APHC010706222016 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: 1687/2016 Between: 1. APSRTC, REP BY ITS DIVL MGR, ANANTAPURAMU DIST, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ANANTAPURAMU, ANANTAPURAMU DIST. ...APPELLANT AND 1. PAMIDI VENKATESH ANANTAPURAM DIST ANR, S/O. P. NAGAMUNI, RUNING A DISH AND CABLE OPERATOR, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O. D. NO: 6/432, UDDIBAVICHENU, NARPALA VILLAGE & MANDAL, ANANTAPURAMUAM DISTRICT. 2. M LAKSHMI REDDY, S/O. M. THATI REDDY, HINDU, MAJOR, R/O. D. NO: 6-3-4/6, RAMNAGAR, ANANTAPURAMU TOWN, (DRIVER OF CRIME BUS NO: AP-28-Z 2292) (R2 IS NOT NECESSARY IN THIS CMA) ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Courtaggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated: 02.03.2016 in O.P. No: 53/2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Cum - IV Addl. District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Anantapuramu IA NO: 1 OF 2016(MACMAMP 2313 OF 2016 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 all further proceedings including the execution proceedings in OP NO.53 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Addl. 2 SUN, J MACMA_1687_2016 District & Sessions Judge [FTC], Anantapuram, Anantapuramu district 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 release the attachment amount of Rs.12,19,006/- lying in S.B.H.Account belongs to the APSRTC, Anantapur, by raising attachment order dated 28.04.2016 in EP.No. 82/2016 in M.V.O.P.No. 53/2013 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Anantapur and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. K VISWANATHAM (SC FOR APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. N ASWARTHA NARAYANA The Court made the following: 3 SUN, J MACMA_1687_2016 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No:1687 of 2016 JUDGMENT: Assailing the judgment and decree dated 02.03.2016 passed in O.P.No.53 of 2013 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Ananthapuramu, the unsuccessful first respondent has preferred the present appeal. By the impugned judgment, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.9,93,995/- to the claimant, together with interest at the rate of 7.5% 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 30.11.2012 at about 11.00 a.m., while he was proceeding along with another person to Ananthapuramu on his motorcycle bearing No.AP-02-AE-5186, and when they reached near Narasamma Temple on Ananthapuramu-Narpala road, the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No.AP-28-Z-2292 came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against his motorcycle, as a result of which he fell down and sustained multiple injuries. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Government General Hospital, Ananthapuramu, and thereafter to Y.S.R. Hospital, Ananthapuramu, and from there to Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad, for treatment. The claimant was aged about 43 years, hale and healthy, and was working as a Cable Operator, earning Rs.20,000/- per month as on the date of the accident. Due to the accident, he suffered permanent disability and loss of earning capacity. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2. The police registered a case in Crime No.201 of 2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code against respondent No.2. 4 SUN, J MACMA_1687_2016 3. Respondent No.1 filed a counter disputing the material allegations made in the claim petition. It was, inter alia, contended that there was no negligence on the part of respondent No.2 and that the claimant had to prove his age, income, occupation and injuries. It was further contended that all the injuries sustained by the claimant had healed and that he had taken treatment under the Arogyasree scheme. On those grounds and other formal grounds, respondent No.1 prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 4. During the trial, the claimant examined himself as PW.1 and examined two doctors as PWs.2 and 3 and marked Exs.A1 to A4 and Exs.X1 to X3. On behalf of the respondents, the driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus was examined as RW.1. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs.9,93,995/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit or realization. 5. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, respondent No.1 preferred the present appeal contending, principally, that the judgment of the learned Tribunal is contrary to law, arbitrary, illegal, unjust and unsustainable; that the Tribunal failed to see that there was no negligence on the part of respondent No.2; that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the claimant; that there was contributory negligence on the part of the claimant; that the non-joinder of the owner and insurer of the motorcycle was fatal to the claim; that the evidence on record was not properly appreciated; and that the Tribunal erroneously assessed the permanent disability at 60%. It was also contended that the claimant had taken treatment under the Arogyasree scheme. On those grounds, the appellant sought allowance of the appeal. 6. Heard Sri K. Viswanatham, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant, and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1. Perused the material available on record, including the impugned judgment dated 02.03.2016, the 5 SUN, J MACMA_1687_2016 oral evidence of the witnesses and the documents marked before the Tribunal. 7. The following points arise for consideration in this appeal: (i) Whether the driver of A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No.AP-28- Z-2292 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident? (ii) Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount? (iii) Whether the appellant is liable to pay the compensation? (iv) To what relief? 8. Point No.1: (a) Being the first appellate Court and the final fact-finding Court, this Court is required to re-examine and re-appreciate the entire oral and documentary evidence available on record. PW.1, the injured claimant, deposed that on 30.11.2012 at about 11.00 a.m., while he was proceeding to Ananthapuramu on his motorcycle bearing No.AP-02-AE-5186, the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No.AP-28-Z-2292 came from the opposite direction near Narasamma Temple on Ananthapuramu-Narpala road in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against his motorcycle, resulting in his falling down and sustaining multiple injuries. He further deposed about the treatment received by him immediately after the accident at Government General Hospital, Ananthapuramu, Y.S.R. Hospital, Ananthapuramu, and thereafter at Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad. (b) As against the above evidence, respondent No.2, who was the driver of the offending vehicle, was examined as RW.1. Except alleging contributory negligence on the part of the claimant, he did not place any sufficient material before the Tribunal to establish that the accident occurred due to such contributory negligence. Nothing useful was elicited in the cross-examination of PW.1 so as to discredit his version regarding the manner of the accident. Further, based on the report of the de facto complainant, Crime No.201 of 6 SUN, J MACMA_1687_2016 2012 was registered for the offences under Sections 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code against respondent No.2, which fact was admitted by RW.1. After completion of investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet alleging that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2. (c). Ex.A1, the attested copy of the First Information Report, and Ex.A3, the attested copy of the charge-sheet, lend support to the evidence of the claimant. No rebuttal evidence has been adduced by the respondents to displace the said evidence. The testimony of PW.1, being that of an injured witness, receives corroboration from Exs.A1 to A3. In the absence of any convincing rebuttal, the evidence of PW.1 establishes that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in favour of the claimant. 9. Point Nos.2 and 3: (a) PW.1 testified that, as on the date of the accident, he was aged about 43 years, hale and healthy, and was working as a Cable Operator, earning Rs.20,000/- per month and on account of the injuries sustained in the accident, he suffered permanent disability, lost his source of income and suffered loss of amenities. To substantiate his version, PW.2, the doctor who treated the claimant, deposed that the claimant sustained four grievous injuries, underwent surgery, debridement and internal fixation using plates and screws, and was treated by a physician as he was diabetic. He was discharged on 09.12.2012 in a stable condition. (b). PW.2 further testified that the claimant was advised bed rest, physiotherapy, medication and follow-up treatment on 17.12.2012, the claimant was again admitted to the hospital with infection in the right proximal tibia fracture and on 18.12.2012, another surgery was conducted, debridement was done, the implants were removed and an external fixator 7 SUN, J MACMA_1687_2016 was fixed. Further, he was discharged on 29.12.2012 and again, on 12.03.2013, the claimant was admitted to the hospital, underwent surgery, the external fixator was removed and he was discharged on the same day. PW.2 further stated that the claimant had an ankylosed right knee joint with 10 degrees flexion deformity and required a walking aid, he had difficulty in sitting, walking, climbing stairs and running. PW.1 admitted Ex.X1/original discharge summary; Ex.X2/ comprises the inpatient bill dated 29.12.2012 and 12.03.2013 and two discharge summaries; and Ex.X3/ Bunch of medical bills. (c) The evidence of PW.1, coupled with the evidence of PW.2, clearly establishes that the claimant sustained multiple fracture injuries, underwent three surgeries, had implants inserted, suffered infection, had an external fixator fixed and subsequently removed, was advised bed rest and underwent treatment on different occasions. The evidence also establishes that he sustained permanent disability. (d) With regard to the disability, the claimant relied upon the evidence of PW.3, who issued Ex.A4 disability certificate. According to PW.3, the claimant sustained post-traumatic sequelae due to the road accident dated 30.11.2012, consisting of posterior dislocation of the right hip joint with a comminuted fracture of the posterior wall of the acetabulum, comminuted fracture of the right patella, and Grade-II compound bicondylar fracture of the right tibia involving the right knee joint. PW.3 further stated that the claimant underwent surgeries and, on examination, though all the wounds had healed, he had sustained permanent disability assessed at 60%. (e) As regards 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 disability has to be 1 (2011) 1 SCC 343 8 SUN, J MACMA_1687_2016 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 his earlier work. (f). In the present case, the claimant was working as a Cable Operator. His disability is confined to the right lower limb. PW.3 specifically stated that he had weakness of the right thigh and leg muscles with limping due to shortening of the right lower limb by one inch, he could not sit in a squatting or cross-legged position and had difficulty in walking long distances, standing for prolonged periods, climbing and getting down stairs and running. Therefore, while the medical percentage of disability cannot mechanically be equated with loss of earning capacity, the evidence regarding the claimant's occupation, the nature of his disability and the functional restrictions resulting there from were relevant considerations for determining the functional disability. The Tribunal, therefore, cannot be said to have acted without evidence in assessing the functional disability at 60%. (g). The principles governing compensation in cases of personal injury require the Court to consider, as appropriate to the facts and evidence, 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. Particularly in a case involving serious injuries and permanent disability, the assessment has to be reasonable and based on the medical and other evidence available on record, with the object of awarding just compensation rather than mechanically applying the percentage of physical disability. 9 SUN, J MACMA_1687_2016 (h). The decision in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 2 , 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 arbitrary capitalization of future income without applying the appropriate method. (i). On a careful re-appreciation of the entire evidence, this Court finds that the learned 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. (j). Having regard to the nature of the claimant's occupation and the location and functional effect of the disability sustained by him, the learned Tribunal was justified in assessing the functional disability at 60% and awarding compensation accordingly. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the claimant had taken treatment under the Arogyasree scheme does not, by itself, justify denial or reduction of the compensation otherwise payable for the injuries and their consequences. The principles referred to in Raj Kumar's case (Supra) have to be considered in their entirety and not merely with reference to the amount allegedly incurred towards medical treatment. (k). So far as the income of the claimant is concerned, he stated that he was working as a Cable Operator and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. Nothing 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 10 SUN, J MACMA_1687_2016 material was elicited in his cross-examination to discredit his evidence on this aspect. The learned counsel for the appellant also failed to place material before this Court to establish a different income. Having regard to the nature of the claimant's work and the year of the accident, the learned Tribunal took the notional monthly income at Rs.5,000/- and awarded a total compensation of Rs.9,93,995/-. The assessment made by the Tribunal, on the evidence available on record, does not call for interference. (l). For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no merit in the contentions raised by the appellant. The appellant has failed to establish any error, perversity or illegality in the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal warranting interference by this Court. This appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly, the judgment and decree dated 02.03.2016 in O.P.No.53 of 2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Ananthapuramu, are sustainable on the facts and in law and do not warrant interference. Accordingly, Point Nos.2 and 3 are answered in favour of the claimant and against the appellant/respondent No.1. 10. Point No.4: In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree dated 02.03.2016 in O.P.No.53 of 2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Ananthapuramu. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, the pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SUNITHA GANDHAM,J Date: 19.09.2026 SSA/knl