APHC010077732022 0!^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ATAMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.73 of 2022 Between: 1. M/s.Telangana State Road Transport, Represented by its Depot Manager, Nalgonda Town and District. 2. M/s. Telangana State Road Transport, Represented by its Regional Manager, Disputes Setting Authority Nalgonda Town and District. ...Appellants/Respondents AND 1. Bathala Venkata Murali Krishna @ Murali Krishnaiah, Aged about 51 years, S/o. Venkata Subbaiah, Hindu, Conductor in APSRTC Jammalamadugu Depot, Residing at D.No.11/68 Main Bazar, Jammalamadugu Town, Kadapa District. ...Respondent/Claimant 2. Rapuru Satyanarayana, S/o. Narayana, Aged about 58 years, APSRTC Driver, E.No.200670, Nalgonda Depot, residing at Eduluru Village, Kattangur Mandal, Nalgonda District, Telangana State. (2'"'* Respondent not necessary in this MACMA) ...Respondent/Respondent Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 18.12.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.175/2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Cum - II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of Petition, the Order and Decree of the Trial Court and the material papers in the Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Aravala Rama Rao, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri V Nitesh, Advocate for Respondent No.1. This Court doth Order and decree as follows: 1. That the appeal be and is hereby dismissed; 2. That the appellant Corporation be and is hereby directed to deposit the balance amount of compensation before the Tribunal in terms of the impugned order within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment: 3. That on such deposit, respondent/claimant be and is hereby permitted to withdraw the same; 4. That there be no order as to costs in this appeal. Sd/- K KASIRAO ACHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Cum - II Additional District Judge, Proddatur, Kadapa District. 2. Two CD Copies TK vna M HIGH COURT DATED:30/07/2025 DECREE WIACMA No.73 of 2022 sT 2 2 AUG 2025 K ntSectioB^^ DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS I APHC010077732022 Sj^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH igfjyg AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.73 of 2022 Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act. aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 18.12.2019 fn M.V.O.P.No.175/2015 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Cum - II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur. on the file Between: 1. M/s.Telangana State Road Transport, Represented by Manager, Nalgonda Town and District. 2. M/s. Telangana State Road Transport. Represented by its Regional Manager, Disputes Setting Authority Nalgonda Town and District. ...Appellants/Respondents its Depot AND 1. Bathala Venkata Murali Krishna @ Murali Krishnaiah, Aged about 51 years S/o. Venkata Subbaiah Jammalamadugu Depot, Residing at D.No.11/68 Main Bazar, Jammalamadugu Town, Kadapa District. Hindu, Conductor in APSRTC ...Respondent/Claimant years, APSRTC Driver, E.No.200670. Nalgonda Depot, residing at Eduluru Village, Kattangur Mandal, Nalgonda District, Telangana State. 2. Rapuru Satyanarayana, S/o. Narayana, Aged about 58 (2"'^ Respondent not necessary in this MAGMA) ...Respondent/Respondent lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 of 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 MVOP No. 175 of 2015 on the file of The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Cum-ll Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddutur. : Sri Aravala Rama Rao Counsel for the Petitioners Counsel for Respondent No.1: Sri V Nitesh The Court made the following order: APHC010077732022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY,, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 73/2022 [3506] ■rja Between: 1.TELANGANA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPOT MANAGER, NALGONDA TOWN AND DISTRICT. 2. M/S. TELANGANA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, DISPUTES SETTING AUTHORITY NALGONDA TOWN AND DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. BATHALA VENKATA MURALI KRISHNA MURALI KRISHNAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS HINDU,CONDUCTOR DEPOT.RESIDING AT JAMMALAMADUGU TOWN, KADAPA DISTRICT. 2.RAPURU SATYANARAYANA, S/0. NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, APSRTC DRIVER, E.N0.200670 DEPOT RESIDING AT EDULURU VILLAGE, KATTANGUR MANDAL, NALGONDA DISTRICT, TELANGANA STATE. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal IS filed under Order 41 of CPC aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree, dated 18.12.2019 in M.V.O.P.No. 175/2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-ll Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatu. Counsel for the Appellant(S); 1.ARAVALA RAMA RAO CPunsel for the Respondent(S): 1.VNITESH S/0. VENKATA SUBBAIAH, IN APSRTC JAMMALAMADUGU D. NO. 11/68 MAIN BAZAR, NALGONDA The Court made the following: CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A.No.73 of 2022 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN ]yLA,^jyLAJvJo7^of2022 JUDGMENT: This appeal assails order, dated 18.12.2019, passed in M.V.O.P. No.175 of 2015 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-ll Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur (“for short, the Tribunal”), by which. Tribunal determined an amount of Rs.23,70,000/- as compensation besides interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation and costs. 