APHC010089752022 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: 85/2022 Between: 1. APSRTC, , REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, RTC HOUSE, VIJAYAWADA ...APPELLANT AND 1. KAMMILI RAMBABU, S/O SUBRAMANYAM, AGED 29 YEARS, SRIRANGAPATNAM VILLAGE, KORUKONDA MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2. KARAM BULLI DORA, S/O GANGARAJU DORA, AGED 46 YEARS, DRIVER OF APSRTC BUS BEARING NO AP 07 Z 0166 DNO 1-60, BANDAPALLI THADIVADA, RAMPACHODAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, aggrieved by the Decree and Order dated 23.12.2021 passed in M.V.O.P No. 552 of 2018 on the file of Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal cum VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram, in partly allowing the claim petition. Counsel for the Appellant: 1. VINOD KUMAR TARLADA (SC FOR APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: 2 CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A.No.85 of 2022 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN M.A.C.M.A.No.85 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 23.12.2021, passed in M.V.O.P. No.552 of 2018 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram, (“the Tribunal”), awarding compensation of Rs.21,32,240/- 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. Claimant stated to be mason and aged about 25 years as on the date of accident. While he was proceeding in auto bearing No.AP 05 TN 0913, the same was hit by bus belonging to the respondent Corporation, which was coming in opposite direction, because of which he sustained severe injuries. Even the driver of the auto and also other inmates of the auto also received severe injuries and they succumbed to the same later. Claimant was initially admitted in Government Hospital, Rajahmahendravaram, and later shifted to private 3 CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A.No.85 of 2022 hospital viz., GSL General Hospital, Rajahmahendravaram. He was treated there from 04.10.2018 to 22.10.2018 as inpatient. He stated to have sustained following injuries: 1) Compressed fracture of D.12 vertebrae; 2) Fracture of right great toe; 3) Injury over left ear; 4) Injury over right foot; 5) Injury over right ankle; and 6) Multiple injuries all over the body. He has undergone multiple surgeries to D.12 vertebrae and screws were also inserted. On account of the same, he stated to have sustained Rs.20,000/- towards medical expenses. Further, since the injuries have not healed completely, he was required to be frequently consulted with doctors for further treatment, therefore, he claimed need of future medical expenses also. Due to the severity of the incident and considering the nature of injuries, he had to confine to bed and to meet his regular needs, an attendant stated to be necessary, who requires to be paid for at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month, in total, claim came to be laid for an amount of Rs.25,00,000/-. (b) The driver of bus has not filed any written statement, however, the 2nd respondent Corporation filed written statement denying the manner in which accident occurred and further taken stand that there was negligence on the part of the driver of auto in causing the accident as it 4 CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A.No.85 of 2022 was a case of head on collision, hence, the entire liability cannot be fastened merely on the 2nd respondent Corporation. Besides, the avocation, income, nature of injuries sustained and the disability claimed have also been disputed. (c) Based on the aforesaid pleadings available on record, the Tribunal has framed following issues: “1. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving and high speed driving of the 1st respondent/driver? 2. Whether the petitioner incurred Rs.20,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.20,000/- towards transportation charges? 3. Whether the compensation claimed is excessive and disproportionate? 4. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary and proper parties? 5. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent and against whom? 6. To what relief? (d) In support of the claim, claimant himself was examined as PW.1 and the doctor, who has done surgery, as PW.2 and the Member of Medical Board as PW.3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6 and Exs.X1 and X2. The driver of bus has been examined as RW.1 for respondents and no documents came to be marked. (e) On appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal has answered the first issue in favour of claimant holding that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving and high speed of driver of the bus belonging to the 2nd respondent Corporation. Though stand has been taken by 2nd respondent Corporation that there was contributory negligence on the part of the driver of auto, in the absence of any evidence to that effect, the said 5 CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A.No.85 of 2022 version came to be disbelieved. Coming to the aspect of compensation, the Tribunal has considered the income of claimant as Rs.6,000/- p.m. in the absence of any other evidence on record and by awarding future prospects at the rate of 40% has