v. o 9 O o. f>i. O APHC011387742016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 321 OF 2025 Between: 1. A.P.S.R.T.C, Represented by its Depot Manager, Srikakulam Depot Srikakualm District. 2. A.P.S.R.T.C, Rep. by its Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, Hyderabad. ...Appellants/Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 AND 1. Dantuluri Ramachandra Raju, S/o.Late Venkatapathi Raju, aged about 43 years, R/o.Vallapuram Village, Gurla Mandal, Vizianagaram District. ...Respondent/Petitioner 2. Bobbadi Dharma Rao, S/o.Late Chinnappadu, aged about 53 years. Driver of APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP-20-Z-0066, R/o.Golla Veedhi, Halam Centre, Palakonda, Srikakulam District. ...Respondent/1®* Respondent Appeal, under Section 173 of the Judgment and Decree, dated 20-06-2016 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Acci( District Court), Vizianagaram, Vizianagarai Motor Vehicles Act against the massed in M.V.O.P.No. 474 of 2013 ents Claims Tribunal (I Additional n District. ♦ • This appeal coming on for hearing appeal, the Order and Decree of the Trie petition and upon hearing arguments Advocate for Appellants (SC for APSRTC Advocate for Respondent No.1 and none and upon perusing the grounds of I Court and material papers in the of Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, ), and of Sri G.V.S.Mehar Kumar, appeared for Respondent No.2. THIS COURT DOTH ORDER AND DECR EE: 1. That the MACMA be and the same 2. That the appellant-Corporation be the compensation amount as aware the Motor Accidents Claims Tribun lereby is dismissed; and hereby is directed to deposit ed in M.V.O.P.No.474 of 2013 by al-cum-l Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram, within a period of eght (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order; That on such deposit, respondent/cl; limant be and hereby is entitled to withdraw the same. That in default, respondent/claimant be and hereby is at liberty to take steps for execution; and 3. 4. 5. That there be no order as to costs in this MACMA. Sd/- K J RAJA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE CO *Y// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents District Judge, Vizianagaram, Vizian Two CD Copies :^laims Tribunal-cum-l Additional jgaram District. 2. ✓ HIGH COURT DATED:04/08/2025 DECREE MACMA NO. 321 OF 2025 g 15 SEf 2025 m ^ Current Saciion , DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS rHC011387742016 THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI IN MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Mi^r.FI I ANEOUS NQ- 321 OF 2025 THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL of the Motor Vehicles Act against the I M.V.O.P.No. 474 of 2013 Claims Tribunal (I Additional Appeal filed under Section 173 and Decree, dated 20-06-2016 passed in Judgment on the District Court), Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District. file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Between; 1. A.P.S.R.T.C, Represented by its Depot Manager, Srikakulam Depot, Srikakualm District. 2. A.P.S.R.T.C, Rep. by its Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, Hyderabad. ...Appellants/Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 AND 1. Dantuluri Ramachandra Raju, S/o.Late Venkatapathi Raju, aged about , Gurla Mandal, Vizianagaram District. ... Respondent/Petitioner 43 years, R/o.Vallapuram Village S/o.Late Chinnappadu, aged about 53 years, NO.AP-20-Z-0066, R/o.Golla Veedhi 2. Bobbadi Dharma Rao Driver of APSRTC Bus bearing Halam Centre, Palakonda, Srikakulam District. ...Respondent/1®' Respondent PC onififMACMAMP 5783 OF 201gl lA NO: 2 aying that in the circumstances the High Court may be t grant stay of execution of Deer re passed by tribunal (1 Additional District Court), /izianagaram. pending di .posal of the above MAGMA. filed under Section 151 CPC pr affidavit filed in support of the Petition stated in the )etition •V Clairfis No.474 of 2013 dated 20.06.2016, IA NO: 1 OF 201^ Between: } Venkatapathi Raju, aged about a Mandal, Vizianagaram District. oner/1®* Respondent/Petitioner Dantuluri Ramachandra Raju, S/o.Lat 47 years, R/o.Vallapuram Village, Gur ...Petit AND Corporation Limited, rep. by its Pradesh State Road Transpo t Depot Manager. Srikakulam Depot, S ikakualm. 1. Andhra t Corporation Limited, rep. by its 2. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transpo Director, Bus Bhavan, Hyd( irabad. inapadu, aged about 53 years, dhi, Halam Managing I Rao, S/o.Late Chi of APSRTC, R/o.Golla Vee 3. Bobbadi Dharma Driver Srikakulam District. Centre, Palakonda ...Respondents that in the nitation Act praying support of the petition, the High orders dated 15.12.2016 made in .No.42302 of 2016 on the file of filed under Section 5 of Li Petition circumstances stated in the affidavit filed ii i Court may be pleased to vacate the interim M.A.C.M.P.No.5783 of 2016 in M.A.C.M.A. 5r this Hon'ble Court. I i / / / Counsel for the Appellants: Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada (SC for APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent No.1:Sri G.V.S.Mehar Kumar Counsel for the Respondent No.2:None appeared The Court made the following: 1 IN "HE HIGH COURT OF ysNDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) APHC011387742016 [3506] I MONDAY, THE FOURT TWO THOUSAND Ah ^ DAY OF AUGUST D TWENTY FIVE PRESE NT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISC ELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 321/20 25 Between: 1.APSRTC, SRIKAKULAM DIJ;, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPOT MANAGER, SRIKAKJLAM DEPOT, SRIKAKUALM DISTRICT 2.A.P.S.R.T.G, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR BHAVAN, HYDERABAD. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR BHAVAN, HYDERABAD. BUS ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1.DANTULURI RAMACHANDRA RAJU VIZIANAGARAM DIST AND ANOTHER, S/0 LATE VENKATAPATHI RAJU AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDENT OF VALLAPURAM VILLAGE, GURLA MANDAL VIZIANAGAF AM DISTRICT 2.BOBBADI DHARMA RAO, S/0 _ATE GHINNAPPADU AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS DRIVER DF APSRTG BUS BEARING NO. AP-20-Z-0066 RESIDENT OF GOLLA VEEDHI, HALAM CENTRE PALAKONDA, SRIKA<ULAM DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of ( may be pleased toto allow the appea and decree passed by Motor Accideni ;PC praying thet the Highcourt by setting aside the judgment 5 Claims Tribunal (I Additional 2 District Court), Vizianagaram, passed in M.V.O.P.NO. 474 of 2013 dated 20.06.2016, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2016(MACMAMP 5575 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 to condone the delay of 54 days in filing the Appeal against the Judgment and Decree of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (I Additional District Court), Vizianagaram, passed in M.O.P.No. 474 of 2013 dated 20.6.2016,and pass lA NO: 2 OF 2016fMACMAMP 5783 OF 2016 Petition under Section 151 CPC circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased grnt stay of execution of ecree passed by Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Special Judge for Trail of cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act 1989 -cum- Additional District Judge. Srikakulam passed in MVOP No.251/2012 dated 21.4.2015 pending disposal of the above MACMA praying that in the lA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 vacate the interim orders dt. 15.12.2016 made in M.A.C.M.P.No. 5783/2016 in M.A.C.M.A.Sr.No. 42302/2016 on the file of this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. VINOD KUMAR TARLADA (SC FOR APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.G VS MEHAR KUMAR 2. A JAGANNADHA RAO 3. L . 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 321/2025 JUDMENT: The present appeal is preferred against the order dated 20.06.2016 passed in M.V.O.P.No.474 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-I Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram. 2. Parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience. Brief facts of the case are as follows; 3. This is a case of injuries. The claimant met with accident on 24.11.2012, while he was proceeding on motor cycle along with his to their village. 4. The from Vizianagaram brother’s son 1^' respondent, driver of bus bearing No. AP 30 Z 0066, drove the motor cycle in rash and negligent manner, thereby injured fell down and sustained severe injuries over the body. He was initially treated later shifted to NRI at private hospital, MIMS hospital, and was Hospital, Visakhapatnam, for better treatment, wherein he underwent surgery. A case was registered by crime No.147 of 2012 under Section 338 of Indian Penal Code (for brevity for the offence \ \ \ V of bus. After completion of be laid against him. For ’) against the respondent, driver charge sheet came to treatment, the claimant is stated to have spent considerable amount Stated to be a contractor investigation and he was aged about 40 years and was earning 15,000/- per month. In the said background, he instituted 166 of A.P. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming claim under Section of Rs. 4,00,000/- for the injuries suffered. compensation and also the Corporation filed in which accident occurred and The 1®' respondent-driver counter affidavit denying the manner 5. denying that the driver was negiigent and responsibie for the cause income, injuries and treatment. In of claimant, he was got e)^amined as P.W.1, of accident, besides disputing age order to prove the case doctor who treated as P.W.2 and got marked Exs.AI to A7 and Exs.XI to X3. On behalf of the respondents therein, neither any documents were marked nor was anyone examined. 