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 follows: in a nutshell are as (a) This Appeal is instituted by Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (“the Corporation”) under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. (b) This is a case of injuries sustained by its employee, who discharging duties as Conductor. The claimant, conductor of APSRTC, while on duty on 17.03.2013, and trying to board bus bearing registration No.AP 29 Z 2301, which was erstwhile was in stopped condition at M.G.B.S., Hyderabad, even before he stepped on first footing, the driver CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A.No.73 of 2022 of said bus drove the same in a rash and negligent manner without noticing claimant boarding the bus, thereby he skipped and the front tyre of the bus crushed his legs and waist, causing grievous injuries. The over his waist, causing multiple was shifted to Osmania General front tyre of the bus appears to have run injuries to both legs, waist bones. He Hospital for treatment. Case for the offence punishable under Section 337 was registered vide Crime No. 147 of 2013 of IPC against the driver of the crime vehicle, after investigation, charge-sheet was filed and numbered as C.C.No.15 of 2013 Magistrate, Hyderabad. He Secunderabad, for better treatment on the file of II Additional Metropolita was later shifted to Yashodha Hospital, where he underwent multiple Claimant is stated to have incurred investigations and surgeries Rs.9,00 Lakhs for aforesaid treatment. As he was not in a position to even sit, stand or walk, he was referred to the Corporation hospital at Tarnaka. His condition was evaluated by Doctors and Medical Board there, who found him to be unfit for rendering further service, therefore he came to be terminated from be aged about 45 service on 17.03.2015. He is stated to years and earning about Rs.18,072/- salary. He was also having wife and two children as monthly to be taken care, who were housewife and school and college-going children. Therefore account of aforesaid incident, he laid . on present claim seeking for compensation of Rs.48,09,131/- on multiple heads along with interest. \ 4 CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A.No.73of 2022 (c) 1®' respondent, Depot Manager of the Corporation and 3''’^ respondent driver of the bus, which caused the accident, were set ex parte. 2"'^ respondent Corporation filed written statement, inter alia, denying the manner in which accident has occurred, that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus, which alleged to have caused the incident and even the claimant also was equally responsible for the negligence, if any, besides disputing the treatment undergone. earnings and the quantum of compensation claimed and prayed for dismissal of the claim. (d) Based on the aforesaid pleadings available on record, the Tribunal has framed following issues; “1. Whether the petitioner was injured in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 17.03.2013 at about 4.15 p.m. at MGBS, Hyderabad due to rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing No.AP 29 Z 2301 by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief? (e) In order to prove the case of the claimant, he was examined as PW.1, besides examining PW.2 and PW.3, who are doctors, who extended treatment/certified to be medically unfit; and PW.4, Depot Manager, to speak of salary/earnings and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.37. On behalf of 2"*^ respondent Corporation, none was examined nor any w documents are marked. / 5 CGR, J, M.A.C.M.A.No.73 of 2022 (f) 1^' issue came to be answered in favour of the claimant holding that the accident occurred on account of negligence of driver of bus and it cannot be said that there was any negligence on the part of the claimant. For coming to the said conclusion, the evidence of PW.1 and Exs.A.1 and A2, certified copies of F.I.R. and charge-sheet, were relied on. Flaving come to aforesaid conclusion, the Tribunal proceeded to determine the quantum of compensation. Upon consideration of the medical evidence, medical bills and deposition of P.W.2 and PW.3, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimant was in a dead wood stage without any mobility though percentage of disability assessed at 55% as per Ex.A.13, therefore, by applying the parameters specified by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. D.TJ and considering the net income of the claimant as Rs.14,091/-, assessed the compensation as Rs.15,78,192/-. By adding of the medical expenses, loss of salary and pain and suffering, totally, a compensation of Rs.23,70,888/- came to be awarded. Assailing the same, the present Appeal is preferred by the appellant Corporation. Heard Sri Aravala Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation, appearing for the appellant and Sri V.Nitish, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/claimant. 