1 VS,J CMA_582 of 2022 APHC010195032022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 582/2022 Between: 1. PANDRA BABY, W/O SUBRAMANYAM NAIDU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT IRUVARAMPALLI VILLAGE, IRALA MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1. T V PRASAD, S/O T.V. ALEXANDER, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, DRIVER OF APSRTC BUS REGN. NO. AP-11-Z-4419 OF SRIKALAHASTI DEPOT, STAFF NO.104280, RESIDING AT SRIKALAHASTHI TOWN AND MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 2. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS M.D./CHAIRMAN, OFFICE SITUATED AT RTC 'X' ROAD, MUSHEERABAD, HDERABAD (OWNER OF THE APSRTC BUS REGN. NO. AP-11-2-4419). RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased tobeg to present this Memorandum of Civil Misc. Appeal against the award and decree Dt. 29th November, 2021 passed in MVOP No. 147/2016 on the file of District Judge Cum Chairman, MACT, Chittoor IA NO: 1 OF 2022 2 VS,J CMA_582 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 condone the delay of 30 days in representing the MACMA bundle before this Hon'ble Court Counsel for the Appellant: 1. CH B R P SEKHAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) 2. The Court made the following: 3 VS,J CMA_582 of 2022 JUDGMENT:- This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation of Rs.22,000/- awarded by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – Principal District Judge, Chittoor vide judgment dated 19.11.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.147 of 2016 wherein the appellant/claimant sought an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of injuries sustained by her in a motor vehicle accident. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The claimant is the injured and the 1st respondent is the driver of the bus bearing No.AP11Z4419 belonging to the 2nd respondent. On 17.05.2007, in the early hours, the claimant is said to have boarded the bus bearing No.AP11Z4419 at Tirumala to Srikalahasti and at about 08.15 a.m., when the said bus reached Cherlopalli, due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent, the bus dashed to a parked lorry due to which, the claimant sustained injuries and lost 50% of eye sight and has become disabled and that she is not able to attend her regular works. Hence, the claimant filed a petition before the Tribunal claiming Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation. 4. The 2nd respondent – APSRTC, filed its written statement contending that the driver of the tipper lorry wrongly parked the same on the road without any indication and that the respondent corporation is not responsible to pay any compensation to the claimant. It further contended that the claimant has to file a petition against the owner and insurer of the tipper lorry and requested to dismiss the claim petition. 4 VS,J CMA_582 of 2022 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 1) Whether the accident in question was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent? 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, what amount and from which respondent? 3) To what relief? 6. During the course of trial, the claimant got examined herself as P.W.1. P.Ws.2 to 4 – doctors, were also examined on behalf of the claimant. In support of her case, the claimant got marked Exs.A1 to A6. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents. 7. The Tribunal, after considering all the facts and material available before it, came to a conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent and awarded an amount of Rs.22,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by her. Aggrieved by the said award, the claimant filed the present appeal on the ground that though the claimant lost 50% of her vision, which is a disability, the same was not considered by the Tribunal while awarding compensation. 8. Heard Sri. CH. B.R.P. Sekhar, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and Sri. Aravala Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent corporation. 9. Perused the material available on record. Relying on the evidence of the claimant herself and Ex.A1 – FIR registered by the Police, the Tribunal answered issued No.1 in favour of the claimant by holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st 5 VS,J CMA_582 of 2022 respondent – driver, which need not be disbelieved as the said evidence was not objected by the respondents. It can be seen from the record that due to the accident, the claimant sustained contusion over the upper part of the nose, head injury and ultimately, her eye-sight was affected and that she contends to have 50% disability. 10. Now coming to the quantum of compensation, the claimant contended that she used to do milk vending business and used to earn Rs.6,000/- per month. Apart from the same, she used to attend agricultural works. In the absence of any documentary evidence, the Tribunal considered the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.5,000/-, however, as the claimant failed to produce any medical document showing the period of her treatment and loss of her earnings due to the injuries sustained, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the claimant for a period of one month under the head of loss of earnings. Admittedly, keeping in view the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, she could not have attended her duties for one month, which view was also taken by the Tribunal, thus, the same need not be interfered with. Furthermore, in the absence of any material evidence and considering the manner of the accident, the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,000/- towards transport charges, Rs.1,000/- towards extra-nourishment and Rs.10,000/- under the head of pain and suffering. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, this Court is of the opinion that the amount awarded by the Tribunal under the above mentioned heads is just and reasonable. 11. It can be seen from the evidence of P.W.4 that the claimant was treated in their hospital and that they treated the claimant for free of cost as she is well known to them. Even otherwise, after getting discharged from the hospital, the claimant would have incurred expenses 6 VS,J CMA_582 of 2022 for medicines, but, as the claimant failed to put forward any documentary proof, the Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs.5,000/- as compensation under the head of medical expenses which is neither excess nor meager. 12. It is the primary contention of the claimant that due to the accident in question, she received an injury between her two eyebrows resulting in lost of eye-sight up to 50%. A perusal of the evidence of P.W.2 would go to show that he is an eye-specialist and admitted that the claimant sustained multiple injuries in an accident and that her vision was diminished to 6/60 i.e. 50% loss of vision. Ex.A5 – disability certificate was issued by P.W.2 in the year 2017. Admittedly, the accident occurred in the year 2007, but, the disability certificate was issued in the year 2017, that too, by a doctor who has not treated the claimant immediately after the accident. The claimant failed to establish any nexus between the accident and the disability sustained as there is a long gap of 10 years. In such circumstances, it would not be safe or proper to attribute the alleged disability to the said accident that occurred long back, particularly in the absence of continuous medical evidence. 13. The Tribunal considering the evidence adduced by the claimant and as well as exhibits relied on by her, has rightly awarded the said amount and held that in all, the claimant would be entitled for a compensation of Rs.22,000/- which is just and proper and cannot be said to be excessive or on higher side. This Court finds no error in the order of the Tribunal granting the said compensation to the claimants. 14. Viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any grounds to interfere with the award impugned in the appeal. Hence, this appeal is dismissed. 7 VS,J CMA_582 of 2022 Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date:17.03.2026. Gss