APHC010377122019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1164/2019 Between: 1. THE APSRTC, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, VIJAYAWADA, AMARAVATHI. ...APPELLANT AND 1. NALLAPPAGARI SUBBA REDDY, S/O CHINNAPPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, HINDU, RETIRED DCC BANK MANAGER, CULTIVATION, RESIDING AT PLOT NO. 32, THATITHOPU, CHERLOPALLE POST, TIRUPATHI TOWN, CHITTOOR DIST., NOW RESIDING AT KOTHAPETA, RAYACHOTY TOWN AND POST, YSR KADAPA DIST., 2. MUPPALLA VENKATA RAJU, S/O NAGHGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, HINDU, RESIDING AT NAGARAJUPALLE, H/O GOPAGUDIPALLE VILLAGE, RAMAPURAM MANDAL, DRIVER OF APSRTC BUS BEARING NO. AP 28-Z-4014. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased toThe Judgment and Decree dated 18.07.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.38/2018 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - V Addl. District Judge, Rayachoty, YSR Kadapa Dist. 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 stay of all further proceedings including the execution proceedings in M.V.O.P. No.38/2018 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Cum - V Addl. District Judge, Rayachoty, YSR Kadapa Dist. Counsel for the Appellant: 1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: 3 The Court made the following judgment: The present appeal is filed by APSRTC, aggrieved by the order dated 18.07.2019 in MVOP No.38 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were referred before the Tribunal. 3. The petitioner filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that was occurred on 29.07.2017, in which the offending RTC bus bearing registration No.AP 28 Z 4014 was involved. 4. The case of the petitioner is that on 29.07.2017 at about 08.30 a.m. when he was about to board the offending bus, the driver of the offending bus suddenly moved the bus, thereby the petitioner fell down due to which, he sustained grievous injuries. The petitioner was immediately taken to Government Area Hospital, Rayachoty, and he was admitted there as in-patient. Subsequently, he was shifted to Narayanadri Hospital, Tirupati, where he underwent surgery. Thereafter, he was taking treatment in the said hospital for a period of 25 days as in-patient. A report was given 4 against the 1st respondent-driver and the same was registered in Crime No.469 of 2017 under Section 338 of IPC and Section 184 of Motor Vehicles Act. The said crime was investigated into and charge sheet was filed against the 1st respondent-driver of the offending bus. 5. It is further case of the petitioner that in the accident he sustained crush injuries to his right foot with amputation of right foot of lower limb hanging with tendons and bleeding injuries all over the body. The post operative period was uneventful. In view of the injuries received by him, he approached the Tribunal by filing the said OP. The 1st respondent-driver of the offending vehicle filed counter affidavit resisting the claim by denying the averments made in the claim petition, inter-alia contending that there was no negligence on his part and prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. A separate counter affidavit was filed by APSRTC stating that while the petitioner was crossing the in-gate entrance of RTC Bus Stand, without observing the ongoing vehicles in zigzag manner, the petitioner fell down on the road in a hurry mood and in view of the same, the accident was occurred. It was further contended that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending bus and that the registration of crime and filing of charge sheet were only for the purpose of filing the present claim 5 petition. It was further contended that the petitioner has not placed any medical data to prove the injuries sustained by him. It was also contended that the compensation claimed by the petitioner was excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 7. In order to prove the case of the petitioner, he was examined as PW.1 and examined Dr.V.Sumanda Kumar Reddy as P.W.2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. On the other hand, the respondents neither adduced any oral evidence nor placed any documentary evidence before the Tribunal. 8. Considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence put forth by the petitioner, the Tribunal, by the impugned order, partly allowed by awarding compensation of Rs.3,07,154/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition (08.05.2018) till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. 9. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Despite service of notice, there is no appearance for the 1st respondent. The 2nd respondent is shown as not necessary party. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant would strenuously contend that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner inasmuch as while crossing the in-gate entrance of the RTC bus stand, the petitioner, without observing the ongoing 6 vehicles, came in zigzag manner and thereby the petitioner himself fell down on the road, due to which the accident was occurred. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that it was specifically pleaded the said fact before the Tribunal and that the same was not properly appreciated at all and therefore the order under challenge is liable to be interdicted and set aside by this Court. The said contention of the appellant cannot be countenanced inasmuch as, on a perusal of the record, it is succinctly clear that except making a bald allegation in the counter affidavit, nothing was placed on record to show that the petitioner was negligent at the time of boarding the offending RTC bus. 11. Further, to substantiate the same, the appellant neither produced any oral or documentary evidence. On the other hand, the petitioner himself was examined as PW.1, who deposed reiterating the averments made in support of the claim petition. Apart from the same, the petitioner also got marked Exs.A1 and A2, copies of FIR and Charge Sheet, respectively. 12. On perusal of the above documentary evidence, it is clear that a case was registered against the 1st respondent and after investigating into the same, a charge sheet was filed stating that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. 7 13. The above oral and documentary evidence put forth by the petitioner would clinch that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent-driver. Further, as already noted supra, the respondents miserably failed to disprove the oral and documentary evidence produced by the petitioner. In the absence of any record, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted and the same is hereby rejected. 14. On a perusal of Exs.A3 to A5, it is evident that the petitioner sustained crush injury to his right foot with traumatic amputation of later ¾ of foot hanging with tendors. In view of the said injury, it is very difficult for the petitioner to walk. Further, P.W.2, the doctor who treated the petitioner also assessed the disability of the petitioner as 30%. 15. The other contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal ought not to have taken into consideration the disability certificate marked as Ex.A5 issued by Naryanadri Hospital, Tirupati, inasmuch as the same was issued by a private doctor. The said contention of the petitioner is also liable to be rejected in view of the fact that this Court in the case of Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Proddatur Vs. 8 Durgam Hussainaiah and Another1, held that compensation can be awarded on the basis of disability certificate issued by private doctor, in assessing the loss of earnings. 16. The Tribunal, relying on the above oral and documentary evidence and considering the facts of the case, awarded an amount of Rs.3,07,154/- as compensation together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum by following the guidelines set out in the Judgment in Sarla Verma Vs Delhi Transport Corporation, rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 17. 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. 18. Accordingly, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal 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 Dt.29.01.2026 JLV 1 2013 (2) ALT 430 9 13 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MACMA.No.1164 OF 2019 Date: 29.01.2026 JLV