APHC010065092022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 55/2022 Between: 1. A. P. S. R.T.C, REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA STATE, OWNER OF BUS NO. AP 11 Z 1138. (NOW AT VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT). ...APPELLANT AND 1. RAVINUTALA NAGESWAR RAO, S/O ESWARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RESIDING AT KOTHURU STREET, KOVUR MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 2. P LAKSHMAIAH, (DRIVER), SON OF CHINNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, DRIVER OF APSRTC BUS BEARING NO. AP 11 Z 1138, RAPUR DEPOT, NELLORE DISTRICT. RESIDING AT UYYALAPALLI VILLAGE, KALUVAI, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased toPleased to allow the MACMA by setting aside the Order and Decree dated 12-10-2021 passed in M.V.O.P.No. 300 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nellore and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the Order and Decree dated 12-10-2021 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 300 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District including of execution proceedings, pending disposal of the above MACMA and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. SANISETTY VENKATESWARLU SC For APSRTC Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.55 of 2022 JUDGMENT: Present appeal is preferred by APSRTC challenging the award dated 12.10.2021 passed in M.V.O.P. No.300 of 2017 on the file of Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nellore, by which the respondent/claimant was awarded compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of petition till realization. 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, along with his wife and two minor children, was going on motorcycle, they were hit by RTC bus coming in opposite direction causing injuries to the claimant. He was admitted as inpatient in Narayana Medical College and has undergone treatment there. The present claim has been instituted claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- against the 1st respondent driver and 2nd respondent Corporation. 1st respondent remained ex parte and 2nd respondent Corporation filed counter denying the averments made in the claim petition. 2 CGR, J MACMA. No.55 of 2022 (b) On behalf of petitioner, petitioner himself was examined as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A4 and Ex.X1 and for respondent Corporation R.W.1 was examined, no documents were marked. (c) Based on the aforesaid pleadings available on record, Tribunal has framed following issues: 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver/R1 of A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No.AP 11Z 1138, or whether there is any contributory negligence on the part of petitioner in riding motorcycle bearing No.AP 26AD 8680? 2. Whether insured and insurer of motorcycle bearing No.AP 26AD 8680 are proper and necessary parties to present proceedings? 3. Whether petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount, and against whom? 4. To what relief? (d) Insofar as 1st issue is concerned, based on evidence available on record finding has been rendered that accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the bus and that, there is no contributory negligence on the part of petitioner, who is riding motorcycle. Insofar as the issue relating to compensation is concerned, having found that the claimant has suffered skin deep laceration over forehead and left side, swelling of both upper and lower eyelid on left 3 CGR, J MACMA. No.55 of 2022 side eye, swelling over left clavicle, right eye blocking, right front contusion and right clavicle fracture, granted Rs.40,000/- each for two grievous injuries and Rs.5,000/- each for two simple injuries, besides Rs.30,000/- was awarded towards loss of income and Rs.5,000/- was awarded towards medical expenses, in total an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- was awarded. 4. Heard Sri Sanisetty Venkateswarlu, learned standing counsel for respondent Corporation. Though notice was served on 1st respondent/claimant, none appears. 5. Learned counsel for appellant mainly contended that the accident occurred not on account of negligence of driver of the bus alone and even claimant, who is driving the motorcycle at the time of accident, is also equally responsible for the same. He further contended that the amounts awarded by Tribunal towards compensation are excessive and without any basis. 6. The question that falls for consideration of this Court is: 1. Whether the order passed by the Tribunal suffers from any infirmity or perversity and need interference of this Court? 2. To what relief? 7. Having perused the record and considered the submissions of counsel for appellant, it is apparent that the accident occurred because 4 CGR, J MACMA. No.55 of 2022 of involvement of both motorcycle and bus, which caused injuries to the claimant. It is the case of claimant that the driver of bus dashed the motorcycle in opposite direction in rash and negligent manner while they were returning from Penchalakona. In support of their claim, Ex.A1 FIR copy and Ex.A3 charge sheet have been exhibited. However, the respondent Corporation took stand that the motorcycle was coming in opposite direction and in fact dashed stationed bus. To substantiate the same, though driver of the bus was examined, during the cross- examination admitted that he did not report the crime and that the charge sheet was filed against him holding to be negligent in driving the bus. The Tribunal, therefore, on appreciation of aforesaid evidence came to conclusion that except for the statement of R.W.1, there is no other rebuttal evidence on behalf of Corporation to disbelieve the statement of claimant, which is fortified by Exs.A1 and A3. Therefore, this Court does not see any merit in the contention of counsel for appellant to differ with the aforesaid findings. 8. Insofar as the other contention regarding determination of compensation to be on the higher side, on appreciation of the Ex.A2 wound certificate and Ex.X1 case sheet of the claimant and having regard to the nature of injuries sustained, the Tribunal has reasonably determined the compensation and awarded an amount of Rs.1,25,000/-. Except for contending that the compensation so fixed is on higher side, 5 CGR, J MACMA. No.55 of 2022 appellant has not demonstrated as to what should be the reasonable compensation. The Tribunal, having applied its mind and considering the documentary and oral evidence on record, has determined the compensation and as the same is not shockingly perverse, such findings should not be interfered in normal course. 9. I find no reason to interfere with said reasoned approach and findings. Accordingly, this MACMA stands dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending consideration, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J 24.07.2025 SS