6. The Tribunal based on pleadings and evidence placed by the parties, framed following issues; Whether the accident occurred resulting injuries to the petitioner to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle (APSRTC Bus) bearing No. AP 30 Z 0066, by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, at what quantum and from which of the respondents? 3. To what relief? 1. due / / \ 5 7. Considering the evidence of P.W.1 and Exs.M to A4 i.e. wound certificate, motor vehicle report and charge sheet, ti. Tribunal came to conclusion that the accident has occurred account of rash and negligent act of the driver of the bus. In so far as the second issue was concerned, though the nature of injuries sustained were bejieved to be grievous and claimant had undergone surgery, performed by P.W.2-orthopedic surgeon, despite disability certificate (Ex.A6), claiming disability as 60%, the Tribunal after assessing the medical records and evidence of doctor, has arrived and assessed the disability at 15%. Similarly, though claimant claimed earning Rs. 15,000/- per month, as the same lacked any supportive evidence. Tribunal has assessed his earning as Rs. 6,000/- per month. Considering the same, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 60,000/- towards injuries, Rs.46,900/- towards medical on expenses based on medical bills (Ex.A5), Rs. 15,000/- towards pain and sufferings, Rs. 10,000/- towards transport, attendant charges and extra nourishment, Rs. 18,000/- towards loss of earnings for three months and Rs. 1,62,000/- towards loss of amenities on account of disability, in total awarded Rs. 3,11,900/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization. Assailing the same, the present appeal is preferred. \ 4 respondent, driver of bus. After completion of to be laid against him. For ‘IPC’) against the 1 investigation, charge sheet came treatment, the claimant is stated to have spent considerable amount and he was aged about 40 years and was stated to be a contractor month. In the said background, he instituted earning 15,000/- per claim under Section compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- for the injuries suffered. 166 of A.P. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming respondent-driver and also the Corporation filed in which accident occurred and 5. The 1 counter affidavit denying the manner denying that the driver was negligent and responsible for the cause of accident, besides disputing age, income, injuries and treatment. In of claimant, he was got examined as P.W.1, order to prove the case doctor who treated as P.W.2 and got marked Exs.AI to A7 and Exs.XI to X3. On behalf of the respondents therein, neither any documents were marked nor was anyone examined. The Tribunal based on pleadings and evidence placed by the parties, framed following issues: 6. , the accident occurred resulting injuries to the petitioner rash and negligent driving of the vehicle (APSRTC Bus) 1. Whether due to : bearing No. AP 30 Z 0066, by its driver? 2 Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, at what quantum and from which of the respondents? 3. To what relief? \ 5 Considering the evidence of P.W.1 and Exs.AI to A4 i.e., FIR 7. wound certificate, motor vehicle report and charge sheet, the Tribunal came to conclusion that the accident has occurred on account of rash and negligent act of the driver of the bus. In so far as the second issue was concerned, though the nature of injuries sustained were bejieved to be grievous and claimant had undergone surgery, performed by P.W.2-orthopedic surgeon, despite disability certificate (Ex.A6), claiming disability as 60%, the Tribunal after assessing the medical records and evidence of doctor, has arrived and assessed the disability at 15%. Similarly, though claimant claimed earning Rs. 15,000/- per month, as the same lacked any supportive evidence. Tribunal has assessed his earning as Rs. 6,000/- per month. Considering the same, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 60,000/- towards injuries, Rs.46,900/- towards medical expenses based on medical bills (Ex.A5), Rs. 15,000/- towards pain and sufferings, Rs. 10,000/- towards transport, attendant charges and extra nourishment, Rs. 18,000/- towards loss of earnings for three months and Rs.1,62,000/- towards loss of amenities on account of disability, in total awarded Rs. 3,11,900/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization. Assailing the same, the present appeal is preferred. 6 8. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that tribunal erred in considering Rs. 6000/- as monthly income, despite there being no evidence on record to show that either claimant out livelihood as contractor was eking nor was getting any income as such. Further, the Tribunal also erred in considering the functional disability at 15%, merely based on private doctor medical certificate. Lastly, the grant of award of interest at the rate of 9% is excessive and the tribunal ought to have awarded only 7.5 % interest, unfair. which is 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents to justify the impugned order and the based on Rs. 6000/- per month tried reasons in the impugned order to reasons assigned thereunder. He contended that as assessed by the tribunal is reasonable, even If one has to go by minimum wage payable to skilled worker, the amount awarded by tribunal cannot be found fault with. In so far as assessment of disability at 15% is concerned, he contended that nature of injuries suffered by claimant definitely had disability that despite the medical certificate indicating 60% disability the tribunal has only considered 15%, which is based on medical record. and / 7 therefore, cannot te said to be without evidence at all. Lastly, he tried to justify the interest awarded to be not excessive. Perused the record and considered the rival submissions. 11. With regard to the facts and circumstances, the order of the Tribunal and findings with respect to the fixation of disability and income of claimant for the purpose of assessing just and fair 12. compensation, suffer from perversity. No doubt, the claimant in his claim as well as in his evidence 13. stated that he used to earn 15,000/- as a contractor, however, the same was not substantiated with any documentary evidence. In absence of any other supportive documentary evidence, the tribunal has taken notional income of Rs. 6000/- per month. As contended by learned counsel for the respondent, the amount that assessed by the tribunal is bare minimum and even for wage earner minimum expected earnings would be around Rs. 6000/- per month. Therefore, this Court does not find any infirmity with the said finding. Coming to the aspect of disability, the claim made was for 60% based on disability certificate (Ex.A6) coupled with evidence of P.W.2. The nature of injuries sustained by claimant are (1) Swelling and tenderness on right hip (2) Injury on right leg and (3) Swelling and deformity of right thigh. The medical records, in particular. 14. 8 wound certificate (Ex.A2) and case sheet (Exs.XI to X3) indicate that the injuries are grievous in nature and the claimant was operated for fixing the fractures and ligaments. The Tribunal after overall assessment of medical records and evidence of P.W.2- Doctor has ultimateiy assessed the disability at 15%. When a person meets with grievous injuries and undergoes surgery to right hip and leg, definitely he cannot lead life normally and the same would definitely have certain amount of disability. The said disability In spite of taking has been assessed by the Tribunal at 15%. treatment, it cannot be said that the claimant did not have any disability at all. Therefore, this Court does not find any infirmity with the finding of the Tribunal in asserting the disability at 15% and thereby computing the compensation based on his income of Rs. 6000/- per month. Even if a second view is possible, as the finding rendered by the Tribunal is not shockingly perverse, the view expressed should not be disturbed. With regard to the award of grant of interest, the Tribunal has considered the same as 9% per annum. Depending on 15. facts and circumstances of the case and time of consideration, the rate of interest has been arrived by the Tribunal exercising discretion, as such, this Court is not inclined to disturb the said rate of interest. 9 In view of the same, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed, directing the appellant-Corporation to deposit the compensation amount as awarded in M.V.O.P.No.474 of 2013 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-I Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram, within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, respondent/claimant is entitled to withdraw the same. In default, respondent/claimant is at liberty to take steps for execution. No 16. costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K J RAJA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District. (With records) 2. One CC to Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada (SC for APSRTC), Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri G.V.S.Mehar Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. 5. Two CD Copies BSV vna HIGH COURT DATED:04/08/2025 JUDGMENT + DECREE I 15 SEP 2025 Curreni Seciion .'J; * rn MACMA no. 321 OF 2025 DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS