APHC010111672019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] THURSDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 289/2019 Between: 1. AP STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HOLDING OFFICE AT X- ROADS, MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD, PRESENT AT PANDIT NEHRU BUS STATION, VIJAYAWADA, AMARAVATHI, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...APPELLANT AND 1. N NIHITH RAJ, , S/o. N. Sampath Kumar, Christian, Aged about 23 years, R/at. Flat No. 303, Narayana Apartments, Madhava Nagar, Tirupati, Chittoor District. ...RESPONDENT 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. 19.07.2018 in M.V.O.P. No. 388/2012 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -Cum - IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati IA NO: 1 OF 2019 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 condone the delay of 130 days in filing the M.A.C.M.A IA NO: 2 OF 2019 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 stay of all further proceedings including the execution proceedings in M.V.O.P. No.388/2012 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Cum - IV Addl. District Judge, Tirupathi, Chittoor Dist. Counsel for the Appellant: 1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following: 3 The Court made the following judgment: The appellant/APSRTC filed the present appeal aggrieved by order dated 19.07.2018 passed in MVOP No.388 of 2012 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as they were referred before the Tribunal. 3. The petitioner filed claim petition under Section 166(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of the injuries received by him in the accident that was occurred on 23.07.2011 at about 06.30 p.m., in which the bus belonging to the respondent was involved. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that on 23.07.2011 at about 06.30 p.m., when the petitioner was crossing the road near Municipal Office at Rajiv Gandhi Circle, Tirupati, the driver of APSRTC bus bearing registration No.AP 28 Z 3974 came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the petitioner. As a result of which, the petitioner fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries. He was shifted to BOTH Hospital, Tirupati, for treatment, and on 24.07.2011 he was shifted to Apollo Hospital, Chennai for better treatment. 4 5. It is further case of the petitioner that he was treated in Apollo Hospital, Chennai for 16 days as in-patient and later he was discharged on 03.08.2011. It is further case of the petitioner that he underwent surgery on 22.09.2011 for progressive perineal urethroplasty due to pelvic fracture. The father of the petitioner reported the accident to the Police and a case in Crime No.93 of 2011 was registered under Section 338 IPC and Sections 134(a) and (b) r/w 187 of M.V.Act, on the file of Traffic Police Station, Tirupati. 6. It is further case of the petitioner that on the date of the accident, the petitioner was hale and healthy and he was aged 16 years, studying intermediate in Chaitanya Junior College, Tirupati. It is further stated that, in view of the injuries received by him, he is facing difficulty in lifting weights with his left hand and is not in a position to attend his normal works. In the circumstances, he filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of injuries received by him. 7. The claim was resisted by the respondent stating that the bus was stopped at Municipal Office on the left side of the road and after alighting passengers, when the bus taken to left side towards V.V.Mahal road, the petitioner came on his cycle and after hitting the bus, he fell down on the road. It is further stated that the 5 bus was proceeding with a speed of 10 Km/ph. It is further stated that the accident was occurred on account of negligence on the part of the petitioner. It is further case of the respondent that the petitioner has received simple injuries and the claim is excessive. With the above pleadings, the respondent prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 8. In order to prove the case of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A1 to A3 were marked. On the other hand, the respondent examined R.W.1 and no documents were marked. Exs.X1 to X4 were marked with the consent of the parties. 9. Considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal, by impugned order, partly allowed the claim petition by awarding an amount of Rs.4,14,425/- towards compensation to the petitioner along with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the respondent/appellant. 10. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Perused the record. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner. In order to prove the same, the appellant examined the driver of the offending bus as R.W.1. On perusal of the evidence of R.W.1, it is 6 clear that except reiterating the contents of the counter, nothing is stated to show that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner. On the other hand, the petitioner himself was examined as P.W.1, who deposed that on 23.07.2011 at about 06.30 p.m. near Municipal Office, Rajiv Gandhi Circle, the driver of the offending vehicle came in rash and negligent manner and hit him. Though P.W.1 was cross examined at length, nothing was elicited to disprove his evidence. Apart from the same, the petitioner also marked Exs.A1 and A2, copies of FIR and Charge Sheet respectively. On perusal of the above documents would further make it clear that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. 12. From the above oral and documentary evidence put forth by the petitioner, it can be safely concluded that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. 13. The other ground that was raised in the instant appeal is that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. On perusal of the record, it is evident that the petitioner sustained grievous injuries in the accident. Initially he was admitted in BOTH hospital, Tirupati, on the date of accident i.e., on 23.07.2011. Later, he was shifted to Apollo Hospital, Chennai, where he was 7 underwent surgery for the injuries sustained by him as in-patient and later he was discharged on 03.08.2011. In order to prove the same, the petitioner has examined P.W.3/Dr.K.J.Raghunath and P.W.4/Dr.B.Arun Kumar and marked Ex.A3/copy of wound certificate. 14. On perusal of the evidence of P.W.3, Consultant Surgeon, Apollo Hospital, Chennai, it is evident that the petitioner was admitted in the hospital on 24.07.2011, where he underwent treatment to pelvic fracture and he was also found to have sustained bladder injury and advised to consult Dr.B.Arun Kumar (P.W.4). Further, on perusal of evident of P.W.4, the consultant Urologist, Apollo Hospital, Chennai, it is evident that the petitioner underwent surgery on 22.09.2011 for progressive perineal urethroplasty due to pelvic fracture. 15. From the above evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4, it is clear that the petitioner was treated in the said hospital for a period of 16 days as in-patient, where he underwent surgery as aforesaid. In order to rebut the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4, the respondent has not placed anything on record. 16. After taking into consideration of the medical bills marked in Exs.X1 and X3 through P.W.2, the Tribunal has awarded 8 an amount of Rs.4,14,425/- towards compensation under various conventional heads together with interest @ 7.5% p.a. 17. As already stated supra, the respondent has neither examined any witness nor filed any documentary evidence to disprove the evidence of the petitioner. In the absence of any material on record, the contention of the appellant that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive cannot be countenanced and same is hereby rejected. 18. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any merit in the present appeal and accordingly, the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR Dt.04.12.2025 JLV 9 10 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MACMA.No.289 OF 2019 Date: 04.12.2025 JLV