4. \ (2009) 6 see 121 CGR, J, M.A.C.M.A.No.73 of 2022 5. Learned standing counsel for the respondent Corporation raised two contentions - firstly, he contended that the injury sustained by claimant is self-inflicted, with self-negligence inasmuch as he tried to get into moving bus knowing fully well that there is every possibility of falling down causing injuries, therefore, the Tribunal without appreciating the said aspect has erroneously found that he was not at fault and rather it was the fault and sole negligence of the driver of the bus for fastening the liability. Elaborating the said submission, he contended that, claimant, who got examined as PW.1, himself admitted during the examination that he was negligent while boarding the bus, which crucial fact came to be ignored by the Tribunal. Secondly, while coming to the quantum of compensation, he contended that though the Medical Board and the evidence let in by the doctors i.e., PW.2 and PW.3, in particular, Ex.A.13, indicate the disability as 55%, the Tribunal has applied 100% disability and accordingly, computed and assessed the cross compensation which is clearly erroneous and perverse. 6. Per contra opposing the said contentions, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ claimant, while reiterating the findings recorded by the Tribunal, contended that insofar as self-negligence sought to be attributable to the claimant, nowhere in his evidence or pleadings is there any such admission made accepting that claimant was negligent in boarding the bus. The admission that is sought to be CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A.No.73 of 2022 pressed into sea.ce by appellant is not an admission regarding negligence, but during the cross-examination, the claimant had merely a reference made in the F.I.R, of claimant's admitted to the factum of negligence therein. Mere such on the claimant mention in F.I.R. could not bind the same examination, for a there was any negligence particularly when in the cross- specific suggestion, he clearly denied that his part. Insofar as other contention on IS concerned, learned counsel for the respondent/claimant submitted indicated 55% disability, as claimant was found to be perform duties of either Conductor that though the disability certificate medically unfit to any other equivalent job, and that or he came to be terminated from completely immobile, and the Tribunal disability and therefore, rightly granted by the Hon’ble Apex Court contended that neither there is any infirmity, from perversity. service due to the reason that he was rightly assessed his functional came to the conclusion that he was like a dead wood. compensation following the parameters fixed In that view, he compensation, nor do the findings recorded by the Tribunal in Sarla Verma’s caseV on liability nor on quantum of suffer 7. Perused the record and the learned counsel. considered the rival submissions of both % CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A.No.73 of 2022 Consideration on the aspect of liability: Claimant was employed as Conductor in the appellant Corporation. He was on duty at MGBS, Hyderabad on the date of accident. He tried to get into the bus, but, unfortunately, even before he stepped on first footing, as bus moved, he fell down and thereby bus front wheel has ran over him causing grievous injuries to waist and both legs. Crime was registered against the driver of the bus. copies of F.I.R. and charge-sheet have been marked ks Ex.A.1 In order to prove that the incident has happened, claimant suffered injuries, he himself got examined as PW.1 besides examining doctors, who gave treatment or assessed the disability, as PW.2 and PW.3. 8. Certified and Ex.A.2. 9. Perusal of the evidence of PW. 1, including cross-examination and Exs.AI and A2, goes to show that the incident has occurred while claimant tried to board the bus. A charge has been made against driver of the bus for his act of negligence. But, for the said incident, no injuries would have been sustained to the claimant. It is for the claimant to initially prove that accident occurred, there was negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and thereby sustaining injuries. The aforesaid evidence let in by claimant clearly demonstrates the version of PW.1. The appellant Corporation denied the manner in which the accident occurred and also that the driver of the bus was not negligent at all. CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A.No.73 of 2022 Unfortunately, except for mere denial in the written statement the driver of the bus party witness were examined to any other witness or evidence to speak the Corporation, the burden to rebut the claim neither nor any passenger in the bus or any other third support the same. In the absence of version of appellant of claimant stands not discharged. It is settied law that the degree of proof required to be established in deciding claim under the Motor Vehicles based on preponderance of probabilities, but Act is merely not beyond reasonable doubt. The Tribunal, therefore, assessed aforesaid evidence on record and finally came to conclusion that in the absence of any rebuttable evidence on the part of the Corporation, the evidence claimant and the documents marked clearly accident occurred on account of negligent act of the driver of but, not attributable to self-negligence of the claimant. let in by the established that the the bus. In the absence concurs with aforesaid findings and reason to differ with the same. Accordingly, this point of any other material, this Court there is no IS answered. 