Date of reserved for orders : - Date of pronouncement : 19-09-2026 Date of uploading : 24-09-2026 APHC010859232018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3604] SATURDAY, THE 19th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 3048/2018 Between: 1. A P S R T C, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MUSHEERABAD. HYDERABAD. NOW AT VIJAYAWADA ...APPELLANT AND 1. SAJJA MURALIKRISHNA, S/O BHASKARA RAO AGED 21 YEARS., FRUITS VENDOR RESIDENT OF SAMISRAGUDEM, 2. GOSANGI PASU PRASAD, S/O NAGESWARA RAO AGED 41 YEARS, DRIVER OF APSRTC BUS NO,. AP 37-Z-0104, STAFF NO. 701587 OF T.P.GUDEM RESIDENT OF PEDDEVAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Courtto allow the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -IX Additional District Judge Court. West Godavri at Kovvur passed in M.V O.P No. 113 OF 2015 dated 14.6 2018 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 to condone the delay of 40 days in filing the appeal against the judgement and 2 SUN, J MACMA_3048_2018 decree of MACT cum IX Additional District Judge court, West Godavari District at Kovvur passed in MVOP No.113 of 2015 dated 14.06.2018 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 stay of execution of the decree passed by MACT cum IX Additional District Judge Court, West godavari District at Kovvur passed in MVOP No.113 of 2015 dated 14.06.2018 pending disposal of the above MACMA No. of 2018 and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. K SRINIVASA PRASAD SC For APSRTC Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. MANGENA SREE RAMA RAO The Court made the following: 3 SUN, J MACMA_3048_2018 THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 3048 OF 2018 JUDGMENT: Assailing the decree and judgment dated 14.06.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.113 of 2015 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Kovvur, APSRTC preferred the instant appeal. By the impugned decree and judgment, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.2,42,000/- for the injuries sustained by the petitioner. 2. Parties are being referred to as per their positions before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience and clarity. 3. The case of the petitioner is that, on 25.07.2014 at about 01.10 P.M., while he was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing No.AP 37 AQ 0360, an RTC bus bearing No.AP 37 Z 0104, which was proceeding from Tadepalligudem towards Polavaram, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against his motorcycle. As a result, he sustained multiple fracture injuries all over his body. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Amrutha Hospital, Nidadavole, and thereafter to the Government General Hospital, Kakinada, and subsequently to NIMS, Hyderabad. During the course of treatment, he underwent surgeries and implants were inserted. According to him, he was thereafter not in a position to attend to his regular work, suffered disability and lost income. He also incurred substantial expenditure towards his treatment. As on the date of the accident, he was working as a fruit vendor and was earning Rs.300/- per day. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he lost his income. Respondent No.1 is the driver of the APSRTC bus. Therefore, according to the petitioner, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. 4 SUN, J MACMA_3048_2018 4. Respondent No.1 filed a counter refuting the averments made in the petition and, inter alia, contended that there was no negligence on his part. He further contended that he was acquitted in the criminal case in C.C.No.346 of 2014 and that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner. With other formal denials, he prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5. Respondent No.2 also filed a written statement refuting the averments made in the petition. It was contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner himself and, therefore, respondent No.2 was not liable to pay compensation. It was further contended that the petition was bad for non-joinder of the owner and insurer of the motorcycle. 6. During trial, the petitioner examined himself as PW1 and examined the doctor as PW2 and marked Exs.A1 to A9. The respondents did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence. At the culmination of the trial, the learned Tribunal allowed the petition and awarded compensation of Rs.2,42,000/- for the injuries sustained by the petitioner. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, APSRTC preferred the instant appeal contending that the judgment and decree of the Tribunal are contrary to law, facts and the evidence on record; that the Tribunal erred in awarding compensation of Rs.2,42,000/-; that the claimant failed to establish rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1; that the Tribunal committed an error in holding that the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 caused the accident, when respondent No.1 had driven the bus cautiously and in accordance with the traffic conditions; and that the owner and insurer of the motorcycle were not impleaded as parties. On these and other formal grounds, APSRTC prayed for allowing the appeal. 8. Heard Ms. S. Sundari, learned counsel representing Sri K. Srinivas Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri P. Vijay Kumar, learned 5 SUN, J MACMA_3048_2018 counsel representing Sri Mangena Sree Rama Rao, learned counsel for the respondent/claimant. 9. Upon hearing both sides and perusing the material available on record, the following points arise for consideration: i. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1? ii. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the accident dated 25.07.2014 and is entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount? iii. Whether the decree and judgment dated 14.06.2018 passed by the learned IX Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Kovvur, are sustainable in law and on facts? iv. To what relief? 10. Being the first appellate Court and the final fact-finding Court, this Court has to re-examine and re-appreciate the entire oral and documentary evidence on record. 11. Point No.1: a) PW1, the injured claimant, testified that on 25.07.2014 at about 01.10 P.M., while he was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing No.AP 37 AQ 0360, an RTC bus bearing No.AP 37 Z 0104 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against his motorcycle, resulting in multiple fracture injuries all over his body. He further deposed about the treatment undergone by him at Amrutha Hospital, Nidadavole, the Government General Hospital, Kakinada, and NIMS, Hyderabad. b) It is significant that respondent No.2 did not adduce any evidence to establish its plea that the accident was not attributable to the negligence of respondent No.1 or that the claimant himself 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 his 6 SUN, J MACMA_3048_2018 testimony. Mere suggestions, without supporting evidence, cannot, by themselves, constitute proof of contributory negligence. c) Respondent No.1, who is the best person to speak about the manner of the accident, was also not examined. The non-examination of respondent No.1 is a circumstance that operates against the respondents, particularly when the claimant's testimony remained substantially unshaken in cross-examination. Further, based on the report of the de facto complainant, a case in Crime No.147 of 2014 was registered for the offence under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’). After completion of investigation, the police laid a charge sheet vide Ex.A3. d) Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the criminal case ended in acquittal and, therefore, APSRTC is not liable to pay compensation. The said contention cannot be accepted. The standard of proof in a criminal prosecution is distinct from the standard applicable in a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act. An acquittal in a criminal case, by itself, does not conclude the issue of negligence in a claim proceeding, where the matter has to be considered on the basis of the evidence available before the Tribunal. Therefore, the acquittal in the criminal case does not, by itself, absolve the respondents of civil liability. e) The material produced by the petitioner, particularly the evidence of PW1 and Exs.A1 and A3, supports the case of the petitioner regarding the manner of the accident. The respondents did not adduce any rebuttal evidence. In the absence of such rebuttal, the testimony of PW1, being that of an injured witness and having remained substantially unshaken, coupled with the documentary evidence, is entitled to due weight. Accordingly, this point is answered holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. 7 SUN, J MACMA_3048_2018 12. Point No.2: a) According to the petitioner, he was aged about 21 years, hale and healthy, working as a fruit vendor and was earning Rs.300/- per day, he sustained multiple fracture injuries, underwent treatment and surgeries, lost income and suffered disability, as a result of which he was unable to attend his daily work. Admittedly, he did not adduce documentary evidence to establish his actual earnings. In the circumstances, the learned Tribunal assessed his notional income at Rs.6,000/- per month by assigning reasons. The said assessment does not call for interference in the absence of any material demonstrating that the Tribunal adopted an arbitrary or unreasonable income. b) So far as the injuries are concerned, the petitioner examined the doctor as PW2 and he testified that on 20.11.2014, the petitioner was admitted in the hospital with post-traumatic urethral stricture and that he underwent surgery on 22.11.2014 and was discharged on 25.11.2014. PW2 admitted Ex.X1 case sheet and stated that the petitioner had taken treatment under the scheme of ‘Arogyasree’. At the same time, PW2 categorically admitted that the petitioner incurred Rs.72,558/- towards medicines and Rs.20,500/- towards ambulance charges. The evidence of PW1 and PW2 further establishes that the petitioner sustained fracture of the right ilium and both pubic rami, underwent surgery, remained as an inpatient for six days and incurred expenditure towards medicines. c) The claimant was working as a fruit vendor. His disability is stated to be confined to the right ilium and both pubic rami. PW2 specifically stated that the petitioner was admitted with post-traumatic urethral stricture, underwent surgery and that the injuries were grievous in nature. The evidence also shows that he was unable to attend his work for about three to four months. Therefore, while the medical disability cannot mechanically be equated with loss of earning capacity, the evidence regarding the claimant's occupation, the nature of the 8 SUN, J MACMA_3048_2018 injuries and disability, and the resulting functional restrictions were rightly taken into consideration by the Tribunal while assessing compensation. d) The principles governing compensation in personal injury cases require the Court to consider, as appropriate to the facts of each case, 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 case involving serious injuries, the Court is required to make a reasonable assessment on the basis of the medical and other evidence available on record. The object is to award just compensation and not compensation determined by a mechanical application of the percentage of physical disability. e) 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 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. f) 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 the 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. g) 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.1, the injuries sustained by the 9 SUN, J MACMA_3048_2018 claimant, his disability, occupation and income, and his consequent entitlement to compensation are supported by 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. 13. Point No.3: In view of the findings recorded above, this Court finds that the appeal is devoid of merits. The decree and judgment dated 14.06.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.113 of 2015 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Kovvur, are supported by the evidence on record and do not suffer from any legal or factual infirmity warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, the said judgment and decree are sustainable in law and on facts. 14. In the result, and in view of the findings recorded on Point Nos.1 to 3, this Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed, confirming the decree and judgment dated 14.06.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.113 of 2015 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Kovvur. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ SUNITHA GANDHAM, J Dt: 19.09.2026 Vns/ knl