APHC010358632022 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: 261/2022 Between: 1. THE APSRTC, THE APSRTC REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR AND VICE CHAIRMAN, APSRTC HOUSE, RTC BUS STATION, VIJAYAWADA. ...APPELLANT AND 1. R SRINIVASULU NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, S/O LATE R.KRISHNAIAH NAIDU, HINDU, R/O D.NO. 12/112, DEMALCHERUVU, NENDRAGUNTA ROAD, OPP RAILWAY STATION, PAKALA, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 2. T RAGHUNATHAN, S/O LATE T.VENKATASWAMI, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, HINDU, DRIVER OF THE BUS BEARING NO. AP 03 Z 5171, R/O PATHAPALYAM VILLAGE, IRALA MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying that the High court may be pleased to Aggrieved by the order and decree dated 15.03.2021 passed in MVOP No. 74 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Chittoor 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 condone the delay of 49 days in filing the appeal against the judgment and 2 VS,J MACMA.No.261 of 2022 decree passed On the Me of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Chittoor passed in MVOP No.74 of 2018 dt. 15.03.2021 and pass IA NO: 2 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 execution of decree in pursuant to MVOP No. 74 of 2018 dated. 15.03.2021 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Chittoor pending disposal of the above MACMA and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. KONDAPARTHY KIRAN KUMAR The Court made the following: 3 VS,J MACMA.No.261 of 2022 JUDGMENT: The APSRTC filed the present appeal challenging the order and decree 15.03.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.74 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chittoor, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.6,76,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs and Seventy Six thousand only) to the claimant/respondent No.1 herein, as against the claim of Rs.15,00,000/-, for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that occurred on 29.11.2016. 02. 02. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 03. The case of the petitioner is briefly as follows: On 29.11.2016, the injured/petitioner came to Chittoor in a bus. He got down at LGB Towers and he was waiting for an auto to go to Chittoor Court to attend his work at 10.30 am. At that time, an APSRTC bus bearing registration No.AP03-Z-5171 driven by 1st respondent/driver, came in a rash and negligent manner from Chittoor side in high speed and negligently turned the bus to its right to go to APSRTC new bus-stand and in that process hit against the injured/petitioner, who as on the road side waiting for the auto. Due to the impact, the injured fell down to his left and injured his left hand at the elbow and he received bleeding injuries on his both legs and all over the body and hip. Immediately, he was admitted in Government Hospital, Chittoor. The petitioner was maintaining the entire agricultural operations and getting annual 4 VS,J MACMA.No.261 of 2022 income of Rs.10,00,000/-. Petitioner spent huge amount in the hospital for treatment, which amounts to Rs.2,58,000/-. After coverage of Mediclaim, still he continues to take treatment and the hospitalization and expenditure is continued. Due to the injuries, the petitioner sustained a physical disability of 75% as assessed by the Doctors Orthopedic Surgeon at CARE Hospital, Hyderabad. Therefore, he sought compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- from the respondents. 04. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 remained ex parte. 05. Respondent No.2/APSRTC filed counter, denying the averments in the petition and putting the petitioner to strict proof of the allegations as set out in the petition. At the time of accident, 1st respondent as driving the vehicle carefully by observing the traffic rules but the petitioner without observing the traffic in the road, came and contacted the bus, absolutely there is no negligence on the part of the respondent No.1, hence respondent No.2 is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. The compensation claimed is highly excessive. Thus, it is prayed to dismiss the petition. 06. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether the petitioner/R.Srinivasulu Naidu, sustained injuries in the accident that was occurred on 29.11.2016 due to rash and negligent driving of driver/1st respondent of APSRTC bus bearing registration No.AP03-Z-5171? 5 VS,J MACMA.No.261 of 2022 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief?” 07. On behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A9 and Exs.X1 and X2 were marked. On behalf of respondent No.2, R.W.1 was examined and no documents were marked. 08. After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal partly allowed with proportionate costs, awarding the compensation of Rs.6,76,000/-, by holding that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation, and directing the 2nd respondent, who is the employer of 1st respondent to deposit the above said compensation amount within one month from the date of award with interest at 7.5% per annum thereon from the date of petition, till realization. Considering the age of the petitioner/injured, on deposit of the compensation, the petitioner/injured is entitled to receive the entire compensation amount in lump-sum. 09. Aggrieved by the said award, the respondent No.2/APSRTC preferred this appeal contending that the Tribunal failed to consider that, evidently at the time of the accident the injured negligently in a zig-zag manner tried to cross the road which resulted in the accident and he sustained injuries. Therefore, the RTC is not liable to pay any compensation. The Tribunal erred in law the Ex.A4 i.e., wound certificate issued by the Pw.2 who is not a qualified doctor 6 VS,J MACMA.No.261 of 2022 and that his/her evidence is not at all relevant, therefore, prayed to allow the appeal. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimant/respondent No.1 herein has supported the impugned award and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 11. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? POINT: 13. It is the only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is contributory negligence on the part of the injured in occurrence of the incident. The Tribunal failed to consider the said aspect and Tribunal also erred in law by accepting Ex.A4 wound certificate issued by PW2 who is not a qualified doctor, his evidence is not at all relevant and not in accordance with law. 14. In view of the above contention, this Court perused the material placed on record. To prove the rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus, the claimants got examined PWs 1 and 2 and got marked Ex.A1 to A9 and Ex.X1 and X2 documents. 15. The Tribunal considering the evidence of PW1 – injured person, who deposed with regard to the nature of the accident coupled with Ex.A1 certified copy of FIR, Ex.A2 certified copy of charge sheet, which was filed by the police after due investigation as against respondent No.1, who is the driver of 7 VS,J MACMA.No.261 of 2022 the offending vehicle, Ex.A3 certified copy of the accident information report, Ex.A5 certified copy of the judgment in C.C.No.493 of 2016 on the file of III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor, wherein respondent No.1 in the capacity of the accused made appearance before the trial Court, and when he was examined under Section 251 of Cr.P.C., he admitted the offence, as such III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor, gave finding that the accused voluntarily admitted the offence, as such, he is found guilty for the offence under Section 338 of I.P.C. and convicted under Section 252 of Cr.P.C., answered issue No.1 in favour of the claimants, which in the opinion of this Court is well considered, which in fact basing on the documents placed before the Tribunal. 16. 16. As per the Ex.X2 discharge summary, Ex.A9 X-rays, Ex.A6 medical bills, Ex.A8 letter addressed by consultant plastic surgeon CARE hospital and Ex.A7 injury certificate shows the details of surgeries and also the percentage of disability as 75% issued by the CARE hospital, Hyderabad clearly reveals the treatment undergone by the injured/petitioner. When the said treatment is endorsed by the various documents mentioned above supported by the evidence of PW2, Doctor, and unchallenged evidence goes to prove the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent act of the 1st respondent/driver. 17. Now, with regard to the compensation, though the age of the deceased was 80 years as on the date of accident, the claimant was hale and healthy and he was looking after his family, as such the Tribunal below considered the 8 VS,J MACMA.No.261 of 2022 worth of supervisory value of the petitioner at the rate of Rs.150/- per day, as such took as Rs.4,500/- per month for a period of four months which would come to Rs.18,000/- towards loss of earnings during the period of treatment and during the period of bed-rest. In addition to the above, the Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.2,58,000/- towards medical expenditure, Rs.3,50,000/- towards compensation for the multiple fractures and multiple surgical procedures, Rs.25,000/- towards transport charges and Rs.25,000/- towards extra-nourishment. Sl. No. Heads Amount awarded 1 Loss of earnings during the period of treatment and during the period of bed- rest (in the form of supervisory values) Rs.18,000/- 2 Medical expenditure Rs.2,58,000/- 3 Compensation for the multiple fractures and multiple surgical procedures Rs.3,50,000/- 4 Transport charges Rs.25,000/- 5 Extra-nourishment Rs.25,000/- Total: Rs.6,76,000/- 18. In total, the Tribunal below awarded Rs.6,76,000/- to the claimants. Thus, no interference is required with the said finding of the Tribunal. 19. Having regard to the above discussion, no interference necessitates to the findings recorded by the Tribunal regarding all aspects and as there is no 9 VS,J MACMA.No.261 of 2022 need to disturb the well-articulated order passed by the Tribunal, as such, the appeal preferred by the appellants is liable for dismissal. 20. Viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the award impugned in this appeal. 21. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 27.01.2026 PBS