APHC010217752005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Thursday, the Twelfth day of March, Two Thousand and Twenty Six The Honourable Ms Justice B.S.Bhanumathi M.A.C,M.A.No.2541 of 2005 Between: 1. Md.Gaffor @ Abdul about 38 years, R/o. Visakhapatnam. 1. Madagala Adinarayana, S/o. years, occupation : D E.No.456606, APSRTC, Gajuwaka Nagar, B.C.Road, Gajuwaka 2. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, represented by its Regional Manager, Counsel for the appellant: 1. Murali Lincoln Counsel for the respondent 1. Vinod Kumar Tarlada IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Thursday, the Twelfth day of March, Two Thousand and Twenty Six Present The Honourable Ms Justice B.S.Bhanumathi M.A.C,M.A.No.2541 of 2005 .Gaffor @ Abdul Gaffar, S/o. Late Khareem, Muslim, male, R/o. D.No.38-30-94, Hussain Nagar, Marripalem ...Appellant / Claimant and Madagala Adinarayana, S/o. Late Doraiah, Hindu, aged about 40 years, occupation : Driver of Bus No.1630, Route No.38, E.No.456606, APSRTC, Gajuwaka Depot, R/o.D.No.23-74 Nagar, B.C.Road, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam. ndhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, represented by anager, Dwaraka Nagar, Visakhapatnam. ...Respondents / Respondents ppellant: espondents: inod Kumar Tarlada appearing for respondent No.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3311] Thursday, the Twelfth day of March, Two Thousand and Twenty Six male, aged ain Nagar, Marripalem, / Claimant aged about 40 Bus No.1630, Route No.38, 74-9, Nehru ndhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, represented by / Respondents 2 BSB,J M.A.C.M.A.No.2541 of 2005 The Court made the following judgment: This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the order dated 30.03.2005 in M.O.P.No.76 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam. The appellant is the claimant and the respondents are the respondents before the Tribunal. 2. The case of the claimant, briefly stated, is as follows: On 21.10.2003, at about 11.30 A.M., the claimant, his wife, daughter and mother-in-law were proceeding in his auto rickshaw bearing No.AP 31 V 7496. Near Lepracy Colony opposite to Thatichetlapalem Anajaneya Swamy Temple, the respondent No.1 drove R.T.C. bus bearing No.AP 10 Z 1630 in a rash and negligent manner and hit the auto. As a result, the auto turned turtle. The claimant and other inmates of the auto suffered injuries. They were immediately shifted to K.G. Hospital, Visakhapatnam for treatment. The police registered a case in Crime No.84 of 2003 against the respondent No.1 in IV Town Traffic Police Station, Visakhapatnam. The claimant was treated in K.G. Hospital for one month. He spent Rs.5,000/- for treatment and Rs.1,000/- for transportation expenses. The claimant was earning Rs.150/- per day as owner-cum-driver of his auto. He lost his income for two months as he was confined to bed. He is unable to drive his auto. He claims compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. 3. The respondent No.1 remained ex parte. 4. The respondent No.2 filed a counter denying the averments in the petition and further stating that accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the claimant himself, and there was no negligence of the respondent No.1 in causing the accident. Thus, the respondent No.2 denied its liability. 3 BSB,J M.A.C.M.A.No.2541 of 2005 5. On behalf of the claimant, Claimant-Rahimunnisa Begum was examined as P.W.1. The following documents were marked on behalf of the claimant: Ex.A.1 24.10.2003 Attested copy of F.I.R. in Crime No.84/2003 of IV Town L & O Police Station, Visakhapatnam. Ex.A.2 - Attested copy of M.V. Inspector’s report. Ex.A.3 11.11.2003 Attested copy of wound certificate of the claimant issued by K.G. Hospital, Visakhapatnam. Ex.A.4 24.08.2003 O.P. chit (3) of P.W.1 issued by K.G. Hospital, Visakhapatnam. Ex.A.5 - C.T. scan report of P.W.1 The respondent No.1 / Madagala Adinarayana was examined as R.W.1. No documentary evidence was adduced. 6. It was deposed by the respondent No.1 before the Tribunal that the auto hit the bus on the left footboard on the rear end of the bus when the auto first hit a stationed lorry on the left side of the road and later hit the bus due to the impact of collision with the lorry. 7. The F.I.R. was registered against the respondent No.1. However, considering the oral evidence of the claimant, as well as the respondent No.1 examined as R.W.1 and the other documentary evidence, such as, the report of M.V.I., the Tribunal agreed with the argument of the respondent No.2, by observing that there was extensive damage to the front side of the auto and there was no damage to the bus on its front side, but there was only damage to the beeding above the left rear wheel of the bus. Thus, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition. 