APHC010217212018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3604] FRIDAY, THE 18th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 709/2018 Between: 1. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPOTION, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD JCJC, LOCAL OFFICE AT N.T.R. BUS STAND COMPLEX, GUNTUR, GUNTUR JCJC. ...APPELLANT AND 1. DAMARLA ANUPAMA AND ANOTHER, D/O. VENKATA PULLA RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, EVM ENGINEERING COLLEGE, NARASARAOPET, R/O. DOOR NO. 21- 294, MARELLA VARI STREET, NEAR ANJANEYA SWAMY TEMPLE, CHILAKALURIPET, GUNTUR DISTRICT, CHILAKALURIPET JCJC. 2. D BOSE, S/O. KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.2-8- 168, VIDYADHARAPURAM, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, DRIVER OF APSRTC BUS BEARING NO. AP 16 Z 0081, NUJVEEDU DEPOT, STAFF NO. 361614. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Courtsetting aside the Order and Decree dated 08-02-2016 passed in M.V.O.P.No.367 of 2014 on the file of court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-III Additional District Judge, Guntur and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 2 SUN, J MACMA.No.709 of 2018 To condone the delay of 631 days in filing the appeal against the Order and Decree dated 08-02-2016 passed in MVOP.No.367 of 2014 on the file of the court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge,Guntur and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2018 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 To grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the Order and Decree dated 08-02-2016 passed in MVOP.No.367 of 2014 on the file of the court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge,Guntur including the execution proceedings pending disposal of the above MACMA and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SRICHARAN TELAPROLU The Court made the following: 3 SUN, J MACMA.No.709 of 2018 THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 709 OF 2018 JUDGMENT: Assailing the decree and judgment dated 08.02.2016 passed in M.V.O.P.No.367 of 2014 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Guntur, the unsuccessful first respondent has preferred the present appeal. By the impugned judgment, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.12,19,893/- to the claimant, together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit or realization. 2. The case of the claimant, in brief, is that on 06/07.01.2014, she was travelling along with other passengers in a bus bearing No.AP 16 Z 0081 from Chelikurpeta to Bengaluru. When the bus reached the railway bridge at P. Kothapeta in Chittoor District, respondent No.2, who was driving the bus, drove it in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed and dashed against the divider. As a result, the claimant and other passengers sustained injuries. The claimant sustained injuries to her head, right leg and knee joint, besides multiple injuries over her body. Immediately after the accident, she was shifted to the Government Hospital, Chittoor, where she was given first aid, and thereafter she was shifted to Yasaswi Hospital, Guntur. She underwent major surgery and implants were inserted in her right thigh, besides undergoing plastic surgery. According to her, she incurred nearly Rs.2,00,000/- towards treatment. 3. It was further pleaded that at the time of the accident the claimant was aged about 28 years, hale and healthy, and was working as an Assistant Professor in E.V.M. Engineering College, Narasaraopet, earning Rs.35,000/- per month. Owing to the injuries sustained in the accident, she was bedridden and was unable to attend her duties for about two months, following which her 4 SUN, J MACMA.No.709 of 2018 services were terminated. She claimed that, as a result of the permanent disability caused by the injuries, she became weak and suffered loss of earning capacity. On the basis of the report, a case in Crime No.3 of 2014 was registered against respondent No.2 for the offence under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’). As respondent No.1 is the APSRTC and respondent No.2 is its driver, the claimant contended that both respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. 4. Respondent No.1 filed written statement denying the material allegations. It was contended, inter alia, that there was no negligence on the part of respondent No.2, the claimant had sustained only simple injuries which had healed, she had not suffered any permanent disability or loss of income, as she is working as Assistant Professor and drawing salary of Rs.35,000/- per month and that the compensation claimed was excessive. On those grounds and other formal grounds, dismissal of the claim petition was sought. 5. During the trial, the claimant examined herself as PW1 and examined the doctor as PW2. She relied upon Exs.A1 to A15 and Exs.X1 to X3. Respondent No.1 did not adduce either oral or documentary evidence. Upon consideration of the evidence and material on record, the learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs.12,19,893/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit or realization. 