computed general damages. The Tribunal has considered the functional disability at the rate of 90% and accordingly, assessed loss of earning capacity as Rs.15,42,240/-, besides it has also granted other special and general damages, which are as under: Special damages: Transportation to the hospital for Rs. 5,000/- General Damages: Loss of earning capacity Rs.6000/- + 40% future prospects Rs.2,400/-= Rs.6,000/- +2,400/- = Rs.8,400/- p.m. Rs.8,400/- x 12 x17 x90/100 Rs.15,42,240/- Attendant charges Rs. 5,00,000/- Compensation for pain and suffering: Rs. 75,000/- Extra nourishment Rs. 10,000/- -------------------- Rs.21,32,240/- -------------------- The aforesaid compensation has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation. Assailing the same, the present Appeal is preferred by the appellant Corporation. 4. Heard Sri Ch.Pavan Kumar, learned counsel, representing Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC, appearing for the 6 CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A.No.85 of 2022 appellant and none appears for the respondent/ claimant despite service of notice. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended that the Tribunal has not considered the plea of negligence on the part of the auto driver, which in a way was also crucial factor for cause of accident, thereby entire liability ought not have been fastened on 2nd respondent Corporation alone and findings rendered contrary to the same are clearly perverse. He further contended that the Tribunal has considered income of claimant as Rs.6,000/- p.m. which is not based on any evidence on record. Except for these two submissions, no other grounds have been urged. 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. POINT: The occurrence of accident is not in dispute. The pleadings and findings of Tribunal go to show that the accident has occurred on 04.10.2018 on account of collision of auto and bus belonging to the 2nd respondent Corporation. It is the case of claimant that the accident has 7 CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A.No.85 of 2022 occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of driver of the bus. To support the said version, not only he spoke for himself, but also got marked Exs.A1 – FIR, Ex.A3 – M.V.I. Report and Ex.A.4 – charge-sheet. On the other hand, it is the case of the 2nd respondent Corporation that even the driver of auto was responsible for causing the accident as there was negligence on his part too. To buttress the same, the driver of the bus has been examined as RW.1, who spoke of the same. Since, there are two versions and set of evidences supporting the case of both claimant and 2nd respondent Corporation, it has to be seen which is most reliable and trustworthy evidence. The Tribunal upon evaluation of both evidences has come to conclusion that the evidence of claimant has overwhelmingly established the occurrence of accident and also the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. In order to come to the said conclusion, the Tribunal has tried to take support of Ex.A1 and Ex.A4, which are F.I.R. and charge-sheet. Because of the investigation of Police, a charge-sheet has been laid holding that the driver of the bus was responsible for accident, giving much weight and credence to the said evidence, the Tribunal has ultimately come to conclusion that the evidence of claimant had clearly established aforesaid factum and rejected the version of the 2nd respondent Corporation. The findings and conclusion of Tribunal, in opinion of this Court, are sound and supported by proper reasoning, therefore, as it is now well settled that F.I.R. and charge-sheet are sufficient 8 CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A.No.85 of 2022 to show and establish the negligence part in catena of judgments, this Court is in agreement with the aforesaid findings and does not find any infirmity. 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 9 CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A.No.85 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. Insofar as the compensation, in particular, determination of income of claimant, though claim was made that he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month as a mason, in the absence of any cogent evidence, the Tribunal has assessed the income at Rs.6,000/- per month. In assessing the said amount, the Tribunal has considered the minimum wages payable to the unskilled workers. In considered view of this Court, aforesaid approach is fairly justified and does not call for any interference. 11. Since there is no challenge to any of other findings and conclusions drawn by the Tribunal and the award of the special and general damages, such as transportation charges, attendant charges, pain and suffering and extra-nourishment, the compensation determined by the Tribunal is hereby sustained to be just and fair. Accordingly, this Court see no reason to interdict with the view and findings of the Tribunal. 12. The appeal, therefore, 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 4 (2025) 2 SCC 599 10 CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A.No.85 of 2022 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:15.10.2025. cs