APHC010358402022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 258/2022 Between: 1. THE REGIONAL MANAGER,, REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, APSRTC, KADAPA CITY ...APPELLANT AND 1. NADIMICHERLA VENKATESH VENKATESWARULU, S/O VENKATA SWAMI, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, WASHER MAN AND COOLIE, R/O AT NANDIGADDAPALLI, H/O PADAMATIKONA, CHINNAMANDEM MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. 2. POLIMERA CHANDRAMOHAN REDDY, S/O.KRISHNA, R/O NEAR CHECK POST, SAI GANESH STREET, RAYACHOTY TOWN AND MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. DRIVER OF APSRTC BEARING NO.AP04Z0039. (2ND RESPONDENT IS HEREIN DRIVER OF APSRTC NOT NECESSARY PARTY) ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and decree,dated 04.03.2022, passed in MVOP No. 79 of 2019 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum V Addl. District Judge, Rayachoty. Counsel for the Appellant: 1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: 2 CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A.No.258 of 2022 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN M.A.C.M.A.No.258 of 2022 JUDGMENT: Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (<Corporation=) preferred present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Accidents Act, 1988, assailing order, dated 04.03.2022, passed in M.V.O.P.No.79 of 2019 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- cum-V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty, (<the Tribunal=), awarding compensation of Rs.3,33,396/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts relating to the present appeal in a nutshell are as follows: (a) This is a case of injuries. Claimant was proceeding on motorbike as pillion rider and the motorbike was dashed by 2nd respondent Corporation bus coming in opposite direction, thereby he fell down and sustained injuries. The incident is stated to have occurred on 11.02.2019. Since claimant sustained injuries to his right leg foot, he was admitted to Government Hospital, Rayachoty and thereafter, shifted to private hospital for better treatment. Injured was employed as Dhobi 3 CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A.No.258 of 2022 and also did coolie work and used to earn Rs.800/- per day and that he was aged 43 years at the time of accident. Accordingly, claim was laid for compensation of Rs.5,39,000/-, which included medical expenses and other non-pecuniary claims. (b) Respondents 1 and 2 filed counter denying that the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus, and further disputed the injuries, earnings, age, and the compensation claimed. (c) Based on the aforesaid pleadings, the Tribunal has framed following issues: <1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP04 Z 0039 belongs to the 2nd respondent, near Nayaz Katta, Kalibada – Chinnamandem road, which resulted in causing injuries to the petitioner on 11.2.2019 at about 6.00 P.M.? 2. Whether the Claimant is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? 3. To what relief?= (d) In support of the claim, claimant himself was examined as PW.1, besides examining the doctor, who issued disability certificate as Member of Medical Board, as PW.2, and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. None were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the respondents. (e) The Tribunal has answered first issue in favour of claimant, holding that the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. Coming to the aspect of compensation, the 4 CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A.No.258 of 2022 Tribunal has considered the income of claimant as Rs.7,000/- per month and based on medical evidence, in particular, Ex.A5 disability certificate, the disability factor has been assessed as 25% and after applying the relevant multiplier and granting future prospects, has arrived loss of future income of Rs.2,94,000/-. The medical bills produced were also admitted, and an amount of Rs.19,396/- came to be awarded. Besides, the Tribunal awarded transport charges of Rs.10,000/- and compensation towards pain and suffering for Rs.10,000/-, in total, awarded Rs.3, 33,396/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation. Aggrieved by the same, the 2nd respondent Corporation preferred the present appeal. 4. Heard Sri Aravala Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant. None appears for the 1st respondent/claimant despite service of notice. 5. Learned standing counsel for the appellant mainly contended that the Tribunal has erred in coming to conclusion that there is negligence on the part of driver of the offending bus, which is without any basis, rather it is a set-up case as such incident has never occurred, and the finding so recorded is erroneous and perverse. He further contended that the injuries sustained by the claimant is very minor in nature, therefore, the question of assessing such injuries to have translated into 5 CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A.No.258 of 2022 functional disability of 25% for the purpose of computing future loss of income does not arise and the evidence of the doctor, who spoken to justify the disability factor himself has admitted that all wounds have been healed, therefore, the Tribunal was not right in assessing the functional disability of 25%. 6. Perused the record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant. 7. The question that falls for consideration of this Court is: <Whether the order passed by the Tribunal suffers from any infirmity or perversity and needs interference of this Court? And to what relief?= 8. It is the case of claimant that while he was proceeding on motorbike as pillion rider, bus belonging to 2nd respondent Corporation dashed the bike, thereby he fell down and sustained injuries. In order to prove that the accident has occurred and it was on account of rash and negligent driving of driver of the offending bus, besides speaking for himself, he got marked Exs.A1 to A2, which are F.I.R. and charge- sheet. The Tribunal has rendered finding that the accident has occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of driver of the offending bus. In coming to such conclusion, reliance has been placed on Exs.A1 and A2. The 2nd respondent Corporation since has now canvassed that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus, it is for it to 6 CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A.No.258 of 2022 prove the said aspect. Neither the driver of the bus nor any other witness has been examined on its behalf to support the said version. 9. As regards reliability of F.I.R. and charge-sheet and other documents collected by investigating agency in the process of investigation and enquiry into the crimes registered on account of the motor accident cases, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 1 held that aforesaid documents, in particular charge sheet, prima facie, points towards the drivers complicity in driving vehicle negligently and rashly and even if the accused were to be acquitted in the criminal cases, the same may be of no effect on assessment of liability in respect of motor accident cases by the Tribunal. The said view came to be expressed considering the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Crux2, which held that plea of negligence on the part of driver of offending vehicle, as set up by claimants was required to be decided by the Tribunal on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and certainly not by standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The said view has later been followed and reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mathew Alexander v. Mohammed Shafi3. Even recently in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajani 1 (2018) 5 SCC 656 2 (2013) 10 SCC 646 3 (2023) 13 SCC 510 7 CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A.No.258 of 2022 Saho4, the exposition in aforesaid judgments has been reiterated. In view of the same, the finding of Tribunal regarding negligence aspect does not warrant any interference. 10. Coming to the aspect of quantum of compensation, in particular, the disability factor, it is the case of claimant that injury sustained as described in Ex.A6 wound certificate resulted in disability of 25%. In support of the same, he has adduced evidence of PW.2, Member of Medical Board, who issued Ex.A5 disability certificate. The Tribunal, after analyzing aforesaid evidence, has come to conclusion that the claimant had clearly demonstrated the disability factor to be at 25%. In the absence of any other contra material or evidence on record, on mere contest by 2nd respondent Corporation, the creditworthiness of Medical Board Certificate cannot be undermined and disbelieved. Since, the Medical Board Certificate is sufficiently supported by the doctor, who deposed as PW.2, the same would carry enough weight to assess the functional disability. The finding of Tribunal regarding the said aspect clearly is justified and does not suffer from any error. 11. In view of the same, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the well-reasoned and considered order of the Tribunal and the Tribunal has rightly determined the just and fair compensation. 4 (2025) 2 SCC 599 8 CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A.No.258 of 2022 12. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs. 13. The appellant Corporation is directed to deposit the balance amount of compensation before the Tribunal in terms of the impugned order within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and on such deposit, 1st respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the same. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date:16.10.2025 cs