/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA motor accident civil miscellaneous APPEAL NO: 545 OF 2021 Between: The APSRTC, Rep. by its Vice Chairman cum Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, now at Vijayawada. ...Appellant/Respondent No.1 AND 1. Itreddy Chandra Sekhar Reddy, S/o. I. Pedda Ranga Reddy, Hindu, 52y, Occ. Working as Manager, Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank Ltd H.No. 50-940-F-F-403, Santhoshi Residency, Devanagar, Kurnool X Town ... Respondent/Petitioner 2. V. Baddu Naik, S/o. Mantru Naik, 43y, Hindu Staff No. 426918, Driver of APSRTC Bus bearing No. AP 21Z442, R/o. S.N.Thanda, Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool District. f (2nd Respondent herein is driver of APSRTC not necessary party) ...Respondent/Respondent No.2 Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, aggrieved by the order and decree dt. 19.05.2021 passed in MVOP No. 174 of 2016 on the file of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Principal District Judge, Kurnool. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Trial Court and material papers in the Suit and upon hearing arguments of Sri. Aravala Rama Rao(Standing Counsel for APSRTC), Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri J Janakirami Reddy, Advocate for Respondent No.1. This Court doth Order and decree as follows: 1. That the appeal be and is hereby dismissed; 2. That there be no order as to costs in this appeal. SDI- KASIRAO ACHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Principal District Judge, Kurnool, Kurnool District 2. Two CD copies HIGH COURT DATED:25/04/2025 DECREE MACMA.No.545 of 2021 Ou c- ^ 17 !1U 2625 mj %• ★ 'X DISMISSING THE MAGMA r.r %r- IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 545 OF 2021 Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, aggrieved by the order and decree dt. 19.05.2021 passed in MVOP No. 174 of 2016 on the file of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Principal District Judge, Kurnool. Between: The APSRTC, Rep. by its Vice Chairman cum Managing Director Musheerabad, Hyderabad, now at Vijayawada. ...Appellant/Respondent No.1 AND Itreddy Chandra Sekhar Reddy, S/o. I. Pedda Ranga Reddy, Hindu, 52y, Occ. Working as Manager, Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank Ltd, H.No. 50-940-F-F-403, Santhoshi Residency, Devanagar, Kurnool Town .. .Respondent/Petitioner f 2. V. Baddu Naik, S/o. Mantru Naik, 43y, Hindu Staff No. 426918, Driver of bearing No. AP 21Z442, R/o. S.N.Thanda, Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool District. (2nd Respondent herein is driver of APSRTC not necessary party) ...Respondent/Respondent No.2 lA 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 to grant stay of execution of decree in pursuant to MVOP No. 174 of 2016 dt. 19.05.2021 on the file of the Chairman Motor Accident claims Tribunal cum Principal District Judge, Kurnool pending disposal above MACMA. of the lA NO: 1 OF 20?.-^ Between: 1. Itreddy Chandra Sekhar Reddy, S/o. I. Pedda Ranga Reddy, Hindu, 52y, Occ. Working as Manager, Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank Ltd, 50-940-F-F-403, Santhoshi Residency, Devanagar, H.No. Kurnool Town ...Respondent/Petitioner and 1. The APSRTC, Rep. by its Vice Chairman Musheerabad, Hyderabad, now at Vijayawada. X cum Managing Director ...Appellant/Respondent No.1 AND 2. V. Baddu Naik, S/o. Mantru Naik, 43y, Hindu Staff No. APSRTC Bus bearing No. AP 212442, R/o. S.N.Thanda, Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool District. (2nd Respondent herein is driver of APSRTC not 426918, Driver of necessary party) ...Respondent/Respondent No.2 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 pass an Order to vacate the interim order passed in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in MACMA.No.545 of 2021 dated 11.11.2022. lA NO: 2 OF 2023 Between: Itreddy Chandra Sekhar Reddy, S/o. I. Pedda Ranga Reddy, Hindu, 52y Occ. Working as Manager, Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank Ltd, H.No. 50-940-F-F-403, Santhoshi Residency, Devanagar, Kurnool Town ... Respondent/Petitioner and 1. The APSRTC, Rep. by its Vice Chairman cum Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, now at Vijayawada. ...Appellant/RespondentNo.1 AND V. Baddu Naik, S/o. Mantru Naik, 43y, Hindu Staff No. 426918, Driver of APSRTC Bus bearing No. AP 21Z442, R/o. S.N.Thanda, Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool District. (2nd Respondent herein is driver of APSRTC not necessary party) ...Respondent/Respondent No.2 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 pass an Order to Permit me to withdraw the amount which was deposited by the 1st respondent APSRTC herein as directed by this Hon'ble court passed in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in MACMA.No.545 of 2021 dated 11.11.2022. Counsel for the Appellant: Sri. Aravala Rama Rao(Standing Counsel for APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Sri J Janakirami Reddy The Court made the following: ■if [■ '■{ St ■V APHC010422442021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) 1 T. .tjr [3333] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 545/2021 Between; The APSRTC ...APPELLANT AND Itreddy Chandra Sekhar Reddy and others Counsel for the Appellant: 1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.J JANAKIRAMI REDDY ...RESPONDENT(S) The^Pourt made the following: •o 2 VS,J MACMANo.545of 2021 JUDGMENT: The APSRTC filed the present appeal against the order and decree 19.05.