APHC011329562006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH 0. AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE 0E5 Q U m .0^ PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOVOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPFAi NO: 41 OF 2019 Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the Order and Decree, dated 15.05.2006 passed in M.V.O.P.No.1148 of 2004 the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), East Godavari at Rajahmundry. Between: on Kalla Sunkarayya, S/o.Padmanabham, Hindu, aged 35 years, Mason R/o.R.Yeeramapalem, Gokavaram Mandal, East Godavari District. ...Appellant/Petitioner AND 1. Gollapalli Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Murthy, S/o.Surayanara yana Murthy, Hindu, 51 A.P.S.R.T.C. years, A.P.S.R.T.C., Bus Depot, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. Driver No.455591, 2. A.P.S.R.T.C., represented by its General Manager Hyderabad. Musheerabad, (R1 dismissed for default vide Court Order, dated 19.02.2015) ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Venkat Challa 4jCounsel for the Respondent No.2: Sri VInod Kumar Tarlada (SC for APSRTC) The Court made the following: % APHC011329562006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA jVIOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELi ANEOUS APPFAI Between: Kalla Sunkarayya [3333] NO: 41/2019 ...APPELLANT AND GW Satyanarayana Murthy and Others Counsel for the Appellant: 1.VENKATCHALLA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.VINOD KUMAR TARLADA (SC FOR APSRTC) ...RESPONDENT(S) 2. The Court made the following: 2 VS,J MACI\/IA_41 2019 JUDGMENT: This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, (in short ‘M.V.Act’), has been filed by the appellant/clai mant, seeking enhancement of the Award, dated 15.05.2006, passed in M.V.O.P.No.1148 of 2004 on the file the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, East Godavari, Rajahmundry (in short wherein, the Tribunal awarded against the claim of Rs. 1,00,000/-. the Tribunal) an amount of Rs.2,500/- only, as 2. The appellant herein is the petitioner/claimant before Tribunal. Respondent No.1 is the driver of the bus bearing No. AP 10 Z 6301 and the 2"^^ respondent is the APSRTC. the 3. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim application. 4. The brief facts of the case are as follows; On 13.03.2004, at about 06.00 a.m., when the auto in which the petitioner was travelling reached Transformer, Gummalla DOddi village of Korukonda mandal, an RTC bus bearing No.AP 10 Z 6301 which was driven by the 1®‘ respondent came in the opposite direction and dashed against the auto in which the petitioner was travelling, as a result of which the said auto turned turtle and the 3 VS,J MACMA_41 2019 petitioner sustained injuries. As such, he filed the petition before the "ribunal seeking compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- While the 1®' respondent/driver remained ex-parte, the 2 respondent filed a counter contending that on 13.03.2004, while the 1®‘ respondent was driving the bus bearing No. AP 10 Z 6301 from ! ^hadrachalam to Rajahmundry, Police stopped the Gokavaram Police station and enquired the 1®^ respondent. Though the 1®' respondent denied the occurrence of the said accident, a false case was filed against him. It is further stated that the claim amount is excessive. 5. nd same near 6. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for consideration: 1. Whether the accident is due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1^^ respondent? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation claimed? as 3. To what relief? 7. On behalf of the claimant, the petitioner himself got examined as P.W.1 and he got examined the Medical Officer P.W.2 and Exs.AI to A34 were marked. The 2"^^ respondent has examined the 1®' respondent/driver of the offending vehicle as RW1, but, no documents were marked. as 4 VS,J MACMA 41 2019 8. The Tribunal, after examining the evidence of P.W.1 and R.W.1 coupled with Exs.M to A3, held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the 1®' respondent and has answered issued No.1 accordingly. With regard to the quantum, the Tribunal, relying upon the material evidence produced by the petitioner, held that the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,500/- against the claimed sum of Rs.1,00,000/- 9. Aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant/claimant preferred this appeal. 10. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned Standing Counsel for respondent corporation. 11. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously contended that though the appellant has sustained serious injuries and has spent huge sum of money for his treatment, the Tribunal, without considering the same and without examining the evidence adduced by the appellant in an appropriate manner, has erroneously awarded a sum of Rs.2500/- instead Rs.1,00,000/- as claimed. The Tribunal, ought to have considered the medical bills produced before it in order to grant compensation 5 VS,J MACMA_41_2019 per his claim. Hence requested to allow the appeal by enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. as Learned Standing Counsel on the other side opposed the appeal by contending that the petitioner got examined Dr. R. Pardhasaradhi as P.W.2 who deposed in his evidence that the petitioner received only one lacerated injury over his right knee and that he did not sustain any fracture injury. Further, P.W.2 testified that the medical bills produced by the petitioner showing that he spent thousands of rupees were not prescribed by him. He further contended that when the petitioner underwent free treatment and was supplied free medicines, as deposed by P.W.2, the question of granting compensation for the same medical treatment does not arise. Having observed thus, the Tribunal has rightly awarded the said compensation and the same does not warrant any interference by this Court. Hence requested to dismiss this appeal. 2. Now, this Court has to see as to whether the award of the Tribunal below awarding compensation of Rs.2500/- is insufficient or 13. on reasonable basis. On a perusal of the material available on record, it can be seen that the petitioner himself was examined as P.W.1 who 14. categorically stated in his evidence that on 13.03.2004, while the 6 VS,J MACMA 41 2019 auto in which he was travelling reached Transformer Gummalladoddi village of Korukonda Mandal, the bus belonging to the respondent corporation and being driven by the 1®' respondent gave a dash to the aforementioned, as a result the auto turned turtle. As such, the petitioner sustained injuries. The petitioner produced Ex.A.1 - FIR in Crime No.21 of 2004, Ex.A2 - Wound certificate and Ex.A3 - Charge sheet. It can be seen that a case was registered against the driver of the bus i.e. 1®* respondent. Observing thus, the Tribunal has rightly held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the 1®* respondent, due to which the petitioner sustained injuries. 15. Exs.A4 to A25 are the medical bills and prescriptions. EXS.A28 is case sheet of the petitioner and Ex.A30 is the X-Ray. Further, the petitioner got examined Dr. R. Pardhasaradhi as P.W.2 who deposed that the petitioner received one simple injury i.e. lacerated injury over his right knee and that he has not sustained any bony injury. He further deposed that Ex.A2 was not issued by him and that as per Ex.A30 - Xray, the petitioner has not sustained fracture of any bone. Further, P.W.2 deposed that he has not issued any prescriptions for purchase of medicines and that Exs.A4 to A25 were not prescribed by him. Even otherwise, it is the evidence of P.W.1 that he received free treatment and free medicines. It is an 7 VS,J l\/IACMA_41_2019 vV admitted fact that the petitioner received free medical treatment and hiedicines. Despite this, he has filed certain medical different amounts. This bills claiming act appears questionable and casts a shadow of doubt over the genuineness of his claim. The Tribunal has rightly observed and scrutinized the bills produced before it and has concluded that the petitioner is entitled for compensation of an amount of Rs.2,500/- for the simple injury he has sustained due As respondent No.1 is the driver of the offending vehicle and as respondent No.2 is its owner, they were jointly and severally made liable to pay the said compensation amount, which need not be intervened. to the accident. 16. Having regard to the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the amount of Rs.2500/- awarded by the Tribunal on reasonable basis and is sustainable under law, which needs interference. was no 17. Hence, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal i dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. IS As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT R^ISTRAR ^^ti&^fficer Tribunal-cum-V Additional //TRUE COPY// To 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims District Judge (Fast Track Court), East Godavari at Rajahmundry. (With records If any) 2. One CC to Sri Venkat Challa, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada (SC for APSRTC), [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, VR Section. High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. 5. Two CD Copies BSV sree % HIGH COURT DATED:20/06/2025 JUDGMENT & DECREE MACMA NO. 41 OF 2019 DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS