APHC010005672023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NOS: 5 AND 421 OF 2023 MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 5/2023 Between: 1. DOREDLA SETU MADHAV @ MADHAV, S/O. VARA PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, D.NO. 25-18-97, SAMPATH NAGAR, GUNTUR CITY, GUNTUR DISTRICT. (THE APPELLANT WAS DECLARED AS MAJOR AS PER ORDERS IN I.A.1411/2022 DATED 20-6-2022) ...APPELLANT AND 1. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REP. ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, GUNTUR. JCJC GUNTUR 2. SUDHEPALLI DURGA RAO, S/O. VENKATESWARLUU, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, TADIKONDA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. (DRIVER OF THE RTC BUS AP 07 Z 0064) (THE 2ND RESPONDENT IS NOT NECESSARY PARTY AS NO CLAIM IS MADE AGAINST HIM IN THE APPEAL) ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Courtpleased to set aside the Judgment and decree passed in M.V.O.P.1311 of 2016 on the file the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Guntur dated 28-10-2022 and enhance the amount of compensation as entitled by the appellant together with interest at the rate of 12 percent per 2 VS,J MACMA Nos.5 & 421 of 2023 annum from the date of filing the Original Petition till the date of realization and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 pleased to permit her to amend the amount of compensation claimed from Rs. 5.00,000/- to Rs.12,00,000/- in the Original Petition in MVOP No.1311/2016 on the file the court of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge, Guntur and to pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. SIVA PRASAD KATAKAMSETTY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 421/2023 Between: 1. APSRTC, REP. BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, GUNTUR ...APPELLANT AND 1. DOREDLA SETU MADHAV/MADHAV, S/O VARA PRASAD, AGED 19 YEARS, R/O HNO. 25-18-97, SAMPATH NAGAR, GUNTUR CITY, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. SUDHEPALLI LINGARAO, S/O VENKATESWARLU, AGED 53 YEARS, OCC. RTC DRIVER, TADIKONDA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. (RESPONDENT NO.2 IS NOT NECESSARY PARTY) ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Courtpleased to set aside Decree and Award dated 28.10.2022 passed in M.V.O.P No. 1311 of 2016 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Principal District Judge, Guntur and consequently dismiss the claim Petition and pass 3 VS,J MACMA Nos.5 & 421 of 2023 IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 pleased to condone the delay 126 days in filing the above M.A.C.M.A. in MVOP No.1311 of 2016, dt.28.10.2022 on the file of Motor Accident Clams Tribunal-cum¬Principal District Judge, Guntur and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2023 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 be pleased to grant stay of operation of Decree and Award dated 28.10.2022 passed in M.V.O.P No. 1311 of 2016 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Principal District Judge, Guntur and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SIVA PRASAD KATAKAMSETTY The Court made the following: 4 VS,J MACMA Nos.5 & 421 of 2023 COMMON JUDGMENT: Since both the appeals arise out of the same award, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of them by way of this common order. 02. M.A.C.M.A. No.5 of 2023 is filed by the claimant and M.A.C.M.A. No.421 of 2023 is filed by APSRTC, challenging the order and decree dated 28.10.2022passed in M.V.O.P.No.1311 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Guntur, wherein the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.3,95,500/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Ninety Five Thousand and Five Hundred only) to the claimant, for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 12.05.2016. 03. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 04. The case of the petitioner is briefly as follows: a) On 12.05.2016, at about 6.50 p.m., when the petitioner was proceeding on his bicycle, on the left side of road margin, near a petrol bunk on Etukuru Road, Guntur District, an APSRTC bus bearing No. AP 07 Z 0064, driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner, came from behind and hit the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner sustained a fracture of the distal radius and ulna on the left side involving the wrist joint, damage to tendons and nervous system, and blood clotting in the left leg. Initially, he was shifted to Government General Hospital, Guntur, and thereafter to Ramesh Cardiac and Multi Specialty Hospital, Guntur, where he underwent inpatient 5 VS,J MACMA Nos.5 & 421 of 2023 treatment until 21.05.2016. A major surgery was performed involving insertion of implants and repair of damaged tendons, and he was advised follow-up treatment. b) At the time of the accident, the petitioner was studying 8th class at Sri Pujitha Public School, Guntur. He incurred medical expenses of about Rs.1,75,000/- and, due to the injuries, suffered disability affecting his physical fitness. Accordingly, he filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. 05. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.2/driver of the offending vehicle remained exparte. 06. The 1st respondent/APSRTC filed a counter denying the allegations and contended that the accident occurred due to the petitioner’s own negligence while riding the bicycle. It was further contended that the bus was not involved in the accident, and the compensation claimed was excessive. The petitioner was put to strict proof of age, education, disability, and other claims. 07. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether the pleaded accident dated 12.05.2016 has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of crime vehicle APSRTC bearing No.AP 07 Z 0064 its driver/2nd respondent and whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the said accident? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, If so, to what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents? 6 VS,J MACMA Nos.5 & 421 of 2023 3. To what relief?” 08. On behalf of the claimant, P.W.1, who is the junior paternal uncle of the claimant was examined. P.W.2, the doctor who treated the claimant, was also examined. To prove the medical expenditure, P.W.3, the Manager of Ramesh Hospital was examined. The claimant himself was examined as P.W.4. Exs.A1 to A10 and Ex.X1/case sheet were marked. On behalf of the respondents, none were examined and no documents were marked. 09. After hearing both parties and considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner and partly allowed the claim petition as follows: “1) Petitioner is entitled for total compensation of Rs.3,95,000/-; 2) Petitioner is entitled for interest @ 7.5% from the date of proper presentation of the petition i.e., 08.11.2016 to till realization; 3) Rest of the claim of the petitioner is hereby dismissed without costs; 4) Both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to petitioner; 5) Time granted for deposit of amount is 30 days from the date of award; 6) Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.3,500/-. 10. Aggrieved by the award, the claimant filed M.A.C.M.A. No.5 of 2023 contending that the Tribunal failed to properly assess the functional disability and ought to have treated it as 100% for the purpose of loss of earning 7 VS,J MACMA Nos.5 & 421 of 2023 capacity instead of 30%. It is further contended that the compensation awarded under various heads is inadequate, particularly under pain and suffering and loss of amenities, and that no compensation was granted towards loss of marriage prospects, future medical expenses, special diet, and attendant charges. The claimant also contends that the notional income ought to have been taken at Rs.10,000/- per month with addition towards future prospects, and that the interest awarded at 7.5% per annum is on the lower side. 11. Aggrieved by the said award, APSRTC preferred M.A.C.M.A. No.421 of 2023 contending that the Tribunal erred in awarding compensation of Rs.3,95,000/- in the absence of any proof of income of the claimant. It is further contended that the Tribunal wrongly assessed the disability at 30% and awarded Rs.1,35,000/- without any medical certificate or proper evidence. The amount of Rs.2,00,000/- granted towards medical and other expenses is stated to be excessive. It is also contended that the compensation awarded is not just and reasonable, and that the Tribunal failed to consider contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. 12. Heard Mr.Katakamsetty Siva Prasad, learned counsel for the claimant and Mr.Aravala Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC. 13. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? 8 VS,J MACMA Nos.5 & 421 of 2023 POINT: 14. Though it is the contention of the APSRTC that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the RTC bus and that the accident has occurred solely due to the negligence on the part of the claimant, a perusal of the impugned award shows that the claimant, examined as P.W.4, clearly narrated the manner of the incident and categorically deposed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, resulting in grievous injuries to him in the said accident. Nothing adverse was elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.4 to discredit or discard his evidence. Having considered the evidence of P.W.4, coupled with Ex.A1-copy of F.I.R. and Ex.A2-copy of the charge sheet filed against the driver of the offending vehicle, the Tribunal has rightly concluded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. Accordingly, no interference is warranted with the said finding. 15. To substantiate the case of the claimant, P.W.2, the doctor who treated him, was examined. He categorically deposed that the claimant sustained the following injuries: (1) multiple tendon lacerations, namely (a) flexor carpi ulnaris, (b) extensor carpi ulnaris, (c) flexor carpi radialis, (d) palmaris longus, and (e) flexor digitorum superficialis of 4th and 5th digits; (2) left ulnar nerve laceration; (3) fracture of distal 1/4th radius and ulna; (4) left eyebrow laceration; (5) partial thrombosis in proximal PVT and gastrocnemius and 9 VS,J MACMA Nos.5 & 421 of 2023 soleus veins; and (6) traumatic optic neuropathy. He further deposed that the claimant underwent surgery, wherein fixation with K-wires, tendon repair, and nerve exploration were performed, along with medical management for traumatic optic neuropathy and deep vein thrombosis. He also stated that the claimant required examination by an ophthalmologist to assess the extent of disability arising from the eye injury. P.W.2 further deposed that, due to the injuries, the claimant suffers from weakness in left hand grip strength, reduced range of movements of the left wrist up to 10 degrees in all directions, reduced sensation in the fingertips of the left ring and little fingers, and deformity due to deviation of the left wrist. He assessed the permanent disability at 30%. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the age of the claimant, nature of injuries, and his present physical condition, assessed the permanent disability at 30% to the whole body. Though no written disability certificate was issued by P.W.2, the assessment made by the Tribunal, relying upon the evidence of P.W.2, in the absence of any contra evidence, is found to be just and reasonable, and no interference is warranted. 16. Further, the Tribunal, upon considering the nature of injuries and treatment, the evidence of P.W.2, and Exs.A4 and A5/medical bills, which were proved through P.W.3, Manager of Ramesh Hospital, awarded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical expenses, conveyance, extra nourishment, attendant charges, and future medical expenses. The Tribunal also, upon consideration of the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, and 4 and Exs.A3/wound certificate, A6/clinical report, A7/discharge summary and A10/X-rays and MRI 10 VS,J MACMA Nos.5 & 421 of 2023 reports, awarded Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.30,000/- towards loss of amenities, having regard to the functional limitations of the claimant’s left hand. 17. As the claimant was a student and not earning at the time of the accident, the Tribunal, taking into account his educational status and future prospects, assessed his annual income at Rs.30,000/-, in accordance with the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. Basing on the same, a sum of Rs.1,35,000/- was awarded under the head of permanent disability. Thus, the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal amounts to Rs.3,95,500/-, which is found to be just and reasonable and does not warrant interference. 18. In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 31.03.2026 KGR