APHC010161812022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS Between: 1. THE APSRTC, REP.BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, APSRTC, NEAR RTC, BUS STAND, KADAPA CITY. 1. AVULA OM PRAKASH, S/O BHEEMANNA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, HINDU, LECTURER IN KESAVA REDDY SCHOOL, MOUNASWAMI ASHRAMAM, NEAR REDDY KALYANA MANDAPAM, PRODDATUR TOWN AND MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. 2. N GOPAL, S/O REDDENNA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, HINDU, DRIVER OF APSRTC BEARING NO.AP28Z1490, R/O ABBAVARAM, MASAPETA OF RAYACHOTY TOWN AND MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased to allow the appeal by setting aside the Judgment and decree passed by the order and decree dated 08.12.2021 passed in MVOP No. 425 of 2019 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Principal District Judge, Kadapa to 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 please grant stay of execution of decree in pursuant to MVOP No. 425 of 2019 dated. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 143 OF THE APSRTC, REP.BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, APSRTC, NEAR RTC, BUS STAND, KADAPA CITY. ...APPELLANT AND AVULA OM PRAKASH, S/O BHEEMANNA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, HINDU, LECTURER IN KESAVA REDDY SCHOOL, MOUNASWAMI ASHRAMAM, NEAR REDDY KALYANA MANDAPAM, PRODDATUR TOWN AND MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. N GOPAL, S/O REDDENNA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, HINDU, DRIVER OF APSRTC BEARING NO.AP28Z1490, R/O ABBAVARAM, MASAPETA OF RAYACHOTY TOWN AND MANDAL, KADAPA ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be allow the appeal by setting aside the Judgment and decree passed by the order and decree dated 08.12.2021 passed in MVOP No. 425 of 2019 le of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Principal District Judge, 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 please grant stay of execution of decree in pursuant to MVOP No. 425 of 2019 dated. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3333] MONDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA APPEAL NO: 143 OF 2022 THE APSRTC, REP.BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, APSRTC, NEAR RTC, BUS STAND, KADAPA CITY. ...APPELLANT AVULA OM PRAKASH, S/O BHEEMANNA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, HINDU, LECTURER IN KESAVA REDDY SCHOOL, R/O MOUNASWAMI ASHRAMAM, NEAR REDDY KALYANA MANDAPAM, PRODDATUR TOWN AND MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. N GOPAL, S/O REDDENNA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, HINDU, DRIVER OF APSRTC BEARING NO.AP28Z1490, R/O ABBAVARAM, MASAPETA OF RAYACHOTY TOWN AND MANDAL, KADAPA ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be allow the appeal by setting aside the Judgment and decree passed by the order and decree dated 08.12.2021 passed in MVOP No. 425 of 2019 le of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Principal District Judge, 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. 425 of 2019 dated. 2 08.12.2021 On the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Principal District Judge, Kadapa pending disposal of the above MACMA and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 143 OF 2022 JUDGMENT:- The APSRTC filed the present appeal challenging the order and decree 08.12.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.425 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge, Kadapa, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.7,52,778/- to the Claimant/ Respondent No.1 herein, as against the claim of Rs.12,00,000/-, for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that occurred on 16.10.2014. 2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The case of the petitioner is briefly as follows: The Petitioner is working as Sanskrit Teacher in Kesava Reddy School at Potladurthi Village and aged about 36 years. On 16.10.2014 he along with his friend left Rayachoti Town in a motor cycle bearing registration No.AP 04 AJ 9528 to go to Potladurthi Village. His friend Mr. P.Konda Reddy was riding the motor cycle and Petitioner was the pillion rider. At 9.00 a.m when they reached near new Modern School, Ganganeru Cross, Respondent No.1/ APSRTC Bus bearing No. AP 28 Z 1490, driven by the Respondent No.2 in rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed against the motor cycle on its rear side. As a result, the Petitioner and his friend fell down and sustained fracture injuries. A case in Crime No. 123 of 2014 of the Police of 4 Ramapuram Police Station. The Petitioner getting salary of Rs.20,000/- per month and Rs.5,000/- as additional pay. 4. Before the Tribunal, the Respondent No.1 filed Written Statement denying the averments made in the claim petition, inter alia contended that it asserted that there is involvement of two vehicles, this petition is not maintainable as non-joinder of necessary parties i.e owner and insurer of the motor cycle. The rider of the motor cycle is not having driving license as on the date of accident. The Respondent No.2 was falsely made as Accused. Therefore, as there is negligence by the rider of the motor cycle for committing the accident, the Respondent No.1 is not liable to pay compensation. 