APHC010287702020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] MONDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 404/2020 Between: 1.THE APSRTC, REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MUSHIRABAD, HYDERABAD, NOW OFFICE AT VIJAYAWADA ...APPELLANT AND 1.B LOKANADHA REDDY, B.LOKANADHA REDDY S/O CHINNA MASTHAN REDDY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE R/O CHARLAPALEM BE COLONY, SRIKALAHASTHI MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 2.V GOVARDHAN, S/O SIDDHAIAH DRIVER OF APSRTC, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, CHITTOOR DISTRICT (2ND RESPONDENT HEREIN IS DRIVER OF APSRTC NOT NECESSARY PARTY) ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased topleased to allow the appeal by setting aside the Judgment and decree passed by the order and decree dated 27/01/2020 passed in MVOP No 273 of 2017 On 2 the file of the Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum X Addl. District Judge, Tirupati. To pass IA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 pleased to grant stay of execution of decree in pursuant to MVOP No. 273 of 2017 dated. 27.01.2020 On the file of the Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum X Addl. District Judge, Tirupati. pending disposal of the above MACMA and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1.N SRIHARI ( SC FOR APSRTC ) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.K MOHAN RAMI REDDY 3 The Court made the following judgment: 1. The present appeal is filed by APSRTC, aggrieved by order dated 27.01.2020, passed in MVOP No.273 of 2017, on the file of the Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X Additional District Judge, Tirupati. 2. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as they were referred before the tribunal. 3. The case of the claimant was that, on 19.10.2015 at 7 am, he along with one Sri Venkatesh, was proceeding to Srikalahasti on a motor cycle bearing Reg.No.AP03AT5981, when they reached Thondamandu Arch on Srikalahasti-Tirupati Main Road, bus belonging to the 2nd respondent, bearing Reg.No.AP16Z0297, driven by 1st respondent/driver in rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the motor cycle on which the claimant was travelling as a pillion rider. As a result of which, the claimant sustained injuries on his head, nose and suffered fracture to his right leg and the motor cycle was badly damaged. Thereafter, the claimant was shifted to Area Hospital, Srikalahasti and from there he was taken to Sri Ramadevi Multi Super Spatiality Hospital and then to SVRRGG Hospital, Tirupati for better treatment. It is further case of the clamant that case was 4 registered in Cr.No.120 of 2015, for the offences under Sections 304-A, 388 and 279 IPC against the 1st respondent/driver. As the claimant received injuries in the accidents that was occurred on 19.10.2015, he filed MVOP No.273 of 2017 under Section 166(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act R/w Rules 423 & 475 of the Motor Vehicle Rules, claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him. 4. The claim was resisted by the 2nd respondent/appellant, stating that while the bus was proceeding from Srikalahasti to Tirupati, when it reached Thondamandu Arch, the driver noticed a car approaching from the left side of the bus without following traffic rules. In order to avoid accident, the driver turned the bus towards the right and was proceeding slowly as there were speed breakers on the road. Meanwhile, the claimant and another person, driving the motor cycle in rash and negligent manner dashed the bus without observing the speed breakers. It is further contended that all the injuries sustained by the claimant are healed and the claimant is attending his regular works. It is further contended that there is no disability. With the above pleadings the appellant/2nd respondent prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 5 5. Upon considering the oral and documentary evidence put forth by the parties on either side, the tribunal by order dated 27.01.2020, awarded an amount of Rs.4,33,500/- towards compensation under various heads. Questioning the same the present appeal is filed. 5. Heard counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the appellant and counsel for the 1st respondent. 6. Perused the material available on record. 7. The counsel for the appellant would contend that, the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle on which the claimant was travelling as pillion rider. In order to prove the same, the 2nd respondent/appellant examined driver of the bus as RW1 who deposed that the motor cycle was driven in rash and negligent manner. On perusal of the evidence of RW1, except reiterating the averments mentioned in the counter affidavit, nothing is stated to prove the same. On the other hand, on perusal of the evidence of PW1 and copies of Ex.A1:FIR and Ex.A2:Charge sheet would show that the 1st respondent/driver of the RTC bus drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and dashed the claimant whereby he received injuries. Though PW1 was cross examined, nothing is elicited to 6 disprove the same. On the basis of Exp.A1 and A2 it can be held that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the appellant’s bus. 8. Further, the claimant also examined Dr.C.Sanjeevaiah as PW-2 who treated him. Further, in order to prove that the claimant sustained injuries on his head, nose and his right leg was fractured, he examined Dr.C.Sanjeevaiah as PW2, who categorically deposed that the claimant was examined by him and found the following injuries: i. Malunited fracture shaft of right femur with plate and screws in situ, with osteolysis at the distal end of right femur. ii. Shorting of right lower limb of above 7 cm. iii. Painful and gross deformity of right knee. iv. Unable to squat and cross legged. v. Unable to stand on the effected limb. vi. Difficulty in climbing stairs. vii. Painful and gross restricted movement of right knee. 9. The claimant also marked Ex.A6 to A8 in support of his case. 7 10. On perusal of the evidence of PW-2, it is clear that, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and his disability was assessed at 45%. Apart from the same, the claimant also filed the discharge summaries of Sri Ramadevi Sri Ramadevi Multi Super Spatiality Hospital and SVRRGG Hospital, Tirupati. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence put forth by the claimant, the tribunal granted an amount of Rs.4,33,500/- as compensation. Though PW-2 was cross examined, the appellant failed to elicit to disprove his evidence. Apart from the same, no documents are marked on behalf of 2nd respondent/claimant. In the absence of any evidence, the contentions of the appellant cannot be accepted. 11. The Tribunal after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence put forth by the claimant has awarded just compensation. This Court does not find merits in the present appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR Dt.03.11.2025 DSB/DR 8 67 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MACMA.No.404 OF 2020 Date: 03.11.2025 U DSB