4 BSB,J M.A.C.M.A.No.2541 of 2005 8. Aggrieved by the award and the decree, this appeal was preferred by the claimant. The appeal against the respondent No.1 was dismissed for default as per the order, dated 17.11.2017. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that along with the claim petition of the appellant herein, his mother-in-law filed a separate claim petition in M.O.P.No.75 of 2004 before the same Tribunal and it was also dismissed on 30.03.2005. He further submitted that against the dismissal order, M.A.C.M.A.No.2544 of 2005 was filed before this Court and the same was allowed on 05.03.2020 by applying the principle of res ipsa loquitur and a lumpsum amount of Rs.50,000/- was granted due to the injuries suffered by her, such as, fracture of left wrist, considering that she is a vegetable vender. Therefore, he submitted that this appeal may also be allowed accordingly. 10. There is no representation for the respondent No.2. 11. To avoid conflict of decisions in respect of the matters arising out of the same accident, this Court is of the view that this appeal can also be disposed of on the same lines of findings as were held in the appeal in M.A.C.M.A.No.2544 of 2005 regarding the cause of the accident. It is relevant to note the findings of this Court in M.A.C.M.A.No.2544 of 2005, at paragraph No.2 which is excerpted here below: “After hearing the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant as well as the learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 – Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (A.P.S.R.T.C.) and perusing the material available on record, particularly, the observations at paragraph 10 of the order of the Tribunal, which were relied on by it while rejecting the claim, in my considered opinion, the Tribunal committed a grave error by not considering the principles applicable in claim cases. It is to be noted 5 BSB,J M.A.C.M.A.No.2541 of 2005 here that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies in the cases of the present nature. Though the Tribunal dealt with the manner in which the accident had taken place, it failed to apply the aforesaid doctrine. Therefore, the findings recorded by the Tribunal, while rejecting the claim, vitiate.” 12. In so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, each case shall be independently adjudicated depending on the nature of the injuries, the treatment taken, the expenses incurred, occupation etc. 13. The claimant has not examined any doctor with regard to the treatment. He filed a copy of wound certificate issued by K.G.Hospital, Visakhapatnam marked as Ex.A3, O.P.chits issued by K.G.Hospital marked as Ex.A4 and a C.T.Scan report marked as Ex.A5. As per Ex.A3, the claimant suffered (i) A2 X 4 c.m. laceration over the left templi and (ii) A1 x 1 c.m. laceration on the left upper eye lid. It is certified that there was bony injury. He was treated in the hospital on 24.10.2003. Though, he claimed to had been treated for one month, there is no evidence or record substantiating the same claim. As can be seen from the nature of the injuries referred in Ex.A3, they are very simple and don’t require prolonged treatment. The claimant further stated that he became dull due to injury to the head, but there is absolutely no evidence to substantiate the same. As such, considering the nature of the injuries suffered, an amount of Rs.5,000/- for each injury is just and reasonable to be granted towards compensation for pain and suffering. In addition thereto, to meet the other miscellaneous expenses, an amount of Rs.5,000/- is just and adequate. Since this Court granted interest @ 6.5% p.a., from the date of the petition till its realisation in the connected matter in M.A.C.M.A.No.2544 of 2005, the same rate of interest can be awarded to the appellant. 6 BSB,J M.A.C.M.A.No.2541 of 2005 14. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the decree and award dated 30.03.2005 in M.O.P.No.76 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal–cum-VII Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Visakhapatnam is set aside and the claim petition is allowed awarding compensation of Rs.15,000/- with interest @ 6.5% p.a. from the date of the claim petition till the date of realisation together with proportionate costs payable throughout by the respondent No.2. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed. ___________________ ___ JUSTICE B.S. BHANUMATHI GRL Date: 12.03.2026. 7 BSB,J M.A.C.M.A.No.2541 of 2005 175 THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI M.A.C.M.A.No. No:2541 of 2005 Date: 12.03.2026 GRL