APHC010066322020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 201/2020 Between: 1. THE APSRTC, REP.BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD-2 NOW AT VIJAYAWADA ...APPELLANT AND 1. THAMATAPU RAMU, S/O TATA RAO, AGED 24 YEARS, HINDU, MALE, CULTIVATION, R/O MUDUNURU VILLAGE, PENTAPADU MANDAL, W.G.DISTRICT. 2. PEDAAPATI SRINIVASA RAO, S/O VENKATESWARA RAO, HINDU, MALE, AGED 32 YEARS, S.C.PETA, KONDRUPADU, DRIVER IN APSRTC, TADEPALLIGUDEM DEPOT, STAFF NO.701739. DRIVER OF RTC BUS BEARING NO.AP11Z1286, W.G.DISTRICT. (NOT NECESSARY PARTY) ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased topleased to allow the appeal by setting aside the Judgment and decree passed in MVOP No. 206 of 2016 dated 13.11.20719 On the file of the Chairman MALT Cum VIII Additional District Judge West Godavari at Eluru IA NO: 1 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 2 be pleased pleased to grant stay of execution of decree in pursuant to MVOP NO.206 / 2016 DT.13.11.2019 On the file of the Chairman MACT Cum VIII Additional District Judge West Godavari at Eluru pending disposal of the above MACMA IA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 grant it to the permission to withdraw the aunt deposited by the appellants in DP No. 206 of 2016 on the file of MACT 1 VIII Additional District Judge, West lavari, Eluru, granted in I.A. No. 1/2020 in CMA No.201/2020 dated. 29.02.2020 lout furnishing security and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2021 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 the interim stay granted in IA. No. 1 of 2020, in MACMA No. 201 of 2020 in dt: 29-02-2020 in MVOP No. 206/2016, dt. 13-11-2019 on the file of Motor Accidental Claims Tribunal claim VIII Additional District Judge, West Godavari District at Eluru, and pass such other or Counsel for the Appellant: 1. K SRINIVASA PRASAD SC For APSRTC Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. KALLA TULASI DURGAMBA 3 The Court made the following judgment: The present appeal is filed by APSRTC aggrieved by order dated 13.11.2019, passed in MVOP No.206 of 2016, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were referred before the tribunal. 3. The petitioner filed petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the rules made there under claiming compensation of Rs.6,06,319/-, together with interest @12% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, on account of injuries received by him in the accident in which the APSRTC bus bearing registration No.AP11 Z 1289 was involved. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that, on 27.05.2015, at about 7.00 PM he was standing on the left side of the road margin at Mudunuru Center, Pentapadu Mandal, West Godavari District. At that time the offending bus belonging to APSRTC came in rash and negligent manner driven by the 1st respondent/driver and dashed the petitioner from behind. As a result of which the petitioner fell on the road and received severe injuries including three fractures. The accident was reported in Pentapadu Police Station and a case in Cr.No.84 of 2015 was registered under Section 338 IPC against the 1st respondent. The said claim was investigated into and a 4 charge sheet was filed. The petitioner was taken to Sai Sanjeevani Hospital, Tadepalligudem for first aid and later he was shifted to Bhimavaram Hospitals, Bhimavaram for better treatment. Subsequently, he was shifted to Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad, where he was treated as in-patient. During his stay in Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad, he has spent an amount of Rs.3,06,319/- towards treatment including doctor fee medicines, transportation etc. 5. It is further case of the petitioner that, he was aged about 25 years and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by doing cultivation. On account of injuries received by him in the accident he was subjected to pain and mental agony and suffered permanent disability and he could not attend the agricultural works, thereby he lost the earning capacity which cannot be estimated in terms of money. In those circumstances, he approached the tribunal by filing the present petition seeking to pay compensation. 6. The 1st respondent/driver of the offending bus remained ex-parte. The 2nd respondent filed counter affidavit resisting the claim by contending that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner, inasmuch as he stopped the motor cycle suddenly and therefore there is contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner as well. It was also contended that the petitioner had no valid driving license and the compensation claimed by him is excessive and disputed the medical expenses incurred by him. 5 7. In order to prove the case of the petitioner he was examined as PW.1 and examined doctors who treated him as PWs. 2 to 4 and marked Exs.A1 to A7. Ex.X1 i.e., case-sheet was marked through PW.4. On the other hand, the respondents neither adduced any oral evidence nor exhibited any documentary evidence. Having considered the oral and documentary evidence put forth by the petitioner, the tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.5,50,000/- together with interest @7.5% per annum to the petitioner towards compensation under various conventional heads. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. 8. Heard counsel for the appellant and counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused the record. 9. The counsel for the appellant would strenuously contend that, the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner inasmuch as he stopped the motor cycle suddenly thereby the accident was occurred. It was further contended that, there is contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner and the same was not at all considered by the tribunal. In order to prove the same, the respondent-APSRTC did not examine any witnesses on its behalf nor exhibited any documentary proof to show that there is contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner. On the other hand, the petitioner himself got examined as PW.1, who categorically deposed that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent/driver of the APSRTC bus. Apart from the same, the petitioner also filed copies of FIR in Cr.No.84 of 2015 6 and charge sheet filed against the 1st respondent-driver, which were marked as Exs.A1 & A3. On perusal of the same, it is evident that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus. Further, though the petitioner was cross-examined at length, nothing was elicited to disprove his evidence. As already noted supra, the 2nd respondent has not adduced any witness on his behalf to rebut the evidence of the petitioner. In the absence of any evidence on behalf of APSRTC, the contention of the counsel for the appellant cannot be believed and the same is hereby rejected. 10. Coming to the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal is concerned, the petitioner marked Exs.A3, A4 & A7 and examined PWs.2 to 4, the doctors who treated him. On perusal of the evidence of PW.2, Orthopedic Doctor, Apollo Hospitals, Hyderabad, it is evidence that the petitioner underwent surgery on 29.06.2015, for the left anterior column acetabulum fracture, left inferior public rami fracture, left SI joint disruption, and later he was discharged on 02.07.2015. The petitioner was advised to take bed rest for one month and also advised to consult the local orthopedic doctor for follow up treatment. Further, on perusal of the evidence of PW.4 it is evident that he has done cystocopy and retrograde pyclogram, as the petitioner was unable to pass urine due to injuries received by him in the accident. The evidence of PW.4 also corroborated with the bunch of medical bills marked in Ex.A4 by the petitioner. In view of the evidence produced by the petitioner coupled with 7 the exhibits marked by him, it is clear that the petitioner has incurred an amount of Rs.2,86,535/- during his stay in Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad. Apart from the same, the petitioner incurred the incidental expenses for the follow up treatment. Considering the same, the tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.5,50,000/- towards compensation under various conventional heads. Though the respondents disputed the same as already noted supra, the respondents did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence in support of its contention. In the absence of any evidence, the contention of the respondents cannot be countenanced and accordingly the same is rejected. Viewed from any angle, there are no merits in the present 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.23.01.2026. DSB 8 173 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MACMA.No.201 OF 2020 Date: 23.01.2026 U DSB