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.174 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Kurnool, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.2,34,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Thirty Four Thousand only) to the petitioner/respondent No.1 herein, as against the claim of Rs.5,00,000/-, for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that occurred on 17.02.2015. 02. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 03. The case of the petitioner is briefly as follows: The petitioner is aged about 52 years and has been working as an Officer in Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank on a monthly salary of Rs.'V0,000/-. On 17.02.2015, the petitioner dropped his daughter at bus stand on his motorcycle bearing registration No.AP21AL-9113 and thereafter, at about 12.30 p.m., when he reached near Anand Theatre, K.C. Canal under bridge, Kurnool Town, an APSRTC bus bearing registration No.AP21Z-441 came from behiad in a rash and negligent manner driven by the 2 respondent and dashed the motorcycle on the right side, due to which the petitioner fell down and sustained injury on his right wrist and also sustained injury to his right shoulder bone. He was shifted to Government General nd Hospital, Kurnool, in an ambulanca and from there, for better treatment, he 3 VS,J MACMA No.545 of 2021 was shifted to Sri Chakra Hospital, Kurnool. Having been treated there for six days, he was shifted to Care Hospital, Hyderabad. On 24.02.2015 a surgery was conducted on his right shoulder and he was treated as an in-patient for four days. Thereafter, on 11.03.2015, skin grafting by way of plastic was done as an out-patient and he took treatment for about a month and surgery spent Rs.2,50,000/- towards medical and attendant charges. On account of the accident, the petitioner was on leave for 52 days and could not attend his Therefore, he sought a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- from the respondent Nos.1 and 2, owner and driver of the crime vehicle respectively. job. Before the Tribunal, the 1®‘ respondent filed a counter, disputing the age, occupation and income of the petitioner and the manner in which the alleged accident took place and about the treatment he underwent and the expenses that were allegedly borne by the petitioner. It was further contended that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the APSRTC bus. It was further contended that the petitioner, being an educated person, did not give complaint to the police on the date of the accident and no medico-legal case intimation was received by the police from Government General Hospital, Kurnool and two and half months after the alleged incident, the petitioner lodged the complaint, only with an intention to claim compensation. The -I.®* respondent further contended that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is highly excessive and exorbitant and sought dismissal of the petition. 04. 4 VS,J MACMANo.545of2021 05. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether the accident that occurred on 17.02.2015 at about 12.20 hours near Anand Talkies, K.C. Canal Bridge, Kurnool Town, ivas due to rash and negligent driving of driver of APSRTC bus bearing registration NO.AP21Z-442, resulting the petitioner sustained injuries? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, and if so, to what amount and against whom? 3. To what relief? 06. On behalf of the petitioner/claimant, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.M to AT were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no witness was examined and no documents were marked. 07. After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition against respondents Nos.1 and 2, awarding compensation of Rs.2,34,000/- X. with interest @7% per annum from the date of presentation of the petition till the date of realization within one month from the date of the order and directed that the awarded amount shall be deposited to the credit of the case. Out of the compensation amount awarded, an amount of Rs.50,000/- was directed to be kepbin a fixed deposit for a period of one (1) year, in any of the Nationalized Banks and the petitioner was permitted to withdraw the r*0 remaining amount along with costs and interest immediately after its deposit. 08. Aggrieved by the said award, the respondents No.1 and 2/APSRTC preferred this appeal contending that the Tribunal failed to consider that the I 5 VS,J MACMA No.545 of 2021 petitioner could not establish the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the APSRTC bus. It is further contended that the alleged incident took place on 17.02.2015 and the petitioner chose to lodge a complaint on 29.04.2015, i.e., after a lapse of 2/2 months, which throws doubt on the case of the petitioner. It is further contended that the Tribunal erred in granting the compensation, without there being sufficient evidence on record, and thus, it is prayed to dismiss the petition. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimant/responden t N0.I herein has supported the impugned award and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 10. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? POINT: IK The main ground on which the appellant seeks to challenge the impugned award is on the ground of delay in lodging the complaint on 29.04.2015 though the accident took place on 17.02.2015 i.e., after a lapse of about 214 months. Under similar circumstances, where an FIR was lodged after almost 3 14 months of the date of accident, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ravi vs. Badrinarayan and others^ has held as under: 12. “It is well settled that delay in lodging the FIR cannot be a ground to doubt the claimant's case. Knowing the Indian conrutjop^ as they are, we ^ (2011) 4 Supreme Court Cases 693 6 VS,J MACMA No.545 of 2021 cannot expect a common man to first rush to the police station immediately after an accident. Human nature and family responsibilities occupy the mind of kith and kin to such an extent that they give more importance to get the victim treated rather than to rush to the police station. Under such circumstances, they are not expected to act mechanically with promptitude in loding the FIR with the police. Delay In lodging the FIR thus, cannot be the ground to deny justice to the victim. ’’ It is thus well settled that a delay in lodging the FIR cannot be a ground to doubt the claimant’s case as human nature and family responsibilities occupy the mind of kith and kin to such an extent that they give more importance to get the victim treated rather than to rush to the police station. Under such circumstances, they are not expected to act mechanically with promptitude in lodging the FIR with the police. 13. 14. In the instant case, a perusal of the impugned award shows that the petitioner has filed Ex.A3-Wound Certificate issued by the Government General Hospital, Kurnool, on the date of the incident. Thus, it substantiates the^ase of the petitioner that on 17.02.2015, after he sustained injuries in the alleged incident, he was immediately shifted to the Government General Hospital, Kurnool, in an ambulance. Further, the evidence on record would show that from Government General Hospital, Kurnool, the petitioner was shifted to Sri Chakra Hospital, Kurnool, and from there, to Care Hospital, Hyderabad, where a surgery was conducted to his right shoulder and he underwent treatment as an in-patient. The evidence further shows that the petitioner had also undergone skin grafting by way of plastic surgery on 11.03.2015. Since the petitioner had to undergo in-patient treatment and surgeries after the incident, it can be reasonably inferred that the petitioner I 7 VS,J MACMA No.545of2021 could not lodge the complaint immediately after the incident and the delay is justified and reasonable under the circumstances. On the other hand, it is an admitted fact that the APSRTC herein have not choosen to examine any of his witness nor marked any document to disbelieve the version of the petitioner that he never met with any accident on 17.02.2015. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant on the ground of delay is not acceptable. So far as the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, it can be seen from the impugned award that P.W.2, who is an Orthopedic and Hand Surgeon in Care Hospital, Nampally, Hyderabad, has 15. categorically deposed about admission of the petitioner on 24.02.2015, the injuries sustained by the petitioner and the treatment provided, including conducting of surgery. He deposed that the petitioner was admitted on 24.02.2015 and was initially discharged on 27.02.2015 and thereafter, on 1T03.2015, he was once again admitted and skin grafting was done. He X confirmed the issuance of Ex.A4-medical bills issued by the hospital. As per Ex.A4, the petitioner spent Rs.1,43,836/- and as the same were proved, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to grant the said sum i.e., Rs.1,43,836/- towards medical expenses, which is just and proper. Further, considering the fact that the petitioner had undergone surgery to his shoulder and skin grafting to rrgfit hand, the Tribunal deemed it proper to award Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs. 10,000/- towards extra-nourishment and as he undertook treatment both as an in-patient and out-patient, awarded Rs. 10,000/- towards attendant charges ajjef Rs. 10,000/- towards 8 VS,J MACMA No.545of2021 transportation. Further, though the petitioner contended that he was on earned leave for a period of two months, in the absence of any proof or documents to show as to what was the nature of leave he applied and whether he suffered any loss of pay because of the leave, the Tribunal has rightly negatived the claim of the petitioner in that regard. Further, though the petitioner claimed an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities. considering the fact that he is physically fit and able to do all his works and did not suffer any physical disability, the Tribunal has deemed it proper to grant only Rs.10,000/-, which cannot be found fault with. Thus, in all, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is Rs.2,34,000/-, which is just and proper and cannot be said to be excessive or exorbitant. 16. Viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any grounds to interfere with the award impugned in the appeal. 17. « In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. / SD/- KASIRAO ACHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER Tb,v.^ 1. The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Principal District Judge, Kurnool, Kurnool District (with records if any) 2. One CC to Sri. Aravala Rama Rao(Standing Counsel for APSRTC) Advocate [OPUC] * 3. One CC to Sri. J Janakirami Reddy Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi 5. Two CD Copies stu M X -? < HIGH COURT \> N DATED:25/04/2025 JUDGMENT + DECREE MACMA.No.545 of 2021 X f DISMISSING THE MAGMA