IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] MONDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 466/2019 Between: 1. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,, REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD (NOW AT RTC HOUSE, PNBS, VIJAYAWADA). ...APPELLANT AND 1. MEKALA KALISHWAR, S/O. RAMBABU, HINDU, AGED 29 YEARS, DRIVER, R/O.D.NO. 25-10-28, TELAGAPALEM, PONNUR TOWN AND MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. K VENKATA SUBBA RAO, S/O. VENKATA SWAMY, HINDU, DRIVER, AGED 46 YEARS, R/O.MALLADI VILLAGE, AMARAVATHI MANDAL. ...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 08-06-2018 passed in MVOP No. 1121/2016 by the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge,) Guntur. IA NO: 1 OF 2019 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 128 days in presenting the appeal filed against the order and decree dated 08-06-2018 passed in MVOP NO. 1121/2016 by the court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Guntur. IA NO: 2 OF 2019 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 pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the order and decree dated 08-06-2018 passed in MVOP NO. 1121/2016 by the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Principal District Judge), Guntur including of execution proceedings, pending disposal of the above MACMA Counsel for the Appellant: 1. P DURGA PRASAD SC FOR APSRTC Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 3 The Court made the following JUDGMENT: Aggrieved by order dated 08.06.2018 in M.V.O.P.No.1121 of 2016, the present appeal is preferred by APSRTC. Though various grounds are raised in the present appeal, during the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant confined his argument to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were referred before the Tribunal. 3. The petitioner filed the claim petition, claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of injuries sustained by him in the accident that was occurred on 10.05.2016, in which the offending RTC bus bearing registration No.AP 11 Z 5127 was involved. 4. The Tribunal, after trial, based on the pleadings and documentary evidence placed before it, awarded compensation of Rs.1,57,000/- under various conventional heads towards compensation. Questioning the same, the present appeal is filed. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 6. Despite service of notice, there is no appearance for the respondents. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant/ 1st respondent would strenuously contend that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was excessive and the petitioner is not entitled to receive the same. In order to substantiate the 4 said contention, the appellant/ 1st respondent neither filed any documentary evidence nor adduced any oral evidence. 8. Per contra, the claimant has filed the copies of wound certificate, bunch of prescriptions (10 in number), medical bills, case sheet, medical report, X- Rays, which were marked in Exs.A3 to A8. Apart from the same, Dr. Ramana Yashaswi, who treated the petitioner was examined as P.W.2. On perusal of the evidence of P.W.2, it is evident that the petitioner was admitted in Yashaswi Hospital on 12.05.2016 for treatment to the injuries sustained by him in the accident. Further, a surgery was also conducted to the right knee joint of the petitioner and screws were fixed and later, he was discharged on 23.05.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner also took follow up treatment till 02.11.2016. In view of the injuries sustained by him, the movement of the right knee of the petitioner was restricted by 10 degrees with a disability of 15%. Ex.A3/ wound certificate issued by P.W.2 was filed in support of the case of the petitioner. On overall consideration of the Exs.A3 to A8, it is clear that the petitioner had sustained injuries and incurred considerable amount of money towards treatment. As already noted supra, though the learned counsel for the appellant/ 1st respondent submitted that the compensation awarded was excessive, nothing is placed on record to substantiate the same. In the absence of any evidence, this Court does to find any force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant/ 1st respondent. 5 9. Viewed from any angle, there are no merits in the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR Dt.23.03.2026 SCH 6 117 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR M.A.C.M.A.No.466 OF 2019 Date: 23.03.2026 SCH