APHC011365492014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 796/2025 Between: 1. T.FRANCIS, S/O EMMANUEL, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, TEACHER, D.NO. 26-4-3444, DEEPTHI BHAVAN, MELAPURAM, HINDUPUR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1. THE AP STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANR, ANATAPUR 2. M LINGANNA, DRIVER IN APSRTC, ANANTAPUR DEPOT ANANTAPUR. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the order and decree made in MVOP No.166/2011 dated 17.06.2013 on the file of the court of MACT cum Addl.District Judge, Hindupur, Anantapur District. Counsel for the Appellant: 1. N RANGA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K VISWANATHAM (SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following: 2 CGR, J. MACMA No.796 of 2025 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN M.A.C.M.A.No.796 of 2025 JUDGMENT: The present appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 (for short, “the Act”), assailing the order, dated 17.06.2013, passed in O.P.No.166 of 2011 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Hindupur (for short, “the Tribunal”), whereby compensation of Rs.1,03,000/- was awarded to the claimant, along with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts relating to the present appeal in a nutshell are as follows: (a) Appellant is the claimant, who initiated claim under Section 166 of the Act, claiming compensation of Rs.2,36,960/- towards damages caused to his vehicle, which met with an accident. On 03.04.2011, while appellant/claimant along with his wife was travelling in Tata Sumo vehicle bearing Registration No.AP02 R 6908 met with accident on account of dashing by bus belonging to respondent Corporation. The vehicle was thereafter taken to authorised Tata showroom viz., Prani Auto Plaza at 3 CGR, J. MACMA No.796 of 2025 Anantapur, and was got repaired by spending Rs.2,36,914/-. Claiming the same as compensation, he preferred O.P. before the Tribunal. (b) 1st respondent Corporation filed written statement opposing the claim. 2nd respondent driver of offending bus remained ex parte. (c) Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues: “1. Whether the accident occurred on 3-4-2011 at about 7- 00 A.M. it had happened on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending APSRTC Bus bearing No. AP 28 Z.470? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so to what extent and from which of the respondents? 3. To what relief?” (d) To prove the claim, claimant got examined himself as PW.1 and examined Body Shop Manager of Prani Auto Plaza as PW.2, and got marked Ex.A1 true copy of FIR, Ex.A2 invoice and Ex.A3 Photostat copy of R.C. of Tata Sumo vehicle. On behalf of respondent Corporation, driver has been examined as RW.1. (e) The 1st issue came to be answered in favour of claimant, holding that accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of driver of the bus belonging to the respondent Corporation. Therefore, the Tribunal proceeded to determine the amount of compensation payable on account of damage caused to the Tata Sumo. Based on Ex.A2 and evidence of PW.2, though invoice was furnished for an amount of Rs.1,04,434/- towards cost of spare parts and Rs.75,980/- towards labour charges, the 4 CGR, J. MACMA No.796 of 2025 Tribunal has awarded Rs.78,000/- towards spare parts and Rs.25,000/- towards labour charges, in total, Rs.1,03,000/- along with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. Assailing the same, present appeal is preferred, being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded. 4. Heard Sri N.Ranga Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant/ claimant, and Sri Aravala Ramarao, learned standing counsel for respondent Corporation. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the evidence on record, in particular, Ex.A2 r/w the deposition of PW.2 clearly established that the Tata Sumo was damaged and for repairing the same, an amount of Rs.1,04,434/- and Rs.75,980/- got spent towards cost of spare parts and labour charges, respectively, however, for no reason aforesaid evidence has not been completely accepted and the Tribunal merely awarded Rs.1,03,000/-, which is clearly perverse. He also contended that the claim with respect to loss of earnings on account of the vehicle being idle for the period of repair has been denied, which otherwise, the claimant is entitled to. 6. Opposing the aforesaid submissions, learned standing counsel for the respondent Corporation tried to support the impugned order by 5 CGR, J. MACMA No.796 of 2025 contending that the Tribunal on evaluation of evidence on record has rightly assessed the damage and determined the compensation as Rs.1,03,000/-, which cannot be found fault with and further, has rightly rejected the claim of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of rent, as the same being without any evidence, therefore, pleaded for dismissal of the appeal. 7. Perused the record and considered the rival submissions of both the learned counsel. 8. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is as follows: “Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in favour of the claimant is just and reasonable, or is liable to be reduced or enhanced? 9. POINT : The crucial piece of evidence adduced in support of claim for compensation by way of damage to the vehicle is Ex.A2, the invoice issued by Prani Auto Plaza, Anantapur, besides deposition of Body Shop Manager as PW.2. Ex.A2 clearly indicates that invoice was raised for an amount of Rs.1,04,434/- towards cost of spare parts and Rs.75,980/- towards labour charges. To support the same, PW.2 the Body Shop Manager of Prani Auto Plaza, which is an authorised showroom of Tata Motors, spoke of the factum that the subject vehicle was repaired in their workshop and thereby 6 CGR, J. MACMA No.796 of 2025 incurred aforesaid invoice amount. This evidence clearly establishes that the subject vehicle was repaired, and the cost of repairs has been assessed through the invoice. Though the respondent Corporation tried to deny the amount spent towards repairs and labour charges, no contra evidence has been let in, to disbelieve the same. In the absence of any contra evidence, the Tribunal ought to have gone by the invoice and also evidence of PW.2. The cost of spare parts as invoiced for Rs.1,04,434/- could not have been discounted by 25% to arrive at Rs.78,000/-. The aforesaid finding of the Tribunal is clearly unacceptable, therefore, the amount as indicated in the invoice, being sufficiently demonstrated to have been incurred, is justified. 10. Coming to the aspect of labour charges, an amount of Rs.75,980/- has been claimed. When aforesaid amount is compared with the cost of spare parts, it appears that labour charges are definitely disproportionate and on higher side. The Tribunal, therefore, has assessed the labour charges as Rs.25,000/-. This Court does not find any infirmity in such approach of the Tribunal, therefore, the labour charges as assessed by the Tribunal are confirmed. 11. Lastly, coming to the aspect of rent that is claimed for the period subject vehicle was under repair, as the vehicle is being used for personal use and in the absence of any evidence on record to show that the claimant 7 CGR, J. MACMA No.796 of 2025 has been renting out the subject vehicle for commercial purpose, the claim made deserves no acceptance. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly rejected the same. 12. In view of the above observations, the order passed by the Tribunal determining compensation stands modified. Therefore, compensation of Rs.1,29,434/- is awarded along with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The 1st respondent-Corporation is directed to deposit the enhanced/balance compensation, after deducting the amount, if any, already deposited, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit being made, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the same. 13. Accordingly, the appeal stands partly allowed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any in this case, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date:17.09.2025. cs