1 MACMA NO. 604 OF 2023 VS,J. APHC010443312023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 604/2023 Between: 1. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, BUS STATION, APSRTC, KADAPA DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1. MOHAMMAD JEELAM BASHA, S/O. GHOUSE MOHIDDIN, AGE 36YRS, DEPUTY MANAGER,IN ICICI BANK, RESIDING AT D.NO. 3/99, SIVALINGAM PALI STREET, NAGARAJUPET,KADAPA CITY. 2. P CHENDRAIAH, S/O P.VENKATA KAMANA AGED 49YRS, HINDU, DRIVER APSRTC BUS BEARING NO. AP03-Z- 0161, KADAPA DEPOT, KADAPA DIST. (RESPONDENT NO.2 IS NOT NECESSARY PARTY) ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant: 1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. V R REDDY KOVVURI The Court made the following: 2 MACMA NO. 604 OF 2023 VS,J. THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 604/2023 J U D G M E N T: 1. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short APSRTC) has preferred the present Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (for short MACMA) challenging the Order and Decree dated 22.09.2022 in M.V.O.P.No.210 of 2018 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short MACT) –cum- IVAdditional District Judge, Kadapa, for awarding compensation of Rs.9,31,536/- to the petitioneras against the claim of Rs.10,00,000/-. For the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal i.e., appellant herein as 1stRespondent; Respondent No.1 herein as Petitioner and Respondent No.2 herein as 2ndrespondent. 2. The Petitioner being injured filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for grant of compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest from the date of petition till date of realization and for petition costs, for the injuries sustained by himin a motor vehicle accident on 23.06.2017. 3 MACMA NO. 604 OF 2023 VS,J. 3. Brief averments of the claim petition are that:petitioner was working as Deputy Manager in ICICI bank - SecunderabadBranch and he was earning Rs.49,059/- per month towards his salary. i. While so, on 23.06.2017 at about 11.00 p.m, he boarded an APSRTC bus bearing No.AP03 Z 0161 to go to Kadapa.When the bus reached near JudgegariKottalu, Chapadu Mandal, Kadapa District, the driver of the bus i.e., the 2ndrespondent drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, without following traffic rules and lost control over the bus, as a result, the bus fell down and turned turtle. Petitioner sustained grievous injuries to his left arm, fracture of the humorous, restricted moments of left hand. Then he was shifted to RIMS hospital, Kadapa, from there he was shifted to Maxcure hospital, Hyderabad, where he was remained as inpatient for about five days, then the Doctors conducted surgery to his injuries.It has not been succeeded and he became crippled and unable to discharge his duties as usual and spent Rs.1,00,000/- towards medicines, special diet, transport and physiotherapy treatment etc.,. Now, the petitioner's position is so miserable and unable to do his work as usual.Due to the accident, he lost his bright future and other amenities in his life. ii. The first respondent is custodian and owner of the bus and the second respondent is driver of the offending bus, hence, both are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. 4 MACMA NO. 604 OF 2023 VS,J. 4. First respondent filed written statement denying all the allegations made in the petition and stating that the petitioner is put to strict proof of the manner and mode of the accident, occupation and income of the petitioner. It is submitted that on 24.06.2017 at 6.30 p.m, diver of the said bus driven the same in slow manner by observing all traffic rules by giving horn near JudgegariKottalu, Chapadu, Kadapa-Kurnool road on the way from the Hyderabad-Tirupathi, but, one auto came from opposite direction in order to enter into the service road, in a rash and negligent manner and in zigzag manner, without following traffic rules.On that, the driver of the bus took the bus to its left side by applying breaks to avoid major accident with auto, but, due to the wet road, as it was raining, the bus skidded and ran into the road side fields and caused accident, as such, there was no rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the bus. The petitioner has not placed any medical record to prove his injuries and on his influence the police filed charge sheet against the driver of the bus and he has to prove that he spent medical expenses as mentioned in the petition. The claim is highly excessive and prayed to dismiss the petition, with costs. 5. 2nd respondent in his written statement pleaded on the same lines as that of the first respondent in respect of the manner of accident, about the treatment and income of the petitioner and further stated that there was no negligence on the part of 2ndrespondent in driving the bus. Even in the departmental enquiry also he was found no fault and the criminal case filed 5 MACMA NO. 604 OF 2023 VS,J. against him was also ended in acquittal. Further he has valid driving license and all the vehicle records are intact at the time of accident. The relationship of this respondent and first respondent is employer and employee and the accident took place during the course of employment, so if the Tribunal comes to conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for compensation, then the burden shifts upon the first respondent to indemnify this respondent being employer. So,prayed the Court to dismiss the petition, with costs. 6. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial by the Tribunal:- 1) Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 24.06.2017 at about 6.30 a.m., due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP03 Z 0161 or not? 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation, if so, what amount and from whom? 3) To what relief? 7. During the course of enquiry, on behalf of petitioner/claimant, he himself got examined as P.W.1, Dr.Suneel, who treated the petitionergot examined as P.W.2, The Assistant Branch Manager, ICICI, Hyderabad by name V.Krishnagot examined as P.W.3, Dr.B.Ramachandraiah, who issued disability certificate of P.W.1 got examined as P.W.4 and also got marked Ex.A.1 - 6 MACMA NO. 604 OF 2023 VS,J. Attested copy of FIR; Ex.A.2 - Attested copy of charge sheet; Ex.A.3 - Attested copy of wound certificate; Ex.A.4 - Discharge summary; Ex.A.5 - Medical bills for Rs.42,400/-; Ex.A.6 - Disability certificate, Ex.X.1 – salary certificate of P.W.1, Ex.X.2 – confirmation certificate; and Ex.X.3 – disability certificate. On behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 none were examined and no documents marked. 8. Upon hearing learned Counsel for Petitioner and Respondents, upon perusing the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal partly allowed the petition, with proportionate costs, by awarding compensation of Rs.9,31,536/- with subsequent interest at 7.5% p.a., on the said amount from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization, directing respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner within one (01) month from the date of order. 9. Being aggrieved by the said Order and Decree, the 1st Respondent – APSRTC has preferred the present appeal on the grounds that the claimant failed to establish negligent driving on the part of driver of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP03 Z 0161 for the accident occurred on 24.06.2017,but, the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent manner of Auto which came in order to enter into service road, without following traffic rules, then the driver of the bus took left side of the road by applying breaks, to avoid major accident with Auto, 7 MACMA NO. 604 OF 2023 VS,J. but, due to wet road as it was raining, the bus skidded and ran into the road side fields and caused accident, there is no rash and negligent driving on the part of its driver. The Tribunal erred in granting compensation for disability under Ex.A.6 as the Doctor who issued disability certificate was not examined and in awarding compensation for medical bills under Ex.A.5 which are fabricated and Ex.X.1 to Ex.X.3 are also fabricated and compensation of Rs.9,11,536/- awarded to the petitioner is excessive. Hence, prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the Judgment/Order and decree dated 22.09.2022 in M.V.O.P.No.210 of 2018 passed by the Chairman, MACT –cum- IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa. 10. Heard the learned Counsel for appellant and Respondent No.1. Perused the oral and documentary evidence available on record. 11. Now the point for determination is – Whether the order/award passed by the Tribunal needs any interference? 12. The claimant got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.6. P.W.1 categorically deposed that on 23.06.2017 at about 11.00 p.m, he boarded APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 03 Z 0161 to go to Kadapa, when the bus reached near Judgegari kottalu, Chapadu Mandal, Kadapa District, the driver of the bus i.e., the respondent No.2 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner without following traffic rules and lost control over the bus, due to the same, the bus fell down and turned turtle, as a result of which, the petitioner 8 MACMA NO. 604 OF 2023 VS,J. sustained grievous injuries to his left arm, fracture of the humerous, restricted moments of left hand. Immediately, he was shifted to RIMS hospital, Kadapa, from there he was shifted to Maxcure hospital, Hyderabad, where he was treated as inpatient for about 5 days, then the Doctors conducted surgery to his injuries, but those surgeries are not succeeded and he became crippled and unable to discharge his duties as usual. Relying upon the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.A.1 - F.I.R. and Ex.A.2 - charge sheet in Crime No.82 of 2017 of Chapadu Police Station which was filed against the driver of the APSRTC Bus for the offence punishable under Section 338 of I.P.C., the Tribunal in the absence of oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 answered issue No.1 in favour of the claimant and held that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 13. Now, coming to the quantum of compensation, it is the case of the P.W.1 that as on the date of the accident, he was working as Deputy Manager in ICICI Bank, Hyderabad, Secunderabad Branch, Telangana and drawing Rs.47,476/- towards his salary. In support of his case, he also got examined P.W.3, who is the Assistant Branch Manager, ICICI, Hyderabad, and marked Ex.X.1 salary certificate. Considering the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3 coupled with Ex.X.1 salary certificate, the tribunal held that the petitioner proved that he was getting gross salary of Rs.47,476/-, therefore, the annual income comes to Rs.5,69,712/-. As per Ex.A.6 - disability certificate, the petitioner was suffering 9 MACMA NO. 604 OF 2023 VS,J. 35% disability, but he did not examine the Doctor, who issued Ex.A.6 - disability certificate. On the other hand, Ex.A.6 was not issued by the Doctor and it was issued basing on physical examination of P.W.1, