APHC010021192020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] FRIDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 40/2020 Between: 1. THE VICE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, APSRTC HOUSE, 1ST FLOOR NTR ADMINISTRATION BLOCK PANDIT NEHRU BUS STATION VIJAYAWADA. ...APPELLANT AND 1. RAYAPUREDDY SUBBALAKSHMI, W/O SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC. TAILOR, R/O D.NO. 5-87, BC COLONY, N.R.P AGRAHARAM VILLAGE, H/0 UNDI VILLAGE, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2. PURELLA NAGESWARARAO, S/O RAJA RATNAM, HINDU, AGED 58 YEARS, DRIVER APSRTC, R/O JONNAVARI GUDEM VILLAGE, JANGAREDDY GUDEM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased toto allow the appeal by setting aside the Judgment and decree passed by the order and decree dated 23/05/2019 passed in MVOP No. 45 of 2017 On the file of the Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum III Addl. District Judge, Bhimavaram West Godavari District. to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2020 2 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 123 days in filing the appeal against the judgment and decree passed in MVOP NO. 45 of 2017 dt. 23.05.2019 On the file of she Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum III Addl. District Judge, Bhimavaram West Godavari District. and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2020 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 execution of decree in pursuant to MVOP NO.45 / 2017 dated. 23.05.2019 On the file of ...the Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum III Addl. District Judge, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. pending disposal of the above MACMA and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 vacate stay granted on 28-01-2020 in IA 2/2020 in MACMA 40/2020 by permitting the petitioners to withdraw the amounts decreed and allotted to us Counsel for the Appellant: 1. K SRINIVASA PRASAD SC For APSRTC Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. B SRIRAM KARTIK 3 The Court made the following judgment: The present appeal is filed by APSRTC aggrieved by order dated 23.05.2019, in MVOP No.45 of 2017, on the file of the Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Bhimavaram. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were referred before the Tribunal. 3. The petitioner filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 r/w. Rule 455 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-, together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of payment, on account of injuries sustained by her in the accident that was occurred on 16.01.2017, in which the bus belonging to the appellant/2nd respondent bearing registration No.AP28Z3006 was involved. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that on 16.01.2017, while she was going to the house of her mother in Gutlapadu Village on T.V.S Moped along with her husband, when they reached near the Mahindra Tractor Show Room, Undi Road in Bhimavaram, at about 5.30 p.m., the offending bus driven by the 1st respondent came in rash and negligent manner and dashed the moped from behind. As a result, the petitioner and her husband fell on the road and the rear wheels of the offending vehicle ran over the left leg of the petitioner and thereby she received crush injuries. It is further case of the petitioner that she sustained fracture in the said 4 accident and was shifted to Varma Hospitals, Bhimavaram, for treatment, where she was treated as an inpatient from 16.01.2017 to 02.02.2017 and again from 28.02.2017 to 06.03.2017. She also underwent surgery to her left leg on 16.01.2017, which got amputated. It is further case of the petitioner that she spent nearly Rs.5,00,000/- towards medical treatment apart from spending money towards the surgeries. A case in Cr.No.21/17 was registered under Section 338 IPC against the 1st respondent on the file of II Town Police Station, Bhimavaram. In view of the injuries received by her, she filed the above petition claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. 5. The 1st respondent/driver remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. The 2nd respondent filed counter affidavit denying the averments made in the claim petition. It was contended that there was no negligence on the part of the 1st respondent/driver. It was further contended by the 2nd respondent that the husband of the petitioner was riding moped and while overtaking the offending bus, the handle of the moped got hit by the vehicle coming in opposite direction, due to which he could not control the vehicle and thereby fell on the road. It was further contended that there was contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the moped, therefore, the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay compensation as claimed by the petitioner and prayed to dismiss the petition. 5 6. In order to prove the case of the petitioner she was examined as PW.1 and also examined PWs.2 and 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A9. On the other hand, the respondents neither examined any witness nor produced any documentary evidence. Based on the oral and documentary evidence put forth by the petitioner, the Tribunal by order under challenge partly allowed the claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs.17,07,843/- under various conventional heads. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. 7. Heard Ms.Bhavani, counsel representing the counsel for the appellant; Sri K.Srinivas Prasad and Sri B.Sriram Karthik, counsel for the 1st respondent. 8. Perused the record. 9. The counsel for the appellant would submit that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the rider of the moped. She would further submit that, in order to overtake the offending bus, the rider drove the moped at a high speed and, in the said process, the handle of the moped got hit by the vehicle coming in the opposite direction, and the petitioner fell on the road, thereby the accident was occurred. In order to prove the same, the appellant neither examined any witness nor produced any documentary evidence in support of its contention. On the other hand, the petitioner herself got examined as PW.1, who reiterated the contents of the claim petition in her evidence. Though, PW.1 was 6 cross examined at length, nothing was elicited to disprove her evidence. Apart from the same, the petitioner also got marked copies of FIR and charge sheet which were marked as Exs.A1 to A4. A perusal of the said documentary evidence, it is succinctly clear that, the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent/driver of the offending bus. As already noted supra, the 2nd respondent miserably failed to disprove the evidence of the petitioner/claimant. In the absence of the same, the contention of the petitioner that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the rider of the moped cannot be accepted and the same is hereby rejected. 10. The counsel for the appellant would also contend that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, inasmuch as the Tribunal had taken the income of the petitioner as Rs.9,000/- per annum, without there being any evidence placed before it. In this context it is pertinent to note that, in order to prove the income of the petitioner, she has examined one Sri Nagumalla Ramakrishna as PW.3. A perusal of the evidence of PW.3, it is clear that the petitioner was tailor by avocation and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. He further deposed that the petitioner used to supply dress materials to him. Taking into consideration of the evidence of PW.3, the Tribunal had fixed the income of the petitioner as Rs.9,000/-, though the petitioner had claimed Rs.10,000/- per annum. Further, the respondents have not placed anything on record to disprove the evidence of PW.3. Having considered the various aspects 7 of the matter, the Tribunal had arrived at Rs.17,07,8443/- as compensation under various conventional heads. Though, the counsel for the appellant would submit that the compensation is excessive, in view of the findings recorded by the Tribunal, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the order under challenge. For the reasons recorded supra, there are no merits in the appeal and accordingly the same 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.06.03.2026 DSB 8 87 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR MACMA No.40 of 2020 Date 06.03.2026 U DSB