APHC010082622020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] THURSDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 208/2020 Between: 1. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,, REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, MUSHEERABD, HYDERABAD, (NOW AT VIJAYAWADA). 2. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,, REP.BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, NRT BUS STAND COMPLEX, GUNTUR DISTRICT ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. MARASU CHINNA RAMAIAH ALIAS RAMAIAH, S/O.SAMBA MURTHY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O.LINGAYAPALEM VILLAGE, GUNTUR RURAL MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. VELAGATURI SRINIVASA RAO, S/O.VENKATESWARLU, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RTC DRIVER, R/O.NUJENDLA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. (THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IS NOT NECESSARY PARTY IN THIS APPEAL) ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased topleased to allow the MACMA by setting aside the Order and Decree dated 30-05-2019 passed in M.V.O.P No. 625 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- II Additional District Judge, Guntur 2 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 be pleased pleased to condone the delay of 160 days in presenting the appeal filed against the Order and Decree dated 30-05-2019 passed in M.V.O.P No. 625 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Guntur-cum-II Additional District Judge, Guntur 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 pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the Order and Decree dated 30-05-2019 passed in M.V.O.P No. 625 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Guntur-cum-II Additional District Judge, Guntur including of execution proceedings pending disposal of the above M.A.C.M.A 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 vacate the interim stay granted by this Hon'ble Court in I.A.No. 2 of 2020 in M.A.C.M.A. No. 208 of 2020, dated 02¬03- 2020 and permit the petitioners to withdraw the amount deposited by the Respondent No.1/appellant before the Hon'ble Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal¬cum-II Additional District Judge, Guntur and pass Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. K SRINIVASA PRASAD SC For APSRTC Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SRICHARAN TELAPROLU 3 The Court made the following judgment: The present appeal is filed by the APSRTC, aggrieved by the order dated 30.05.2019, passed in MVOP No.625 of 2019, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Court, Guntur. 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 and the rules made there under, claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-, on account of the injuries received by him in the accident that was occurred on 22.11.2014 near Murali Krishna Dairy, Krishnapuram Village, Guntur Mandal and District. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that, he is a permanent resident of Velpuru Village of Savalyapuram Mandal, Guntur District. It is further case of the petitioner that on 22.11.2014, while he was returning from Vinukonda and proceeding to his Village, when he reached Krishnapuram Village, the offending bus belonging to the respondents bearing registration No.AP07Z0281, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed him from behind. As a result of which, the petitioner fell down and received injuries on his head, right hand and on the face. Immediately the petitioner was shifted to the Government Hospital, Vinukonda for treatment. After first aid, he was taken to Costal Care Hospital, Old Club Road, Gunturvari Thota, Guntur where he took treatment till 28.04.2014. 4 It is further case of the petitioner that, subsequently he has taken treatment in Srinivasa Nursing Home, Vinukonda till 06.12.2014. Further, during the course of the treatment, he spent an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-, towards medical expenses. 5. A case in Cr.No.81 of 2014 was registered on the file of Savalyapuram Police Station Guntur, for the offences under Sections 337 and 338, against the 3rd respondent. On account of the injuries sustained by him, he filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.5.00.000/-. 6. On the other hand, the 2nd respondent filed counter affidavit denying the involvement of the offending bus including the registration of crime against the 3rd respondent. The respondents further put the petitioner to the strict proof of the expenses incurred by him towards his treatment. Further, the respondents specifically contended that the petitioner had no driving license as on the date of the accident and also contended that the compensation is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 7. A separate counter affidavit was filed by the 3rd respondent/driver of the APSRTC bus stating that the petitioner is responsible for the accident inasmuch as, he drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and hit the APSRTC bus. In order to prove the case of the petitioner, he was examined as PW.1 and examined Dr.N.Sarathchandra Kumar, who treated him as PW.2 and got marked 5 Exs.A1 to A9. On the other hand, the respondents examined the driver of the offending vehicle as RW.1, the conductor as RW.2 and got marked the Exs.B1 to B5. After enquiry, the Tribunal, by order under challenge, granted an amount of Rs.2,12,170/- as compensation together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of filing the petition till the date of order. Questioning the same, the present appeal is filed. 8. Heard counsel for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1. 9. Perused the record. 10. The counsel for the appellant would strenuously contend that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. In order to substantiate the same, the appellant has examined driver and conductor of the offending bus as RW.1 and RW.2, who deposed reiterating the contents of the counter affidavit. On the other hand, it is the contention of the petitioner that, he was travelling from Vinukonda to his village and the offending bus hit him from behind. But, in the charge sheet, it was mentioned that the accident was occurred while the petitioner was proceedings towards Vinukonda. In view of the contradictory statements made by the parties coupled with the documentary evidence, the Tribunal had held that, there is contributory negligence in the case on hand, and the same has been determined as 30% and 70% respectively, based on the oral and documentary evidence 6 put forth by the parties. Though, the counsel for the appellant contended that, there is no negligence on the driver of the bus, nothing is placed on record to substantiate the same. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence, this Court is not inclined to take a different view in the case on hand. Accordingly, the finding given by the Tribunal insofar as contributory negligence is concerned, does not warrant interference. 11. Though, the petitioner has claimed that he is entitled to an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, towards compensation, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the injury No.1 is grievous in nature and injuries 2 & 3 are simple in nature, based on wound certificate, which was marked as Ex.A3. Further, after considering the documentary evidence, the Tribunal had awarded just compensation to the petitioner. The respondents though contended that the compensation is exorbitant, on perusal of the order under challenge, it is clear that the same was awarded based on the material available on the record. Further, the petitioner, in order to substantiate his claim, filed documents i.e., medical certificate, essentiality certificate, discharge summery, statement of bills and other reports which were marked as Exs.A4 to A9. To disprove the same, the respondents have not examined any witness. In the absence of any evidence to disprove the same, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. 12. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any merit in the appeal, accordingly the same is dismissed. 7 There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR Dt.12.02.2026 DSB 8 100 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MACMA.No.208 OF 2020 Date: 12.02.2026 U DSB