APHC010298262019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1001 OF 2019 Between: 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, APSRTC, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, Now at Vijayawada. ...Petitioner AND 1. GOMU VENKATA RAMANA, S/o lakshmayya, aged about 37 years, Agriculture,Resident of D.NO. 1-96, Ladoddi Rajavommangi Mandal, East Godavari Dist., 2. Sunkara Satyanarayana, S/o Ramudu, aged about 51 years, Driver of APSRTC Bus Bearing No. AP 28Z-2371, Resident of Jaggampeta Village, Pedapuram, E.G. Dist., ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: VINOD KUMAR TARLADA (SC FOR APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1001 OF 2019 ORDER: - 1. The present appeal is filed questioning the order dated 17.05.2019 passed in M.V.O.P.No.901 of 2017 on the file of learned Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge) at Rajamahendravaram. 1st respondent herein filed the above M.V.O.P.No.901 of 2017 under Section 166 read with Rule 455 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Act and the rules made thereunder, claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC bus. 2. It is the case of the claimant that on 27.10.2015 at about 02.00 pm, while he was proceeding to Lododdi on a motor cycle as pillion rider, APSRTC bus bearing registration No.AP 28 Z 2371 driven by the 2nd respondent/ driver in rash and negligent manner at high speed, thereby he lost control over the bus and dashed the 1st respondent/ claimant. As a result of which, the 1st respondent/ claimant sustained injuries. Thereafter, he was taken to Community Health Center, Yeleswaram and later shifted to Government General Hospital, Kakinada for better treatment. It is contended that the claimant/ 1st respondent admitted in the hospital on 27.10.2015 and underwent surgery with interlocking nail fixation and he was discharged on 09.11.2015. It is further contended that a crime was registered in Cr.No.25 of 2015 under section 338 of IPC by the Station House Officer, Jaddangi Police Station, East Godavari District. It is further contended that as he sustained injuries, he was unable to walk and attend his regular works for a period of two months and thereby, he lost earnings during the said period. Accordingly, he preferred M.V.O.P.No.901 of 2017 claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the said injuries. 3. On the other hand, the appellant/ APSRTC contended that the motor cycle bearing registration No. AP 05 DB 0908 was coming in the opposite direction in rash and negligent manner at high speed without blowing horn and the person who was driving the motor cycle was in drunken condition. It is further contended that the driver of the APSRTC bus, despite alerting by blowing horn, the driver of the motor cycle came in zig zag manner and hit the APSRTC bus. It is further contended that the 1st respondent/ claimant did not suffer any disability and the compensation claimed is excessive. 4. After considering the oral and documentary evidence of the parties, the Tribunal by an order, dated 17.05.2019, allowed the petition in part by awarding compensation of Rs.1,35,000/- to the petitioner with proportionate costs and with subsequent interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the appellant and the 2nd respondent herein. 5. The present appeal is filed on the ground that the 1st respondent failed to establish rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus bearing registration No.AP 28 Z 2371 and the Tribunal erred in granting an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of earnings and contended that the Tribunal ought not to have awarded compensation of Rs.1,35,000/- to the 1st respondent. 6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Despite service of notice, none appeared for the 1st respondent. Perused the material available on record. 7. It is the specific case of the appellant that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving by Chadala Krishnababu/ driver of the motor cycle. 8. In support of the contention of the claimant/ 1st respondent, he got examined himself as PW.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A3. Ex.A1 is attested copy of FIR, Ex.A2 is attested copy of Charge Sheet and Ex.A3 is copy of MVI report. A perusal of Ex.A2 – charge sheet filed by the investigating officer would show that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the APSRTC bus by the 2nd respondent. Further on perusal of the cross- examination of RW.1/ driver of the APSRTC bus, it is clear that he admitted that he drove the bus in rash and negligent manner. In view of the admission made by RW.1/ driver of the APSRTC bus, the contention of the appellant that the motor vehicle on which the 1st respondent was travelling as pillion rider was driven in rash and negligent manner cannot be believed and from the admission, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus. 9. Further to prove that the claimant/ 1st respondent sustained injuries, 1st respondent/ claimant got examined PW.2/ the doctor who treated him, who was working as Assistant Professor of Orthopedic, Rangaraya Medical College, Government Hospital, Kakinada. A perusal of the deposition of PW.2/ the doctor, it is clear that the 1st respondent/ claimant sustained injuries viz., 1. 5 cms swelling in right thigh 2. suspected fracture and dislocation of femur 3. 3 cms abrasion on left orbit Further, the doctor categorically opined that the injury No.2 is grievous in nature and the claimant underwent surgery with interlocking nail fixation. He further deposed that the claimant was admitted in hospital on 27.10.2015 and discharged on 09.11.2015 by advising to take rest for two months. In order to prove the same, Exs.X1 and X2 are marked. 10. From the above oral and documentary evidence, it is clear that the 2nd respondent/ driver of APSRTC bus drove the bus in rash and negligent manner and hit the motor cycle on which the claimant/ 1st respondent was travelling as pillion rider and due to which he sustained injuries. After considering the case on hand, the Tribunal has rightly fixed the compensation of Rs.85,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.25,000/- towards nourishment and Rs.25,000/- towards loss of earnings. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal erred in granting Rs.25,000/- towards loss of earnings. A perusal of the deposition of PW.2/ doctor, it is clear that while the 1st respondent/ claimant was discharged on 09.11.2015 and he was advised to take rest for two months, thereby, he lost earnings for the said period. In that view of the matter, the contention of the appellant that compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of earnings could not be awarded to the claimant does not merit consideration. 11. For the foregoing reasons, there are no merits in the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR Date: 09.10.2025 Dvs THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR 43 MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1001 OF 2019 Date: 09.10.2025 Dvs