APHC010256882019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 804/2019 Between: 1. APSRTC, REP. BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER REGIONAL OFFICE, ELURU DEPOT WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...APPELLANT AND 1. ANASURI BABY RAJYA LAKSHMI, 0/0 BALARAMA KRISHNA. AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/O CHAGALLU VILLAGE AND MANDAL WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT 2. RAMAGIRI BHUTHA KASIYYA, S/O BUDESAHEB AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, DRIVER OF APSRTC BUS BEARING BUS NO AP-28-Z- 2528 R/O D.NO. 4-18 SINGARAPALLI VILLAGE BESTAVARIPETA MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Kovvur passed in M.V.O.P No. 121 OF 2017 dated 19.3.2019 and pass 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 to condone the delay of 52 days in filing the Appeal against the Judgment and Decree passed by Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IX 2 TCDS,J MACMA No.804 of 2019 Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Kovvur passed in M.V.O.P No. 121 OF 2017 dated 19.3.2019 and pass IA NO: 2 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 to grant stay of execution of Decree passed by the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Kovvur passed in M.V.O.P No. 121 OF 2017 dated 19.3.2019 pending disposal of the above M.A.C.M.A No. /2019 and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. K SRINIVASA PRASAD SC For APSRTC Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. NAMBURI SREEMANNARAYANA The Court made the following: 3 TCDS,J MACMA No.804 of 2019 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR MACMA No.804 of 2019 JUDGMENT:- Aggrieved by order dated 19.03.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.121 of 2017 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- IX Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Kovvur, the present appeal is filed by APSRTC. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were referred before the Tribunal. 2. The petitioner filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act read with Rule 455 of A.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, claiming compensation of Rs.16,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in the accident that was occurred on 16.08.2016 in which the bus belonging to the appellant/ respondent, bearing registration No. AP 28 Z 2528 was involved. 3. The case of the petitioner is that she was working in a sewing mill at Lalacheruvu and was earning Rs.7,000/- per month. It is further stated that on 16.08.2016, while she was travelling as a pillion rider on a moped, when it reached near the road-cum-rail bridge at Kovvur, the offending bus driven by Respondent No.1 came in the opposite direction and dashed against the two- wheeler. As a result, the petitioner and her father fell on the road and sustained grievous injuries. It is the specific case of the petitioner that Respondent No.1 drove the bus at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, thereby caused the accident. Immediately, the petitioner was taken to 4 TCDS,J MACMA No.804 of 2019 the Government Hospital, Rajahmundry, and later shifted to G.G.H., Kakinada for better treatment. While she was undergoing treatment, her left leg was amputated. It is further stated that she spent a huge amount towards medical expenses and also for the fixation of an artificial limb. In view of the same, the petitioner approached the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.16,00,000/-. 4. Respondent No.1 remained ex-parte. Respondent No.2 filed a counter- affidavit denying all the averments made in the claim petition. It was contended that there was no negligence on the part of Respondent No.1, the driver of the offending bus, and further stated that it is for the petitioner to prove that she was earning Rs.7,000/- per month. It was further averred that the driver of the moped, in order to overtake a vehicle moving in front, drove the two-wheeler at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and thereby lost control over it and dashed the offending bus coming in the opposite direction. It was further contended that the accident was occurred due to the negligent driving of the moped and that there was 100% negligence on the part of the rider. Therefore, it was contended that, Respondent No.2 is not liable to pay the compensation as claimed. With the above pleadings, it was prayed that the claim petition be dismissed. 5. In support of her case, the petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and the doctors who treated her were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3. She also got marked Exs.A1 to A8. On the other hand, the respondents neither adduced any oral evidence nor marked any documentary evidence. Based on the material placed before the Tribunal, after framing the issues and hearing the 5 TCDS,J MACMA No.804 of 2019 parties, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.14,98,000/- as compensation together with interest at 9% per annum, directing Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to pay the said amount jointly and severally from the date of the petition till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed. 6. Heard Ms. Bhavani, learned counsel representing Sri K. Srinivasa Prasad, learned standing counsel for the appellant and Sri Z. Bhanu Raja, learned counsel, representing Namburi Srimanarayana, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1. 7. Despite service of notice, there is no appearance for the respondent No.2. 8. Perused the record. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant would strenuously contend that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the moped, inasmuch as the rider, in order to overtake the vehicle moving in front of him, drove the two-wheeler in rash and negligent manner. In the said process, he lost control over the vehicle and dashed against the offending bus coming in the opposite direction. As the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the rider of the two-wheeler, it is contended that the appellant, APSRTC, is not liable to pay compensation. 10. On a perusal of the record, it is clear that in order to substantiate the said contention, Respondent No.2/appellant neither adduced any oral evidence nor marked any documentary evidence. 6 TCDS,J MACMA No.804 of 2019 11. On the contrary, the petitioner herself was examined as P.W.1. From the evidence of P.W.1, it is evident that the petitioner was consistent with her stand regarding the manner in which the accident was occurred. Right from the inception of the case, it has been the case of the petitioner that Respondent No.1, the driver of the offending bus, was responsible for the occurrence of the accident, inasmuch as he drove the vehicle at high speed and in rash and negligent manner. Though P.W.1 was cross-examined at length, nothing was elicited to disprove her version. Except making bald and vague averments in the counter-affidavit, the respondents have not placed any material on record to contradict the evidence of P.W.1. In the circumstances, it can be held that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending bus by Respondent No.1. Therefore, the contention of the appellant in this regard cannot be countenanced and the same is hereby rejected. 12. Further, the learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of a necessary party, inasmuch as the insurer of the two-wheeler was not impleaded as a party respondent to the claim petition. In this context, it is pertinent to note that Respondent No.2/APSRTC has failed to establish that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the rider of the moped. It is a settled proposition of law that unless the appellant is able to prove that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the rider of the two-wheeler, the question of impleading the insurer of the two-wheeler does not arise, and the same is not fatal to the case 7 TCDS,J MACMA No.804 of 2019 on hand. Accordingly, the said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is also rejected. 13. Coming to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, it is evident from the record that the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and that her left leg was amputated and she also underwent surgery. In support of her contention, she examined the doctors who treated her as P.Ws.2 and 3. 14. On a perusal of the evidence of P.W.2, Dr. S. Ramesh Chandra Kumar, it is evident that the petitioner suffered two grievous injuries on her left leg and right foot and that both the injuries are grievous in nature. Further, a Surgery was conducted amputating her left limb up to the knee joint level and further treatment was also given for skin grafting. 15. The petitioner also examined Dr. U. Raghvendra Rao as P.W.3, who was the Principal of the District Medical Board, who issued the disability certificate stating that the petitioner suffered permanent disability which was assessed as 85%. On perusal of the evidence of P.W.3, it is clear that the petitioner requires an artificial limb to attend to her daily activities. On appreciation of the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, it is clear that the petitioner has suffered permanent disability and amputation of her left leg. As already stated supra, except denying that the petitioner is entitled to receive compensation, the respondents have miserably failed to substantiate their contention in this regard. 8 TCDS,J MACMA No.804 of 2019 16. Further, the learned counsel for the appellant would strenuously contend that the Tribunal erred in taking the age of the petitioner as 26 years, whereas she was aged about 31 years even as per the cause title of the claim petition. In this connection, it is pertinent to note that the claim petition was filed on 26.10.2017. Even prior to filing the petition, a complaint was lodged before the police informing about the accident that occurred on 16.08.2016. The said complaint was registered as Crime No.187 of 2016. A perusal of the complaint and the copy of the F.I.R., which was marked as Ex.A1, would show that the age of the petitioner was mentioned as 26 years as on the date of the accident. 17. Further, the same is corroborated by the documents filed by the petitioner along with the claim petition, namely the wound certificate, charge sheet and discharge summary, which were marked as Exs.A2, A4 and A5 respectively. 18. Though in the claim petition the age of the petitioner was mentioned as 31 years, on perusal of the documents filed along with the claim petition, it can be held that the petitioner was aged 26 years as on the date of the accident. In such circumstances, the contention of the appellant that the petitioner was aged 31 years as on the date of the accident cannot be accepted and accordingly the same is rejected. 19. On a reading of the order under challenge, it is evident that the Tribunal, having considered the oral and documentary evidence of the petitioner, rightly 9 TCDS,J MACMA No.804 of 2019 fixed the income of the petitioner as Rs.6,000/- per month and, after following the due procedure, fixed the compensation as Rs.14,98,000/- to be paid together with interest at 9% per annum. Though the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the same is excessive, as already noted supra, the appellant/APSRTC has miserably failed to produce any evidence to disprove the contentions of the petitioner. In such circumstances, the order under challenge does not require interference by this Court. For the reasons recorded supra, there are no merits in the appeal and accordingly the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR 13.03.2026 JLSR 10 TCDS,J MACMA No.804 of 2019 135 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR MACMA.No: 804 of 2019 Date: 13.03.2026 JLSR