APHC010018502020 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: 20/2020 Between: 1. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, VIJAYAWADA, AMARAVATI. ...APPELLANT AND 1. S RANI, W/O S. SAMPATH, HINDU, AGED 45 YEARS, R/O AT D.NO. 5-153, ARAGONDA ROAD, SANTHAPET, CHITTOOR. 2. K GOVARDHAN NAIDU, , S/O LATE K. MUNASWAMY, HINDU, DRIVER, AGED 53 YEARS, DRIVER OF A.P.S.R.T.0 BUS, R/O. D.NO. 3-32, KAMPALAPALLE VILLAGE, T. PUTTUR POST, THAVANAMPALLE MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. (RESPONDENT NO.2 IS NOT NECESSARY PARTY IN MACMA) ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased toMemorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before this Hon'ble Court being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 31.07.2019 in M.V.O.P.No. 53 of 2017 on the file the 2 Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Cum - Principal District Judge, Chittoor District 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 stay all further proceedings including the execution proceedings in M.V.O.P.No. 53 of 2017 on the file the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum - Principal District Judge, Chittoor, Chittor District IA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 permit the Petitioner / 1st Respondent to with draw the amount as deposited by the Appellant / APSRTC, Vijayawada in compliance of order dt. 24-01-2020 pased in I.A.No. 1/2020 in MACMA No. 20/2020 with interest and costs in the interest of justice and to pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. T JANARDHAN RAO 3 JUDGMENT: 1. The present appeal is filed aggrieved by the Order dated 31.07.2019 passed in M.V.O.P.No.53 of 2017, on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-Principal District Judge, Chittoor by the appellant/APSRTC. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were referred before the Tribunal. The claimant/1st respondent filed petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of the injuries received by her in the accident that was occurred on 17.07.2016 at 09:10 AM, in which the offending vehicle i.e., A.P.S.R.T.C., bus bearing Registration No. AP 28 Z 3979 was involved. 3. The facts leading the case on hand are as follows: (i) The claimant/1st respondent is a resident of Chittoor Town and she was eking out her livelihood by doing sarees business. It is the case of the claimant that on 17.07.2016 at about 09:10 AM, she was walking down the road near Karumariamma Temple, Santhapet, Chittoor, the offending bus was proceeding towards Kanipakam and due to the negligence of the driver and conductor of the said bus, the door of the bus 4 got suddenly opened and hit the claimant who was walking down the road. As a result of which, she fell down on the road and in the meanwhile, the rear wheel of the bus ran over the claimant’s left thigh, as such, she received grievous injuries. Thereafter, she was taken to the Government Hospital, Chittoor for treatment. A case has been registered against the driver and conductor of the offending bus. As the 1st respondent/claimant received injuries, she filed M.V.O.P.No.53 of 2017, before the Tribunal against the appellant herein, as the appellant is vicariously liable to pay compensation to her. (ii) The 2nd respondent/driver remained ex-parte. The appellant herein filed counter-affidavit denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is the case of the appellant that the claimant suddenly tried to board the bus and due to her negligence, the door of the bus hit her, thereby she fell down. It is further contended that there is no negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent/driver and the accident was occurred only due to the negligence of the petitioner. It is further contended that the 1st respondent/claimant did not file any Permanent Disability Certificate and prayed to dismiss the petition. 4. After considering oral and documentary evidence put forth by the parties, the Tribunal by an order, dated 31.07.2019, 5 awarded an amount of Rs.3,25,957/- as compensation on various conventional heads. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed by the A.P.S.R.T.C. 5. In order to prove the case of the petitioner PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Ex.A1 to A14 were marked. Ex.X1 to X3 were marked through witnesses. On behalf of the respondents, neither oral evidence was adduced nor marked any documentary evidence. 6. It is the case of the claimant is that, she was earning an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month by doing sarees business. In support of her contention, nothing is placed on record to show that she has been earning Rs.5,000/- per month. In the absence of any documentary proof, the Tribunal has taken her monthly income of Rs.3,000/- and paid compensation under various heads. 7. The present appeal is filed on the ground that the 1st respondent/ claimant is not entitled to receive compensation in as much as, the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the claimant, as she tried to board the bus while it was moving. In order to prove the negligence on the part of the claimant, the appellant did not examine any witness on its behalf. As can be seen from the record that the claimant has filed Ex.A1 to A4 to show that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the driver and 6 conductor of the offending bus. On perusal of the same, it is clear that a charge sheet was filed in CC No.289 of 2016, on the file of III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor clearly indicating the same. As already noted supra, in order to prove the case of the respondent, nothing is placed on record. Further, the driver of the offending bus remained ex-parte. Therefore, it can be safely held that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of driver and conductor of the offending bus. 8. Coming to the quantum of compensation awarded in favour of the 1st respondent, as can be seen from the order under challenge and the material placed before the Tribunal, while awarding an amount of Rs.3,25,957/- as compensation, the Tribunal has considered the income of the 1st respondent as Rs.3,000/- per month as the claimant did not file any documentary proof to show that she was earning an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month. Further, in order to prove that the claimant has incurred expenses towards her treatment, she filed Exs.A6 to A11 and A13, i.e., the medical bills, and bills relating to the Ambulance charges etc. Apart from the same, the 1st respondent/ claimant also examined P.Ws.2 and 3, who are the doctors treated her during her stay in C.M.C. Hospital, Vellore. P.Ws.2 and 3 have categorically deposed that the 1st respondent/ claimant was admitted 7 in C.M.C. Hospital, who sustained fractures to her right pubic body, left superior and inferior pubic rami fracture and left sacral ala fracture. P.W.2, further deposed that a surgery was conducted on 22.07.2016 and they have also did pelvic ring anterior plating and left SI joint percutneous screw fixation and later, she was discharged on 31.07.2016. PW.2 further deposed that after her discharge, she was also consulted the hospital as out-patient for follow-up treatment. Further, PW.3 who was the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Area Hospital, Palamaner, deposed that the 1st respondent/claimant’s disability was assessed as 50% and a certificate was also issued to that effect, which was marked as Ex.A14. PW.3 further deposed that it is difficult for the claimant to walk as her movements were restricted due to injury sustained by her and further opined that she would feel the pain in walking throughout her life. Though PWs.2 and 3 were cross-examined at length, nothing was elicited to disprove their evidence. 9. Having considered the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 and the exhibits put-forth by the 1st respondent/ claimant, the Tribunal has awarded just compensation of Rs.3,25,957/- to the claimant. Though the appellant contended that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the claimant, as already discussed supra, the appellant has miserably failed to prove the same. 8 10. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any merits in the present appeal and accordingly, the same is dismissed. The appellant is directed to deposit the compensation awarded by the Tribunal within a period four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR 03.11.2025 SCH 9 107 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR M.A.C.M.A. No.20 of 2020 Date 03.11.2025 U SCH