APHC010092252019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR jVIOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 232 OF 2019 Between: 1. APSTRC, rep. by its Depot Manager, Srikakulam Depot, Srikakulam. 2. APSTRC, rep. by its Depot Manager, Vizianagaram Depot, Srikakulam. 3. APSTRC, rep. by its Managing Director, Bus Bhavan at Vijayawada. Hyderabad. Now ...APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 AND 1. Kuppili Srinu S/o.Kuppili Thoudu R/o.Venkojipalem, Shivaji Park, Visakhapatnam. aged about 39 years. ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER years. Driver of Rajam, 2. Majji Suri Babu, S/o.Appalaswamy, aged about 43 APSRTC Bus NO.AP-29-Z-0379, Srikakulam District. R/o.Harizana Street ...RESPONDENT/1®^ RESPONDENT Act, against the Judgment and Decree, dated 05.10.2018 passed in MVOP No.482 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District. Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Order and Decree of the Trial Court and material papers in the petition and upon hearing arguments of Sri Tarlada Vinod Kumar (SC for APSRTC), Advocate for Appellants, and none appeared for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. THIS COURT DOTH ORDER AND DECREE: 1. That the Appeal be and the same hereby is dismissed; 2. That there be no order as to costs in this MAGMA. SD/- K.J.RAJA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District. 2. Two CD Copies TAC HIGH COURT DATED:07/08/2025 DECREE MACMA NO. 232 OF 2019 DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS APHC010092252019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR jVIOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 232 OF 2019 Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the Judgment and Decree, dated 05.10.2018 passed in MVOP No.482 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District. Between: 1. APSTRC, rep. by its Depot Manager, Srikakulam Depot, Srikakulam. 2. APSTRC, rep. by its Depot Manager, Vizianagaram Depot, Srikakulam. 3. APSTRC, rep. by its Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, Hyderabad. Now at Vijayawada. ...APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 AND 1. Kuppili Srinu, S/o.Kuppili Thoudu, R/o.Venkojipalem, Shivaji Park, Visakhapatnam. aged about 39 years. ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER years. Driver of Rajam, 2. Majji Suri Babu, S/o.Appalaswamy, aged about 43 APSRTC Bus NO.AP-29-Z-0379, R/o.Harizana Street Srikakulam District. ...RESPONDENT/1®^ RESPONDENT lA NO: 2 OF 2019 Petition filed 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 grant stay of execution of Decree passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (I Additional District Court), Vizianagaram passed in M.V.O.P No. 482 of 2016 dated 05.10.2018 pending disposal of the above M.A.C.M.A No. /2019. Counsel for the Appellants APSRTC) : SRI TARLADA VINOD KUMAR (SC FOR Counsel for the Respondents : NONE APPEARED The Court made the following JUDGMENT : APHC010092252019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 232/2019 Between: 1. APSTRC, VIJAYAWDA ...APPELLANT AND 1. K SRINU, Visakhapatnam ...RESPONDENT Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased to lANO: 1 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 the delay of 48 days in filing the Appeal against the Judgment and Decree passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (1 Additional District Court), Vizianagaram passed in M.V.O.P No. 482 OF 2016 dated 05.10.2018 and pass such further order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice. lANO: 2 0F 2019 2 TCDSJ MACMA No.232 of 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of execution of Decree passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (I Additional District Court), Vizianagaram passed in M.V.O.P No. 482 OF 2016 dated 05.10.2018 pending disposal of the above M.A.C.M.A No. /2019 Counsel for the Appellant; 1.N SRIHARI ( SC FOR APSRTC ) Counsel for the Respondent; praying that in the 1. The Court made the following; TCDSJ MACMA No.232 of 2019 JUDGMENT: The present appeal is filed aggrieved by order dated 05.10.2018 passed in MVOP No.482 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional Vizianagaram. District Judge The 1®* respondent/claimant filed petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act R/w Rule 455 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules, seeking compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- along with costs and interest for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that took place on 30.12.2015. It is stated that, the said accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 2 respondent/driver of APSRTC bus bearing registration No.AP 29 Z 0379. 2. nd Upon contest, the said petition was partly allowed by order dated 05.10.2018, awarding compensation of Rs.2,27,050/- together with subsequent interest @7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization payable by respondents No.1 to 4 therein. 3. 4. Questioning the said order, the present appeal has been filed on the ground that the claimant/1 respondent herein failed to establish that the 2"'* respondent (driver of APSRTC Bus) drove the 4 TCDSJ MACMA No.232 of 2019 vehicle in rash and negligent manner. It is further stated that the Tribunal erroneously considered the income of the respondent as Rs.61,000/- per annum, despite no documentary evidence is filed in support of his claim. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. No 5. representation for the respondents. Perused the material available on record. The learned counsel for the appellants would 6. strenuously contend that, the 1®' respondent miserably failed to establish that the 2'^'^ respondent (driver of APSRTC Bus) drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellants cannot be countenanced. inasmuch as, on perusal of the record, it is succinctly clear that the 2^'^ respondent/driver himself admitted during the course of cross- examination that, a crime was registered in Crime No.223 of 2015 on the file of III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam, against him. His cross-examination would further reveal that he also paid a fine of Rs. 15,000/-, admitting that he drove the bus in rash and negligent respondent/claimant has filed Exs.AI to A10 documents to show that the 1®* respondent has paid the said fine St manner. The 1 nd amount. In view of the categorical admission made by the 2 St respondent herein, coupled with the exhibits filed by the 1 5 TCDSJ MACMA No.232 of 2019 respondent, it is proved the 2""^ respondent drove the bus in rash and negligent thereby the 1®* respondent sustained injuries. The other ground raised in the appeal is that the 1 respondent/claimant did not file any documentary proof to show that he is earning an amount of Rs.61,000/- per annum. The submission St 7. made by the learned counsel for the appellants cannot be accepted, for the reason that the respondent/claimant filed Ex.A7, a copy of Income tax return, in support of his claim. By taking into consideration of the income tax returns filed by the 1®* respondent for the year 2015-2016, the tribunal has come to the conclusion that the income of the claimant as Rs.61,000/- per annum. Income tax return is marked as Ex.A7 before the tribunal. Therefore, the contention of the appellants cannot be accepted. Further, the Doctor who conducted surgery for the injuries sustained by the claimant has categorically deposed that he implanted ORIF with fibula plating and screws under spinal anesthesia, and the wound was closed above knee slab. Further, the 1®‘ respondent/claimant was operating to the fracture of his left hand distal radius and plating was done and POP St bandage was applied. In view of the injuries sustained, the 1 respondent is having stiffness of left wrist and left ankle. In view of the same, it is clear that the claimant suffered disability of 7%. St Therefore, while awarding compensation to the 1 / 6 TCDSJ MACMA No.232 of 2019 & respondent/claimant, the Tribunal had taken into consideration the relevant facts and awarded an amount of Rs.2,27,050/- towards compensation. Though several grounds are raised in the present appeal, the appellants could not substantiate the same by placing relevant evidence. In view of the above, this Court does not find any illegality in the order impugned and accordingly the present appeal is dismissed. No costs. 8. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- K.J.RAJA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// (. SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District. (With records) 2. One CC to Sri Tarlada Vinod Kumar (SC for APSRTC), Advocate [OPUC] 3. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. 4. Two CD Copies BSV TAC \ HIGH COURT DATED:07/08/2025 JUDGMENT AND DECREE MACMA NO. 232 OF 2019 2 3 SEP 2025 .A-^4^rrentSecti(HL C3 rf' Co I O ★ DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS