1 APHC010298252019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] FRIDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 989/2019 Between: 1.APSRTC, REP.BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER RTC COMPLEX AMALAPURAM EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1.CHAVALI SAI BABU ALIAS SAMUEL RAJU, S/O.NARAYANA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS PASTOR DOOR NO.13-204/2 BALAYOGI CANAL ROAD MUMMIDIVARAM MUMMUDIVARAM MANDAL EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2.KALAVAKOLANU SRINIVASA ADINARAYANA, S/O.SATYANARAYANA HINDU AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS KALAVAKOLANI VARI STREET AMALAPURAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT DRIVER OF APTSRTC BUS BEARING NO.AP-29Z-3671 ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased topleased to allow the appeal by setting aside the judgement and Decree passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal II Additional District Judge East Godavari at amalapuram passed in M.V.O.P.No.31 of 2015 dated 18-04-2018 and pass 2 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 pleased to grant stay of execution of Decree passed by the Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -II Additional District Judge at Amalapuram passed in M.V.O.P.No.220 of 2015 dated 18-05-2019 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. The Court made the following: 3 JUDGMENT:- 1. The present appeal is filed by APSRTC aggrieved by order dt.18.05.2019 in MVOP No.220 of 2015, on the file of Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II Additional District Judge, Amalapuram. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were referred before the Tribunal. 3. The petitioner field claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 r/w. Rules made there under claiming compensation of Rs.8 lakhs along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that on 04.09.2014, while he was driving on his motorcycle bearing Registration No.AP05BP 8515 when he reached market Centre, Mummidivaram, the offending APSRTC bus bearing Registration No.AP29Z 3671 came in opposite direction in rash and negligent manner at high speed without blowing horn and dashed the petitioner. As a result of which, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries i.e., (i) Bone depth injury at right knee 3 x 2 x 1 cm (at right Distal 1/3rd part of femur) (ii) An abrasion of size 6 x 2 cm on 4 right leg (iii) An abrasion of size 3 x 4 cm on right Dorsum of foot- restriction of moments. (iv) X-ray shows open Supra Condylar Fracture of right femur and other multiple injuries all over the body. 5. It is further case of the petitioner that he was taken to KIMS Hospital, Amalapuram and was treated as inpatient. Further, it is his case that during the course of treatment major surgeries were done on his right femur, which was badly fractured and implants were fixed at the time of the surgery. It is further case of the petitioner that four (04) surgeries were also done to correct the bones and the ligaments for which he has spent more than 3 lakhs towards medical expenses and he is still taking treatment as outpatient. In view of the injuries received by him, he could not regain his normal health and suffered pain and mental agony. 6. It is further stated that the petitioner was aged 48 years at the time of accident and he was hale and healthy. It is further case of the petitioner that, he was Pastor by profession and earning an amount of Rs.9,000/- per month and the same was being contributed to his family. It is further contended that the right leg of the petitioner became stiff and he could not fold his 5 right leg and the movements have been restricted. It is further stated that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent. In those circumstances, he filed the above MVOP claiming an amount of Rs.8 lakhs towards compensation against the respondents. 7. The respondent No.1 remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. The respondent No.2 resisted the claim by filing counter affidavit denying the averments made in support of the claim petition by contending that there was no rash and negligent on the part of the 1st respondent/driver. 8. Further, it is contended that despite caution given by the 1st respondent, the petitioner has driven motorcycle in rash and negligent manner and dashed the bumper of the bus and fell down. Further, the 1st respondent denied the age of the petitioner and put the petitioner to strict proof of income claimed by him. It is further contended in the counter affidavit that, the compensation claimed by the petitioner was excessive and that the petitioner did not suffer any disability as alleged by him. With the above pleadings, the 2nd respondent prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 6 9. To substantiate the case of the petitioner, he was examined as PW-1 and examined doctors, who treated him as PWs.2 & 3. He also marked Exs.A1 to A6 on his behalf. On the other hand, the 1st respondent was examined as RW-1 and no documentary evidence was placed. Having considered the oral and documentary evidence of the parties, the Tribunal by impugned order allowed the claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs.8 lakhs together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the appellant/APSRTC. 10. Heard counsel for the appellant. Despite service of notice on respondents, there is no appearance for them. 11. Perused the record. 12. The counsel for the appellant would strenuously contend that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle by the petitioner. In order to substantiate the same, the driver of APSRTC bus was examined as RW-1. On perusal of the evidence of RW-1, it is evident that he deposed in lines with the averments made in the counter 7 affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent. Further during the cross- examination, the driver of APSRTC bus/RW-1 has clearly admitted that there is no negligence on the part of the petitioner. In view of the categorical admission made by the RW-1/the driver of APSRTC bus, the contention of the counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted and therefore, it can be held the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent and the same is evident on perusal of Exs.A1 to A4 i.e., the copies of FIR and Charge Sheet, which also corroborated with the contention of the petitioner. Accordingly the said contention is hereby rejected. 13. In order to prove that the claim of the petitioner, he has examined the doctors who treated him as PWs.2 & 3. On perusal of the evidence of PW-2, Dr.B.S.S.Venkateswarlu, it is clear that there is stiffness of right knee and ligamentous damage and laxity of right knee leading internal re-arrangement leading to 10 decrees movement passive and there is shortening of half inch to the right lower limb. Further, PW-2 also issued Disability Certificate, which was marked as Ex.A6. Further the petitioner also examined Dr.P.Subba Rao as PW-3, who deposed that he examined the petitioner on 04.09.2014 and issued Wound 8 Certificate on the very same day, which was marked as Ex.A2 and the petitioner was treated as inpatient for a period of 73 days. Apart from the same, the petitioner also filed bunch of medical bills, which were marked as Ex.A5 along with case sheet and two X-rays, which were marked as Ex.X1 and X2 through PW-2. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence placed by the petitioner, it is clear that he has spent considerable amount towards the surgery and follow up treatment for the injuries sustained by him. 14. Further taking into consideration of the case, though the petitioner claimed that he was earning an amount of Rs.9,000/- per month, the Tribunal has taken the income of the petitioner as Rs.5,000/- and awarded compensation of Rs.8 lakhs together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization by following the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in “Sarala Varma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another”1 15. Though, the counsel for the appellant contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was excessive and 1 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) 9 the petitioner is not entitled to receive the same, as already noted supra, the respondent have not placed anything on record to disprove the case of the petitioner. In the absence of any evidence, the contention of the appellant is liable to be rejected. 16. For the reasons record supra, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the order under challenge. Viewed from any angle, there are no merits in the present appeal. 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 30.01.2026 DR 10 06 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR MACMA No.989 of 2019 Date 30.01.2026 U DR