APHC010242642022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 192/2022 Between: 1. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REP.BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD, OWNER OF BUS NO. AP10 Z 2656, (NOW AT RTC HOUSE, PNBS, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT). ...APPELLANT AND 1. KANCHETI VENKATESWARA RAO, S/O TIRUPATHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O 6/14, BRODIPET,GUNTUR. 2. BANAVATH BALAJI NAIK, SON OF LAXMINAIK, RIO KOTANEMALIPURI (V), PIDUGURALLA (M), GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased toto allow the MACMA by setting aside the Order and Decree dated 27-05-2020 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 950 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum III ADDL. District Judge, Guntur and pass 2 VS,J M.A.C.M.A.NO.192 OF 2022 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 pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the Order and Decree dated 27-05-2020 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 950 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum III ADDL. District Judge, Guntur including of execution proceedings, pending disposal of the above MACMA and pass 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 grant permission to the Petitioner/1st Respondent to withdraw the deposited amount pursuant to the Order of the Hon'ble High Court passed in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in MACMA No.192 of 2022 dated 13-06-2022 to the credit of MVOP NO.950 of 2017 on the file of MACT-cum-III Addl.District Judge, Guntur and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. B PARAMESEWARA RAO The Court made the following: 3 VS,J M.A.C.M.A.NO.192 OF 2022 ORDER The present appeal is filed aggrieved by order dated 27.05. 2020 passed in MVOP No.950 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Guntur, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.1,41,647/- as against the claim of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant in a motor accident that occurred on 08.07.2008. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The claimant filed the claim petition under Section 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act r/w Rules 455 and 476 of APMV Rules, claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injuries sustained in a motor accident that occurred on 08.07.2008. On the date of incident at 3.45 p.m., when the claimant was going on his cycle as pillion rider from Piduguralla to Krsuru and when they reached near Dodleru village, the driver of the respondent bus bearing No.AP 10Z 2656 coming in opposite direction, drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant, who fell down and sustained injuries and fracture on his 4 VS,J M.A.C.M.A.NO.192 OF 2022 right leg and caused dislocation of knee. Immediately, he was shifted to Vunnam hospital, Piduguralla. A case in Crime No.86 of 2008 was registered of Krosuru Police station against the driver of bus punishable under section 338 of IPC. Hence, the claim petition. 4. The respondent corporation filed its written statement denying and disputing the manner of accident, the age, income and occupation of the claimant. The respondent also disputed the nature of injuries, the treatment and the expenditure as claimed by the claimant. There was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. The owner, rider and insurer of bike are necessary and proper parties and in their absence the claim is not maintainable. The claim made by the claimant is excessive. 5. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial. i. Whether the petitioner Kancheti Venkateswara Rao received injuries in the road accident occurred on 08.07.2008 near Dodleru village, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Bsu bearing No. AP 10Z 2656? 5 VS,J M.A.C.M.A.NO.192 OF 2022 ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount, and against whom? iii. To what relief? 6. During the course of trial, on behalf of the claimant, PW1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A9 were marked. On the other hand, RW.1 was examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the respondent. 7. The Tribunal, based on the evidence of PW-1 coupled with documentary evidence of Exs.A.1 to A.9, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus on account of which the claimant sustained injuries. Accordingly, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.1,41,647/- under various heads towards compensation with interest at 7.5% p.a. payable by the respondents to the claimant from the date of petition till the date of realization with proportionate costs. Assailing the same, the present appeal is filed. 8. Heard Mr.Aravala Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-APSRTC and Mr.B.Parameswara Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 6 VS,J M.A.C.M.A.NO.192 OF 2022 9. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal failed to take into account the contributory negligence on the part of the respondent-claimant and granted compensation towards loss of earning for a period of four months without there being any evidence. The compensation awarded under various heads is exorbitant and excessive. 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions of the learned standing counsel, as seen from the award under appeal, this Court found that the finding of the Tribunal that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus on account of which the respondent-claimant sustained injuries became final and needs no interference in the absence of any substantial evidence on the part of the appellant Corporation, though they pleaded about rashness and negligence on the part of the respondent-claimant. 11. 11. Coming to aspect of non-joinder of owner and insurer of the motor cycle as necessary parties to the claim, the Tribunal categorically held that as per the Ex.A2, charge sheet, the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of 7 VS,J M.A.C.M.A.NO.192 OF 2022 the RTC bus, but not the driver of the motor cycle. As such, the owner and insurer of the motor cycle are not necessary parties. The said finding became final in the absence of cogent evidence. On perusal of the award, this court found that while awarding compensation under various heads, the Tribunal has given specific reasons for grant of the amounts under each head and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the reasons assigned for award of such amounts are just and reasonable and are well founded. Hence, the contentions of the learned standing counsel for the appellant are unsustainable and have no merit. 12. So far as the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, it can be seen from the impugned award that PW.1 adduced evidence to show that he is an agricultural coolie and used to earn Rs,5,000/- per month. Considering that the same was not challenged, the Tribunal deemed it just and proper to take the income of the petitioner Rs.5,000/- per month, which, in the opinion of this Court, is proper and needs no interference. 13. Considering the nature of the injuries suffered by the claimant and the surgery he has undergone, the Tribunal found 8 VS,J M.A.C.M.A.NO.192 OF 2022 that he could not attend the work for a period of four months. Therefore, the loss of earnings was rightly calculated at Rs.20,000/-(Rs.5000/-x4months). Further, considering the Ex.A3- wound certificate showing that the claimants suffered fracture of right leg and right knee dislocation, the Tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/- for injuries and extra-nourishment, Rs.40,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.20,000/- towards transportation, which is just and proper. Further, the petitioner filed Exs.A7 & A8-medical bills to prove the medical expenses incurred by him and as per the said documents, he spent Rs.29,000/-+Rs.12,647/-in total Rs.41,647/- towards medical expenses. In total, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,41,647/-, which in the considered opinion of this Court, is just and proper and needs no interference in this appeal. Therefore, the appeal is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 14. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed confirming the award dated 27.05.2020 passed in M.V.O.P.No.950 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Guntur. There shall be no order as to costs. 9 VS,J M.A.C.M.A.NO.192 OF 2022 As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. _____________ V. SUJATHA, J 27.01.2026 LSP