6. Aggrieved by the said judgment, respondent No.1 preferred the present appeal. The principal grounds urged are that the judgment of the Tribunal is contrary to law, evidence and probabilities of the case; that the Tribunal awarded Rs.12,19,893/- though the claim petition was filed claiming Rs.10,00,000/-; that the Tribunal erred in holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2; that the Tribunal wrongly assessed the claimant as having suffered 15% permanent partial disability; and that the Tribunal ought not to have accepted the alleged 5 SUN, J MACMA.No.709 of 2018 monthly income of Rs.35,000/- in the absence of documentary evidence. It was therefore prayed that the appeal be allowed. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent/claimant. Perused the material available on record, including the impugned judgment and the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, and the documents marked before the Tribunal. 8. The following points arise for consideration in this appeal: (1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.2? (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondent? (3) Whether the decree and judgment dated 08.02.2016 passed in M.V.O.P.No.367 of 2014 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- cum-III Additional District Judge, Guntur, are sustainable in facts and law? (4) To what relief? 9. Point No.1: (a) Being the first appellate court and final fact finding court, this court has to re-examine and re-appreciate the entire oral as well as documentary evidence on record. (b) Now, it is necessary to analyze the evidence on record to answer the points. PW1/injured testified that on 6/7.01.2014, while she was traveling in the bus bearing No.AP 16 Z 0081 so as to go to Bengaluru and when the bus reached railway bridge at P. Kothapeta of Chittoor District, respondent No.2 drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the divider and as a result of which, herself and other passengers sustained injuries and immediately after the accident, she was shifted to the government hospital and from there, shifted to the Yasaswi Hospital, Guntur, and the accident 6 SUN, J MACMA.No.709 of 2018 occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.2 and as such, a case in crime No.3 of 2014 is registered of the offence under Section 338 of the Code against the respondent No.2. (c) Having received summons, respondent No.2 remained absent. It is significant that respondent No.1 did not adduce any evidence to establish its plea that the accident was not attributable to the negligence of respondent No.2 or that the claimant herself contributed to the occurrence. Though suggestions were put to PW1 in cross-examination disputing the accident and negligence, no substantive material was elicited to discredit her testimony. Mere suggestions, without supporting evidence, cannot by themselves constitute proof of contributory negligence. (d) Further, as seen from Ex.A1/first information report, crime is registered against the respondent No.2 and after completion of investigation, the investigating officer laid charge sheet vide Ex.A2 alleging that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2. Ex.A1 supports the evidence of PW1 and no rebuttal evidence is adduced by the respondents on this aspect. So, in the absence of any rebuttal evidence, the evidence of PW1, who is injured witness, which is buttressed by Exs.A1 to A3, clinchingly proves that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 16 Z 0081 by its driver. Therefore, this point is answered holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2 and the petitioner sustained injuries in the said accident. 10. Point No.2: (a) PW1 testified that as on the date of accident, she was aged about 28 years, hale and healthy and was working as assistant professor and because of the injuries sustained in the accident, she was completely bedridden for a period of two months, and despite prolonged treatment, she sustained permanent disability and also loss of earning capacity. To prove her injuries, 7 SUN, J MACMA.No.709 of 2018 treatment and disability, petitioner has got examined PW2/doctor and he testified that he has given treatment to the petitioner, conducted surgery, the petitioner is required to undergo one other surgery, she sustained 20% disability, she has difficulty in attending works, she is able to walk on her right lower limb with limp on affected side, with restriction of movement in right knee joint and it is difficult for the petitioner to walk briskly and run. Further, petitioner is also having disfigurement in face due to laceration to her forehead, the disability is confined to her right lower limb and denied the suggestion that the petitioner has not sustained more than 10% disability. PW2 also admitted Ex.Nos.A5 to A12 and X1 to X3/bunch of medical bills, blood bank receipts, ambulance receipts, physiotherapy receipts, prescriptions, X-ray films, case sheet, etc. So, as per the evidence of PWs1 and 2 coupled with Ex.Nos.A3 to A15 and X1 to X3, petitioner sustained fracture shaft of right femur extending into right knee joint, took treatment in Yasasvi hospital, underwent surgery, implants are inserted, advised for bed rest and sustained permanent partial disability. (b) So far as income of the petitioner is concerned, it is her evidence that as on the date of accident, she was working as Assistant Professor in E.V.M. Engineering College, Narasaraopeta and was drawing salary of Rs.35,000/- and because of the injuries sustained in the accident, she could not attend duties, despite prolonged treatment suffered permanent partial disability and finally, the college authorities terminated her services and as such she lost earning capacity. As rightly observed by the learned tribunal, respondent No.1 has not at all denied either in the written statement or in the