APHC010061572022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 47/2022 Between: 1. THE APSRTC, REP.BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, APSRTC, NEAR RTC, BUS STAND, KADAPA CITY. ...APPELLANT AND 1. PAIDIKALVA SUJAMMA SAROJAMMA, W/O LATE PUSHPARAJU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, HINDU, OCC.CULTIVTION, R/O PAICLIKALVA VALLURU MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. 2. S SUDHAKAR REDDY, S/O S.VEERA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, HINDU, DRIVER OF APSRTC, BUS BEARING NO.AP28Z2527, RESIDING AT D.NO.1/130, KOTHAGANGI REDDY PALLI VILLAGE, PENDIMARRY MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree, dated 06.10.2021, passed in MVOP. No.517/2016 on the file of the Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - I Additional District Judge, Kadapa. Counsel for the Appellant: 1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. S ARIFULLAH The Court made the following: 2 CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A.No.47 of 2022 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN M.A.C.M.A.No.47 of 2022 JUDGMENT: Present appeal is filed by Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (“Corporation”) under Section 173 of the Motor Accidents Act, 1988, assailing order, dated 06.10.2021, passed in M.V.O.P. No.517 of 2016 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Kadapa, (“the Tribunal”), awarding compensation of Rs.2,12,526/- on account of injuries sustained by 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. On 02.04.2016, the claimant, while trying to board the bus, on account of conductor non-observing the same having signalled, the driver tried to move the bus, thereby she fell down and sustained injuries. Rear tyre of bus has run over the right foot. She was shifted to hospital at Kadapa and underwent treatment for crush injury on right foot, fracture of shaft of proximal phalanx of right great toe, fracture of proximal phalanx of right little toe, hairline fracture 3 CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A.No.47 of 2022 base of 4th metal tarsal and other parties of body. Incident was also reported to Police and Crime No.172 of 2016 came to be registered against the driver of the bus against whom, later on investigation, charge-sheet came to be laid. She has also undergone surgery to fix the factures and other injuries and thereby she is stated to have incurred certain medical expenses. It is claimed that she had owned about five acres of agricultural land, by which, she used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month and contributing to the family. Basing on the same, claim has been laid for compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- along with internet. (b) The respondents have filed counter denying the manner in which accident occurred and that the driver of bus was negligent in causing the same. It has also been pleaded that in fact the claimant herself was negligent in trying to board moving bus, which caused the accident and consequent injuries. Further, the age, income, medical treatment availed, have also been disputed. (c) Based on the aforesaid pleadings available on record, the Tribunal has framed following issues: “1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 02.04.2016 at about 8.00 p.m. due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 28-Z-2527? OR 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation, if so, what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief?” 4 CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A.No.47 of 2022 (d) In support of the claim, the injured/claimant got himself examined as PW.1 and the doctor, who treated her as PW.2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A9. None were examined nor any documents were marked on behalf of the respondents. (e) The Tribunal has answered first issue in the affirmative in favour of the claimant, holding that she sustained injuries on account accident that has occurred, which was due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the offending bus. Insofar as the income of injured was concerned, though she claimed to be earning about Rs.10,000/- per month, in the absence of any evidence in that direction, the Tribunal has determined her income as Rs.5,000/- per month, considering her as house-wife. Her age has been considered as 60 years and multiplier of 9 came to be applied. Coming to the aspect of disability, Ex.A4 has been marked and supported by the evidence of doctor, who issued it, as PW.2, which suggested disability of 25%. The Tribunal, by giving due credence to the said evidence, has fixed functional disability at 25% and accordingly, assessed the loss of earnings at Rs.1,35,000/-; pain and suffering at Rs.20,000/-; medical expenses at Rs.47,526/-; transportation charges at Rs.5,000/- and attendant charges at Rs.5,000/-. Accordingly, the Tribunal has, therefore, awarded aforesaid amounts of compensation and directed to be paid along with interest at 5 CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A.No.47 of 2022 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Assailing the same, present appeal is preferred. 4. Heard Sri Aravala Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC, appearing for the appellant and Sri S.Arifullah, learned counsel for the respondent/claimant. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended that the Tribunal has grossly erred in not appreciating the aspect that when there was clear negligence on the part of the claimant herself, entire of compensation ought not to have been fastened on the 1st respondent Corporation. He further contended that the amount awarded under different heads towards compensation are on higher side. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the 1st respondent/claimant tried to support the impugned order by contending that the Tribunal, on appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, has rightly come to the conclusion and determined the compensation, therefore, the same does not call for any interference. 7. Perused the record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant. 6 CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A.No.47 of 2022 8. 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?” 9. POINT: The claimant while boarding bus on 02.04.2016, stated to have fallen down and back tyre of bus since has run over her right leg foot, has sustained grievous injury. In order to establish that the accident has occurred and that the driver of offending bus was negligent, she has spoken for herself and also got marked Ex.A1 FIR, Ex.A2 wound certificate and Ex.A3 charge-sheet. Since, the cases falling under the Motor Vehicles Act, for the purpose of determining the negligence part, the claimants are required to establish the said factum based on touchstone of preponderance of probabilities, but not on beyond reasonable doubt, the aforesaid evidence, in particular, F.I.R. and charge-sheet are sufficient to come to conclusion that the incident has occurred and the driver of offending bus was negligent and responsible for the same. Rightly, the Tribunal has, on appreciation of aforesaid evidence, rendered finding on this issue. Though, learned counsel for the appellant tried to persuade this Court that there is negligence on the part of the claimant herself, in the absence of any evidence, much less that of the driver of bus, said version deserves no consideration. 7 CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A.No.47 of 2022 10. Coming to the aspect of the compensation awarded under different heads, though learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the amounts granted are on higher side, in the absence of any definitive and specific plea or grounds raised as to which components are on higher side or suggesting how the Tribunal was wrong in computing the amounts, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the reasoning and conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal while determining those amounts. 11. The income of claimant has been considered, considering her as house-wife at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month, which in opinion of this Court is clearly justified. Insofar as other pecuniary and non-pecuniary amounts granted are concerned, the same are based on evidence and, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same as they are just and fair. This Court see no reason to interfere with the order impugned in the appeal. 12. Accordingly, the appeal is 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. 8 CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A.No.47 of 2022 As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date:15.10.2025. cs