5. The Respondent No.2 filed Written Statement stating that he did not commit any negligent act and the Respondent No.2 was following all the traffic rules and regulations and was driving the vehicle in slow and steady manner. The Respondent No.2 is having valid and effective driving license. Therefore, Respondent No.1 is alone is liable to pay compensation, but not Respondent No.2. Thus, it is prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 16.10.2014 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C Bus bearing No. AP 28 Z 1490? 2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? 5 3. To what relief?” 7. On behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A8 and Ex.X1 were marked. None examined on behalf of Respondents no documents were marked. 8. After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition against respondent Nos.1 and 2, awarding compensation of Rs.7,52,778/- with subsequent interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization and directed respondents No.1 and 2 to jointly and severally pay the said amount within one month from the date of the order. 9. Aggrieved by the said award, the Respondents No.1 /APSRTC preferred this appeal contending that the Tribunal wrongly concluded that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the Respondent No.2 while driving the crime vehicle of Respondent No.1. It is further contended that the injuries sustained by the Petitioner are minor in nature and that he did not suffer any functional disability. It is further contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant and excessive, therefore, prayed to allow the appeal. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Claimant/ Respondent No.1 herein has supported the impugned award and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 11. Now the point for consideration is: 6 Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? POINT: 12. On perusal of the Award, it can be observed that the Claimant was the pillion rider going on motor cycle along with his friend Mr. P. Konda Reddy on the date of accident. The Tribunal relaying upon the evidence of PW-1, who categorically deposed that the Claimant was the pillion rider and one P. Konda Reddy was riding the motor cycle. When they reached the place of accident, the Respondent No.2 drove the RTC bus hit the motor cycle from the rear side. As a result, both fell down and sustained injuries, coupled with Ex.A1 – copy of FIR and Ex.A3 C.C of charge sheet wherein after due investigation, the Police filed Charge Sheet as against Respondent No.2 for causing the said accident, the Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by Respondent No.2 while driving the crime vehicle of Respondent No.1. 13. So far as the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, the Claimant is working as Sanskrit Teacher at Kesava Reddy School and getting salary Rs. 20,000/- per month as per Ex.A8 i.e Salary Certificate. Therefore, the Tribunal considered the monthly income of the Claimant is Rs. 20,000/-relying upon Salary Certificate i.e Ex.A8. Therefore, the annual income would be Rs.2,40,000/- (Rs.20000X12). As the age of the deceased was 36 years, after applying the appropriate multiplier i.e. ‘15’ for the age group of 36 years, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in 7 “Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation 1”, the estimated loss of earnings would come to (Rs.2,40,000X15) Rs.36,00,000/-, which is well reasoned and needs no interference. 14. Though Ex.A.6 discloses that the claimant sustained disability of 20%, but as the same was issued after 5 years of the accident, disbelieving the same, the Tribunal considered that the claimant sustained 10% disability and awarded Rs.3,60,000/- towards loss of income (Rs.36,00,000 x 10% = Rs.3,60,000/-). 15. Apart from the above, the Tribunal awarded pecuniary damages i.e. Rs.1,55,112/- towards expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines and miscellaneous expenditure, Rs.25,000/- towards food and extra nourishment, Rs.10,000/- towards transportation charges, Rs.15,000/- towards personal attendant charges, and Rs.1,02,666/- towards loss of earnings during the period of treatment 14.10.2014 to 16.03.2025 as per Ex.A.8 Salary Certificate issued by Keshava Reddy (E.M.) High School, Yerraguntla Road, Potladurthi. 16. The Tribunal also awarded non-pecuniary damages (General Damages) i.e. Rs.75,000/- towards pain and suffering for three grievous injuries, and Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering for one simple injury. In all, the Tribunal below awarded Rs.7,52,778/- to the Claimant. 1 2009 ACJ 1298 8 17. Considering the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the amount of Rs.7,52,778/- awarded by the Tribunal to the Claimant for the injuries sustained by him, was on reasonable basis and is sustainable under law, which needs no interference. 18. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 02.02.2026 KK