evidence of PW1 that she has not been working as Assistant Professor in E.V.M. Engineering College and has not been drawing salary of Rs.35,000/- and has not at all sustained disability. Moreover, in the written statement it is mentioned that since the petitioner has been working as Assistant Professor in E.V.M. Engineering College and drawing salary of Rs.35,000/-, there is no question of loss of income and further, the petitioner has not sustained more than 10% 8 SUN, J MACMA.No.709 of 2018 disability. So, in view of the uncontroverted evidence adduced by the petitioner, it can safely be held that she was working as Professor in E.V.M. Engineering College and was drawing salary of Rs.35,000/- per month as on the date of accident, and sustained permanent partial disability. (c) As regards the assessment of loss of earning capacity, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar 1 , has explained that the percentage of permanent physical disability cannot automatically be treated as the percentage of loss of earning capacity. The effect of the disability has to be assessed with reference to the claimant's occupation, the nature of work performed before the accident, the activities that can still be performed, and the extent to which the disability restricts the claimant from carrying out her earlier work. (d) The claimant in the present case was working as an Assistant Professor. Her disability is admittedly confined to the right lower limb. PW2 specifically stated that she had difficulty in attending work, could walk only with a limp, had restriction of movement of the right knee and could not walk briskly or run. The evidence also shows that she was unable to attend duties for about two months and that her services were subsequently terminated. Therefore, while the medical disability cannot mechanically be equated with loss of earning capacity, the evidence regarding the claimant's occupation, the nature of her disability and the resulting functional restrictions was rightly taken into consideration by the Tribunal while assessing the compensation. (e) The principles governing compensation in personal injury cases require the Court to consider, as appropriate to the facts, medical and treatment expenses, loss of earnings during the period of treatment, loss of future earning capacity arising from permanent disability, future medical expenses, pain and suffering, and loss of amenities. In a serious injury case, the Court is required to make a reasonable assessment on the basis of the medical and 1 (2011) 1 SCC 343 9 SUN, J MACMA.No.709 of 2018 other evidence available on record. The object is to award just compensation and not merely compensation based upon a mechanical application of the percentage of physical disability. (f) The decision in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2, also recognizes the legal soundness of the multiplier method where the facts warrant its application. The assessment, however, has to be made with reference to the evidence relating to age, income, disability and its impact on earning capacity. The principle does not permit an arbitrary capitalization of the entire future income without applying the appropriate method. (g) On a careful re-appreciation of the entire evidence, this Court finds that the Tribunal considered the claimant's age, occupation, income, injuries, treatment and permanent disability while determining the compensation. The appellant has not placed any evidence before this Court demonstrating that the findings of the Tribunal on these aspects are perverse or unsupported by the record. The mere fact that the amount awarded exceeds the amount originally claimed does not, by itself, render the award illegal, since the Tribunal is required to determine the just compensation payable on the basis of the evidence and the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. (h) The challenge to the rate of interest also does not furnish sufficient ground for interference in the facts of the present case. The Tribunal awarded interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit or realization. No material has been placed before this Court to demonstrate that the award of interest, in the circumstances of the case, warrants interference. (i) Having regard to the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal regarding the manner of the accident, negligence of respondent No.2, the injuries sustained by the claimant, her permanent disability, her occupation and income, and the consequent entitlement to compensation are supported by 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 10 SUN, J MACMA.No.709 of 2018 the evidence on record. The appellant has failed to establish any legal or factual infirmity warranting interference with the impugned judgment. Hence, this point is answered in favour of the petitioner/claimant and against the respondents. 11. Point No.3: In view of the findings recorded above, the appeal is devoid of merits and the decree and judgment dated 08.02.2016 in M.V.O.P.No.367 of 2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Guntur, are perfectly sustainable in facts and law and interference of this court is not required. 12. In the result, and in view of the findings in point Nos.1 to 3, this Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree dated 08.02.2016 in M.V.O.P.No.367 of 2014 passed by the learned III Additional District Judge, Guntur. As a sequel thereto, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ SUNITHA GANDHAM, J 18.09.2026 Vns