APHC011359892016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3367] WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 37/2022 Between: ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD,, TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR/VICE CHAIRMAN, MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD ...APPELLANT AND V PRABHALAMBA, W/o Krishnaiah naidu, Hindu, aged about 50years, residing at Vellavaripalle village, H/o Yellankivaripalle, Pulicherla mandal, Chittoor District ...RESPONDENT Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying that the High court may be pleased to aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 02.11.2015 in M.V.O.P.No.119/2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Chittoor IA NO: 1 OF 2016(MACMAMP 2641 OF 2016 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 IA NO: 2 OF 2016(MACMAMP 2949 OF 2016 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 IA NO: 1 OF 2017(MACMAMP 3444 OF 2017 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, 2 the High Court may be pleased vacate the interim stay order dated 05.07.2016 passed in MACMAMP No.2949/2016 in MACMASR No.20429/2016 Counsel for the Appellant: ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) Counsel for the Respondent: NIMMAGADDA SATYANARAYANA The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District Judge at Chittoor (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.119 of 2014 dated 02.11.2015. 2. The appellant is the APSRTC/owner of the Bus bearing No.AP 11Z 4462 (hereinafter referred to as “crime bus”). The respondent herein is the claimant before the Tribunal. 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: 3 i). On 18.02.2012 at about 03.30 p.m., while the claimant proceeding to her agricultural well and when she reached Putchalavaripalle village, the crime bus driven by its driver in a rash and negligent dashed against the claimant, resulted she sustained bleeding injuries on her chin and right hand. Then, she was shifted to S.V.R.R.G.G. Hospital at Tirupati for treatment. ii). She claimed compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- against the respondent/APSRTC. 5. The respondent/APSRTC filed counter denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the accident occurred was due to the negligence of the claimant, but not driver of the crime bus; that the compensation claimed by the claimant is excessive, thereby, prayed to dismiss the claim against the respondent. 6. The Tribunal settled the following issues and additional issues for enquiry basing on the material: 4 “1.Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing Reg.No.AP 11 Z 4462? 2.Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? and 3.To what relief?” 7. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimant, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined, Exs.A.1 to A.5, X.1 and X.2 were exhibited. On behalf of the respondent, none were examined and no documentary evidence was adduced. 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 its driver, held that claimant is entitled for the compensation of Rs.2,85,600/-, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondent, 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. 5 10. Heard Sri Aravala Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant/APSRTC and Sri T.Praveen Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana, 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?” 12. POINT: It is not in dispute about the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident and involvement of crime bus. It is also not in dispute that no appeal was preferred by the claimant against the findings of the Tribunal. 13. The foremost contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant/APSRTC is that the accident occurred was due to the negligence on the part of the claimant, but not driver of the crime bus, thereby the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant. 14. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/claimant submits that the Tribunal after perusal of entire material on 6 record rightly came to the conclusion that the accident occurred was due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime bus by its driver only, there are no valid grounds urged by the appellant to meddle with the said findings. 15. In view of the above contention, this Court perused the material available on record. To prove the rash and negligent driving of the crime bus, the claimant got examined himself as P.W.1 coupled with Exs.A.1 and A.2 F.I.R and charge sheet respectively. 16. On perusal of Exs.A.1 and A.2 F.I.R. and Charge Sheet respectively, the investigating agency, after thorough investigation, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime bus by its driver. Except bare contention in the counter filed before the Tribunal, nothing placed on record to prove any contributory negligence against the claimant. 17. The driver of the crime bus is the best witness to speak about the manner of the incident and deny the case of the claimant, but he did not enter into the witness box before the 7 Tribunal. On the other hand, the testimony of P.W.1 coupled with Exs.A.1 and A.2 categorically show that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the crime bus by its driver. The Tribunal, after thorough appreciation of the matter rightly came to the conclusion that the claimant received injuries in the incident, due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime bus. 18. Coming to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, it is the contention of the appellant that the Tribunal erred in awarding Rs.2,85,600/- towards compensation under different heads. 19. To prove the nature of the injuries and treatment undergone by the claimant, he got examined P.W.2 doctor, who treated her. On perusal of testimony of P.W.2 coupled with Exs.A.3, X.1 and X.2, the claimant sustained grievous injury on her right arm and suffering with 45% of disability, which is functional disability under Ex.A.5. By considering the above material on record and following the celebrated pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport 8 Corporation1, the Tribunal rightly calculated the compensation entitled by the claimant and awarded Rs.2,10,600/- towards permanent disability, Rs.10,000/- each for transportation and extra nourishment, Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.5,000/- towards clothes and articles, which requires no interference of this Court. 20. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that no valid grounds urged by the appellant to interfere with the findings arrived by the Tribunal in all aspects, 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. 21. 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: 18.06.2025 Krs 1 AIR 2009 Supreme Court 3104 9 332 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS M.A.C.M.A.No.37 of 2022 (J U D G M E N T) DATE: 18.06.2025 Krs