APHC010258582019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] FRIDAY, THE 18th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 832/2019 Between: Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation ...APPELLANT AND Jonnala Suryanarayana and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1. P DURGA PRASAD SC FOR APSRTC Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 2 The Court made the following judgment: Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in MVOP No.98 of 2016, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-VI Additional District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam vide order dated 22.01.2019, the present appeal is preferred & APSRTC apart from raising other grounds. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were referred before the Tribunal. 3. The case of the petitioner was that, the petitioner along with one Sri Grandhi Srinivasa Rao, (claimant in MVOP No.97 of 2016) was returning from Machilipatnam after selling vegetables. The bus belonging to APSRTC bearing registration No. AP 37Z 0075, came in opposite direction and dashed the motor cycle of the petitioner. As a result of which the petitioner and the pillion rider sustained injuries. Immediately they were shifted to the Government General Hospital, Machilipatnam, for treatment. 4. A case in Cr.No.83 of 2015 under Section 338 IPC was registered against the 1st respondent/driver of the offending bus on the file of the Chilakalapudi Police Station. Later, said crime was investigated into and charge sheet was filed against the 1st respondent. It is the specific case of the petitioner that in the accident he sustained the following injuries: (1). A red trauma laceration of 1x 1/4th cm above. a. Left eye brows, b. Below left eye and 3 (2). Below right eye over a lemon sized swelling. (3). A red abrasion on right knee 1x1/2 cm. (4). A red 20x3 cm laceration on right leg, vertical, exposing in muscles and fractured bone. 5. It was further case of the petitioner that, he has taken treatment and undergone surgeries in Government General Hospital, Guntur, as in patient from 06.05.2015 to 17.08.2015. It was further case of the petitioner that he has incurred an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses after discharging from the hospital. In view of the surgeries conducted and implants inserted into his leg, the petitioner was unable to move from bed and could not attend his day to day activities. After discharge from the hospital he took follow up treatment. In those circumstances, the petitioner approached the Tribunal with the above claim petition seeking to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- as against the respondent Nos.1 & 2. 6. The 1st respondent/driver of the offending vehicle remained ex-parte. The 2nd respondent/APSRTC resisted the claim of the petitioner by filing counter affidavit. 7. It was contended that there was no negligence on the part of the 1st respondent/driver of the RTC bus and contended that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the rider of the motor cycle. It was further contended that the petitioner without following the traffic rules drove the motor cycle bearing registration No. AP 16 BH 5238 in a zig-zag manner and thereby collided with the RTC bus. Further, the occupation and income of the 4 claimant were also denied in the counter affidavit. With the above pleadings the 2nd respondent prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 8. In order to prove the case of the petitioner, he was examined as PW.1 and the pillion rider (claimant in MVOP No.97 of 2016) was examined as PW.2. Dr. Mehar Prasanna and Dr. B. Badari Nadh were examined as PWs.3 & 4 respectively and Dr. V.V. Narayana Rao was examined as PW.5. The petitioner also filed documents which were marked in Ex.A1 to A13. Exs.X1 to X4 were marked through the witnesses examined on behalf of the claimants. On the other hand, the respondents/appellants neither produced any documentary evidence nor adduced any oral evidence. It is pertinent to note that, the Tribunal considered the claim of the petitioner as well as the pillion rider by name Sri Grandhi Srinivasa Rao, who filed MVOP No.97 of 2016, conducted joint trail and passed common order dated 22.01.2019 in MVOP No.98 of 2016 and MVOP No.97 of 2016. The present appeal is preferred against order in MVOP No.98 of 2016. 9. After conducting joint trail in both the OPs, the Tribunal, by order under challenge, awarded compensation of Rs.1,72,000/- to the petitioner under various heads. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred by the APSRTC. 10. Heard Sri P. Venkata Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant. Despite service of notice, there is no appearance for the 1st respondent/claimant. It is stated that the 2nd respondent is not necessary 5 party to the present appeal. In the circumstances, this Court proceeded with the hearing of appeal. 11. Perused the material available on record. 12. The counsel for the appellant strenuously contends that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the claimant himself, inasmuch as he drove the motor cycle without following the traffic rules in a zig-zag manner and dashed against the offending bus. He would further submit that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the RTC bus. He would further submit that crime was registered so as to fasten liability on the respondent/APSRTC, and to claim the compensation. In order to prove the said contention, APSRTC neither filed any documentary evidence nor adduced any oral evidence. In the circumstances, the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent corporation cannot be taken into consideration on record as it failed to place any evidence. 13. On the other hand, as can be seen from the record, the petitioner filed copy of FIR, charge sheet which were marked in Exs.A1 and A5. A perusal of the contents of the said documents would go to show that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the 1st respondent/driver of the offending bus. As already recorded supra, in the absence of any evidence placed on record by the appellant/APSRTC, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the 1st respondent/driver. 6 Accordingly this issue is answered in favour of the claimant/petitioner and against the APSRTC/appellant. 14. Coming to the quantum of compensation, it is clear from the record that, the petitioner sustained the following injuries: (1). A red trauma laceration of 1x 1/4th cm above. a. Left eye brows, b. Below left eye and (2). Below right eye over a lemon sized swelling. (3). A red abrasion on right knee 1x1/2 cm. (4). A red 20x3 cm laceration on right leg, vertical, exposing in muscles and fractured bone. 15. In order to prove the same, he has filed wound certificate which was marked in Ex.A2. It is further case of the petitioner that in view of the injuries sustained by him he was admitted in Government General Hospital, Guntur, where he was treated as in-patient from 06.05.2015 to 17.08.2015. Further, the petitioner on his behalf examined Dr. B. Badari Nadh as PW.4, to prove the injuries sustained by him in the accident. A perusal of the evidence of PW.4 establishes that the petitioner received injuries as mentioned in the wound certificate. Though PW.4 was cross examined at length, nothing was elicited to disprove his evidence. Apart from the same, the petitioner also examined Dr. V.V. Narayana Rao as PW.5. A perusal of the evidence of PW.5 would show that the petitioner underwent surgery on 08.05.2015. In the said surgery, external fixation was applied to the petitioner’s right leg and on 25.06.2015, and skin grafting was done to his leg. Further, the evidence of PW.5 corroborates with the evidence of PW.1. As already noted supra, 7 APSRTC has not placed anything on record to disbelieve the oral evidence or documentary evidence placed by the petitioner before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after taking into consideration of the various aspects of the matter has arrived at just compensation and awarded an amount of Rs.1,72,000/-, under various heads. Though the counsel for the appellant contends that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, in view of the finding recorded by this Court, the order impugned in the appeal does not require any interference. In the circumstances, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR Dt.18.09.2026 DSB 8 91 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR MACMA No.832 of 2019 Date 18.09.2026 U DSB 9