APHC010061592022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3367] THURSDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 49/2022 Between: The Apsrtc Rep By Its Managing Director ...APPELLANT AND Padiga Madhu and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: K VISWANATHAM (SC FOR APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent(S): The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge at Kurnool (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.255 of 2016 dated 08.10.2021. 2. The appellant is the APSRTC/owner of the Bus bearing No.AP 21Z 0497 (hereinafter referred to as “crime bus”). The respondent No.1 herein is the claimant before the Tribunal and respondent No.2 is the driver of the crime bus, respectively. 2 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the tribunal. 4. The case of the claimant, in the petition before the Tribunal is that: i). On 10.11.2014 at about 10.00 p.m., while the claimant being rider proceeding on Bajaj Pulsar Motorcycle bearing No.AP 22R 9014, when he reached near Gooty Petrol Bunk Junction under fly-over bridge, Kurnool town, the crime bus driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, hit the claimant, resulted the claimant sustained multiple injuries. ii). He claimed compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- against the owner and driver of the crime bus. 5. The respondent No.1 filed counter denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the accident occurred was due to the negligence on the part of the claimant, but not 2nd respondent/driver of the crime bus; that the compensation 3 claimed by the claimant is excessive, thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material: “1.Whether the accident that occurred on 11.11.2014 at about 10.00 p.m. under flyover bridge near Gooty Petrol Bunk Junction, Kurnool Town, was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC bus bearing registration No.AP 21Z 0497, resulting the petitioner sustained injuries? 2.Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, and if so, to what amount and against whom? and 3.To what relief?” 7. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimant, he was examined as P.W.1, Exs.A.1 to A.6 were exhibited. No oral and documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents. 8. On the material, the Tribunal, having come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash negligent driving of the crime bus by the 2nd respondent, held that claimant is entitled for the compensation of Rs.1,41,100/-, with 4 interest at 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondents, for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident. 9. It is against the said award; the present appeal was preferred by the appellant/APSRTC. 10. Heard Sri Aravala Ramarao, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant/APSRTC. 11. Now, the point that arise for determination is “whether the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside, if so, to what extent?” 12. POINT: It is not in dispute about the injuries sustained by the claimant in the incident and involvement of the crime bus. It is also not in dispute that no appeal was preferred by the claimant as well driver of the crime bus against the findings of the Tribunal. 13. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the claimant, but not 2nd respondent. 5 14. In view of the above contention, this Court perused the material placed on record. To prove the rash and negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent in causing the incident, the claimant relied upon his testimony as P.W.1 and Exs.A.1 and A.4 F.I.R. and Charge Sheet, respectively. On perusal of Exs.A.1 and A.4, the investigating agency, after thorough investigation, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime bus by the 2nd respondent. The testimony of P.W.1 coupled with Exs.A.1 and A.4 categorically show that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the crime bus by the 2nd respondent. Nothing was elicited during cross examination to disbelieve the testimony of P.W.1 and Exs.A.1 and A.4. 15. Furthermore, the 2nd respondent is the best witness to speak about the manner of the incident and deny the case of the claimant, but he did not choose to enter into witness box. No oral and documentary evidence was adduced to deny the case of the claimant by the respondents. Thereby, it is clear in vivid terms that the Tribunal after appreciating the material on 6 record in right perspective came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime bus by the 2nd respondent, which requires no interference 16. Coming to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, on perusal of Ex.A.2 wound certificate the claimant sustained two simple injuries and one grievous injury and he took treatment from 14.11.2014 to 26.11.2014 in Noble Multi Specialty Hospital at Kurnool under Ex.A.5 as well spent an amount of Rs.1,18,070/- towards medical bills. 17. By considering the above facts, nature of injuries and treatment undergone by the claimant, the Tribunal rightly granted an amount of Rs.8,000/- towards loss of income, Rs.1,18,070/- towards medicines and treatment, Rs.10,000/- for pain and suffering and Rs.5,000/- towards transportation and extra nourishment. Thereby, this Court is of the considered opinion that no valid grounds urged by the appellant to interfere with the said calculations made by the Tribunal, as there is no need to disturb the well-articulated order passed by the 7 Tribunal, the appeal preferred by the appellant is liable for dismissal. Thus, the point is answered accordingly. 18. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS Date: 13.03.2025 Krs 8 448 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS M.A.C.M.A.No.49 of 2022 (J U D G M E N T) DATE: 13.03.2025 Krs