have awarded the amount of ₹69,775/-. 5. Perused the record. 6. The question that falls for consideration of this Court is: 1. Whether the order passed by the Tribunal suffers from any infirmity or perversity and need interference of this Court? 2. To what relief? 7. The claimant while driving motorcycle was hit by bus behind the back. The factum of accident and the negligence attributed to the driver of bus are not in challenge. The claimant 5 CGR, J MACMA. No.333 of 2025 was admitted to SVRRGG Hospital at Tirupati on 09.11.2010 when accident occurred. After initial treatment, he was shifted to BOTH hospital on 12.11.2010 and was treated as inpatient till 24.11.2010. In order to prove the nature of injuries suffered, claimant has got marked Ex.A2 – wound certificate, Ex.A5 – discharge summary, Ex.A9 – Medical Certificate, Ex.A11 – C.T. Scan for chest, Exs.A12 and A13. Besides these documentary evidences, he also examined P.W.2, who was Chief Orthopedic Surgeon, BOTH hospital and treated the claimant. The medical certificate issued by P.W.2 marked as Ex.A9 mentioned that claimant had fracture of 5th to 11th ribs on right side and fracture transverse process of lumbar 2nd to 5th lumbars vertebra, on the date of admission in BOTH hospital on 12.11.2010 and after treatment, he was discharged on 24.11.2010. Aforesaid evidence both documentary as well as oral, by the doctor, indicates that nature of injuries suffered by claimant is definitely grievous in nature and not simple. Almost the claimant was in hospital as inpatient for about 15 days to undergo treatment. The Tribunal, having analyzed the treatment undergone, medical certificate issued by P.W.2 and other evidence on record, has come to conclusion that the injuries sustained are definitely severe in 6 CGR, J MACMA. No.333 of 2025 nature, therefore, claimant had undergone severe pain and suffering and accordingly, has awarded an amount of ₹1,10,000/- for the same. Though learned counsel for appellant contended that the injuries are simple in nature, there is no contrary evidence in support of said contention. Even in the cross- examination of P.W.2, nothing was elicited to disbelieve the doctor's version. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to interdict with said finding recorded by the Tribunal. 8. Coming to the other aspect of reimbursement of medical bills, the Tribunal has considered Exs.A5 to A10 & A14 for awarding reimbursement of medical bills. It is not in dispute that claimant had not undergone treatment nor the bills which have been produced by him are not genuine. When the factum of undergoing treatment has been established and in the absence of contrary material or evidence let in by the Corporation to overthrow the evidence that has been relied on by claimant, there is no reason for disbelieving medical bills. The Tribunal, therefore, has not committed any error in accepting the medical bills. 9. In view of the same, this Court does not find any merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the same stands dismissed. Appellant 7 CGR, J MACMA. No.333 of 2025 is directed to deposit the balance amount along with interest as awarded by the Tribunal within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, and on such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the same without furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending consideration, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J 31.07.2025 SS