APHC010287902020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 405/2020 Between: 1. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD, (OWNER OF APSRTC BUS NO.AP 28Z 5317) (NOW AT VIJAYAWADA). ...APPELLANT AND 1. MALLAVARAPU MALLESWARI, W/O.NAGESWARA RAO, HINDU, AGED 40 YEARS, R/O.CHILUVURU VILLAGE, DUGGIRALA MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. RAVURI SURESH, S/O.SUBBA RAO, R/O.MALKAPURAM VILLAGE, THULLURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT (DRIVER OF BUS BEARING NO. AP 28Z 5317) (THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IS NOT NECESSARY PARTY IN THIS APPEAL) ...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 01-02-2019 passed in M.V.O.P No. 31 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- XI Additional District Judge, Tenali, Guntur and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 252 days in presenting the appeal filed 2 against the Order and Decree dated 01-02-2019 passed in M.V.O.P No. 31 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Guntur- cum-XI Additional District Judge, Tenali, Guntur and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2020 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 01-02- 2019 passed in M.V.O.P No. 31 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Guntur-cum¬XI Additional District Judge, Tenali, Guntur including of execution proceedings pending disposal of the above M.A.C.M.A and pass 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 01.02.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.31 of 2016, on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XI Additional District Judge, Tenali, the present appeal is filed by APSRTC. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were referred before the Tribunal. 3. Though various grounds are raised in the present appeal, during the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant/ 2nd respondent confined his argument only in respect of quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 4. The petitioner filed petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-, on account of the injuries sustained by her in the accident that was occurred on 19.03.2016, in which, the bus belonging to APSRTC bearing registration No.AP 28 Z 5317 was involved. 5. It was the case of the petitioner that on 19.03.2016, she boarded auto bearing registration No.AP 07 TE 7962, so as to go to Tenali. When the auto reached Kattavaram Village, the driver of the offending bus/ 1st respondent came in opposite direction at high speed in rash and negligent manner and dashed the auto, as a result of which, the petitioner and the inmates of the auto sustained injuries. 4 6. It was the further case of the petitioner that she was taken to Government Hospital, Tenali, where, she underwent surgery. A case in Crime No.33 of 2006 was registered under Section 338 IPC, on the file of the Tenali Rural Police Station against the driver of the RTC bus/ 1st respondent. 7. It was the further case of the petitioner that she was an agricultural coolie and was earning Rs.300/- per day. In view of the injuries sustained by her, she lost her earning capacity and she also produced Disability Certificate to substantiate her case. In view of the injuries received by her, she approached the Tribunal seeking to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. The driver of the RTC bus/ 1st respondent remained ex-parte. The appellant/ 2nd respondent resisted the claim by contending that the auto, in which the petitioner was travelling was overloaded with passengers and due to the negligence of the driver of the auto, the accident was occurred. The 2nd respondent/ APSRTC also denied the age and income of the petitioner and further contended that the claim made was excessive. With the above pleadings, the 2nd respondent/ APSRTC prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 8. In order to prove the case of the petitioner, she was examined as P.W.1 and Dr.J. Hanumantharao, who treated the petitioner was examined as P.W.2. She also got marked Exs.P1 to P5. 9. On the other hand, the driver of the offending bus/ 1st respondent was examined as R.W.1 and no documentary evidence was marked on behalf of the respondents. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal by impugned order, 5 partly allowed the claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs.1,25,800/-, together with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/2nd respondent. 11. Despite service of notice, there is no representation for the respondents. 12. Perused the record. 13. As already stated supra, though various grounds were raised in the appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant/ 2nd respondent confined his argument, only in respect of the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 14. A perusal of the record, it is succinctly clear that except making a bald and vague allegation, stating that the petitioner is not entitled to receive the compensation, nothing is placed on record to disprove the evidence produced by the petitioner. 15. On the other hand, the petitioner got examined herself as P.W.1 and she deposed that, she received grievous injuries by reiterating the contents of the claim petition. 16. Further, the petitioner also examined Dr. J. Hanumantharao as P.W.2, who deposed that the petitioner sustained compound commuted fracture of right Patella, in the accident. He also deposed that there is stiffness in the right knee joint of the petitioner, due to the shortening of the right lower limb. 6 He also assessed the disability of the petitioner as 20% and issued Disability Certificate, which was marked as Ex.P5. He also issued Wound Certificate, which was marked as Ex.P3, whereunder, the injuries sustained by the petitioner were mentioned as injury below the knee, injury to lower right leg and as per the X-Ray report, there was fracture of Patella right knee, which is grievous in nature. 17. Furthermore, as per the evidence of the petitioner/ P.W.1, she deposed that she was an agricultural coolie and earning Rs.300/- per day. The Tribunal did not consider the evidence of P.W.1, inasmuch as, she has not filed any documentary evidence to substantiate the same. 18. Having considered the documentary evidence placed before the Tribunal, the Tribunal had fixed the income of the petitioner as Rs.4,000/- per month and accordingly, computed the compensation under various conventional heads and awarded Rs.1,25,800/-, together with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Though the learned counsel for the appellant/ 2nd respondent strenuously contend that the petitioner is not entitled to receive the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, as already discussed above, the learned counsel for the appellant/ 2nd respondent neither produced any documentary evidence nor adduced any evidence to disprove the case of the petitioner. Viewed from any angle, there are no merits in the present appeal and accordingly, the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 7 As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR Dt.24.03.2026 SCH 8 122 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR M.A.C.M.A.No.405 OF 2020 Date: 24.03.2026 SCH