APHC011498632012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) Friday ,the twenty fourth day of January two thousand and twenty five The Honourable Ms Justice B S Bhanumathi Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No: Between: The General Manager, APSRTC P.Jayachandra Reddy @ Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. K Viswanatham (SC for APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. S V Muni Reddy 2. S A V Ratnam 3. G S G Radha Krishna The Court made the following: ORDER: This petition is filed 1988, against the award and decree dated 04 M.V.O.P.No.110 of 2007 on the file of the C Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chittoor, partly allowing the claim by awarding Rs.3,93,550/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Friday ,the twenty fourth day of January two thousand and twenty five Present The Honourable Ms Justice B S Bhanumathi Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No: 20 of 2025 , APSRTC and others ...Appellant AND @ Jayachandra and others ...Respondent Counsel for the Appellant(S): K Viswanatham (SC for APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent(S): Radha Krishna The Court made the following: This petition is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the award and decree dated 04-11-2011 110 of 2007 on the file of the Court of District Judge Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chittoor, partly allowing the claim by awarding Rs.3,93,550/- with future interest thereon @ 7 [3311] 2025 Appellant(S) Respondent(S) under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 2011, in ourt of District Judge-cum- Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chittoor, partly allowing the with future interest thereon @ 7.5% 2 MACMA.No.20 of 2025 p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit/realization payable by the respondents no.1 and 2 with joint and several liability. 2. The case of the claimant is briefly as follows: The petitioner was aged about 33 years and earning Rs.5,000/- per month as driver of a milk van bearing No.AP-03-U-3520 belonging to Sri T.Ramesh Babu, and later, owned by the respondents no.3 to 5. The 6th respondent is the insurer of the milk van. On 23.06.2005, while the claimant was driving the milk van near Kanipakam bridge on Chittoor-Kanipakam road, the driver of the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP-10-Z-2719 drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and hit the milk van causing severe injuries to the claimant. The claimant was admitted in the Government Hospital, Chittoor in unconscious state. Later, he was shifted to CMC hospital, Vellore, where he took treatment as in-patient on three occasions and subjected to multiple surgeries for the fracture of right wrist, loss of two upper teeth, besides other grievous injuries. The claimant incurred huge medical expenditure, and expenses for attendant charges, conveyance and extra nourishment. He sustained permanent disability of 35% and could not attend his normal duties of driving after the accident. He requires another surgery for removal of implants. The police of Thavanampalle, registered a case in Crime No.29 of 2005 against the driver of the RTC bus under Sections 337, 338 and 279 IPC and laid charge sheet against him. 3. The 1st and 2nd respondents are owners of the APSRTC bus. The 3rd to 5th respondents are legal representatives of the deceased owner of the milk van. The 6th respondent is the insurer of the milk van. 4. The 1st respondent filed the written statement denying the claim and other facts stated by the claimant and the same was adopted by the 3 MACMA.No.20 of 2025 2nd respondent by filing a memo. The 1st respondent pleaded contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. 5. The 3rd respondent for herself and the minor respondents no.4 and 5 filed written statement contending that the milk van was covered by policy of insurance issued by the 6th respondent and further contended that the amount of compensation claimed is excessive. 6. The 6th respondent filed written statement putting the petitioner to prove his age, income, avocation, expenses etc. while denying the negligence of the driver of the milk van i.e. the claimant and further stating that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus of the 1st respondent and, therefore, the 6th respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. It is further contended that the 6th respondent is not a necessary party and the petition is liable to be dismissed as mis-joinder. It is also contended that the amount claimed is excessive and that the 1st respondent is not liable to indemnify the legal heirs as the death of the insured was not informed. 7. On behalf of the claimant, he himself got examined as PW.1 and four other witnesses were examined as PWs 2 to 5 and Exs.A.1 to A.19 were marked. 8. On behalf of the respondents, no witness was examined, but copy of insurance policy was marked as Ex.B.1. 9. After hearing both parties, the Tribunal concluded that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the driver of the bus and awarded total amount of compensation of Rs.3,93,550/- payable with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of 4 MACMA.No.20 of 2025 deposit/realization with joint and several liability of the respondents no.1 and 2 who are appellants herein. The amount of compensation under different heads granted is as follows: General damages: a) For injuries, pain and suffering … Rs.1,00,000/- b) Permanent disability … Rs.1,22,400/- Special damages: a) Loss of past earnings … Rs.18,000/- b) Medical expenses … Rs.1,00,000/- c) Attendant charges … Rs.12,000/- d) Transportation charges … Rs. 35,150/- e) Extra nourishment … Rs. 6,000/- _____________ Total … Rs.3,93,550-00 _____________ 10. Aggrieved by the award and decree, the 1st and the 2nd respondents filed this appeal contending that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the RTC bus and that there was contributory negligence of the claimant and further that the Tribunal failed to fasten liability on the 5th respondent herein/6th respondent before the Tribunal i.e., the insurance company. It is further contended that the amount of compensation awarded under various heads is excessive. 11. The appeal was filed on 04.11.2011 along with an application in I.A.No.1 of 2012 (MACMA MP No.3193 of 2012) under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay of 81 days in preferring the 5 MACMA.No.20 of 2025 appeal. The petition was allowed on 07.01.2025 and thus, the appeal was numbered as MACMA No.20 of 2025. 12. Pending adjudication of I.A.No.1 of 2012, cross-objection with I.A.No.9 of 2012 in XOBJ 33835 of 2012 was filed by R-1/claimant. However, the same was not received by this High Court after bifurcation of the High Court, as per the office note dated 28.11.2023. 13. The learned counsel for the claimants/appellants in the cross objection ‘not pressed’ the cross objection and requested to dispose of the appeal in MACMA No.20 of 2025 on merits. He vehemently opposed the appeal filed b the APSRTC on the grounds raised submitting that the award of the Tribunal does not require any interference. 14. It is the case of the claimant that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus, whereas it is the contention of the appellants that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the claimant himself, however the tribunal failed to consider the contributory negligence of the claimant. Insofar as the rash and negligence of the driver of the bus in causing the accident is concerned, the Tribunal was of the view that the claimants could establish that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus with the oral evidence of the eyewitness PW.1 who himself was the claimant and the documentary evidence of Exs.A.1 and A.2 and nothing could be culled out in the cross examination of PW.1 as to his negligence or no negligence of the driver of the bus. Though the contesting respondents no.1 and 2 opposed the allegation against the driver, no step was taken to examine the driver. Thus, the Tribunal concluded that the petitioner could establish his 6 MACMA.No.20 of 2025 allegation, but the respondents no.1 and 2 failed to prove their contention. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly concluded and the observation is based on the material on record and does not call for any interference in the appeal. As the contributory negligence of the claimant is not established, the 5th respondent herein/insurance company which is the insurer of the milk van driven by the claimant cannot be made liable. 15. The amount of compensation awarded was claimed to be excessive as the claimant suffered multiple injuries, including the fracture injury and loss of teeth, the Tribunal rightly granted Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.1,22,400/- towards permanent disability basing on medical evidence. Though the claimant placed proof of medical expenses of Rs.1,22,865.90ps, the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses after deducting some impermissible items. The rest of the amount of compensation awarded under the heads of attendant charges, transportation charges, extra nourishment and loss of past earnings are all reasonable. Thus, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal does not require interference in the appeal. 16. Accordingly, the MACMA is liable to be dismissed. 17. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in this appeal, shall stand closed. __________________ Dt.24.01.2025 B.S.BHANUMATHI, J PNV