10. As regards reliability of F.I.R. and charge-sheet documents collected by investigating investigation and enquiry into the crimes registered and other agency in the process of on account of the Motor Accidents Cases, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mangla Ram v. /■ \ 10 CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A.No.73of 2022 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. ^ 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 Crux^, 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 touch stone 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 Shafi'^. Even recently in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajani Saho^, the exposition in aforesaid judgments has been reiterated. 11. rnn^iHeration regarding the quantum of liability: Claimant was working as Conductor and was drawing an amount of Rs.18,072/- as monthly salary. Ex.A.36, which are the pay slips of the claimant, were marked. To prove them, PW.4 Depot Manager of the M2018)5SCC 656 M2013) 10 see 646 ''(2023) 13 see 510 ^2025) 2 see 599 \ \ 11 CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A.No.73 of 2022 appellant Corporation was examined. The Tribunal accepting the said evidence, has considered the net salary of claimant as Rs.14,091/-. The disability part is concerned, as per Ex.A.13 disability certificate, dated 12.05.2017, doctors have assessed the percentage of disability as 55%. As he was found to be medically unfit to discharge the duties Conductor or any other post, his services came to be terminated. The nature of injuries sustained as per medical records and evidence of doctors, was that he was found bilateral (both sides) pelvic bone fracture, right leg both bones fractures, right medical malleolus fracture ankle, left foot drop with great toe amputation on left foot. Aforesaid multiple injuries and setbacks, literally made claimant to even stand and walk personally, he was rendered immobile. as This was the clear evidence of PW.2, who issued medical unfit certificate. As claimant found to be literally immobile, the Tribunal has considered his equivalent to that of dead wood. He could not have been employed elsewhere in any other job and permanently had to stick to bed, therefore, the Tribunal after evaluation of both documentary as well as oral evidence adduced, has finally come to the conclusion in a way the functional disability to be 100%. Therefore, the loss of future was case earnings came to be assessed by considering the net salary of the year multiplied by 14. Accordingly, total compensation came to be determined as Rs. 15,78,192/-. A close analysis of the findings, based on the evidence 12 I. CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A.No.73 of 2022 .^1 I I r available on record, rendered by the Tribunal goes to show that the compensation fixed is definitely fair and reasonable. Insofar as other amounts are concerned i.e., medical bills to the extent of Rs.2,82,694; loss of salary from the date of accident till termination for Rs.3,10,002/- and for pain and suffering an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- are quite reasonable. Therefore, they do not call for any interference by this Court. / ./ 12. In view of the same, this Court finds that there determining the aforesaid quantum of compensation is no infirmity in treating the case of claimant as functionally 100% disabled. Accordingly, this point is also answered in favour of the respondent/claimant and against the appellant Corporation. 13. In view of the above findings, this Court finds no merit in the appeal. 14. Accordingly, the Appeal shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs. 15. The appellant Corporation is directed to deposit the balance amount of compensation before the Tribunal in terms of the impugned order within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this / 13 CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A.No.73,of2022 judgment and \ on such deposit, respondent/claimant i's permitted to withdraw the same. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K KASIRAO ACHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SE To 1. The Chairman. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Cum - II Additional District Judge, Proddatur, Kadapa District, (with records if any) 2. One CC to Sri Aravala Rama Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri V Nitesh, Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, V.R Section, High Court of Andhra Amaravathi. (to dispatch the trial court records) 5. Two CD Copies Pradesh at TK vna HIGH COURT DATED;30/07/2025 \ JUDGMENT + DECREE MACMA No.73 of 2022 iTof SSs g( 2 2 AUG 2025 ntSoctiottX*^ Co DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS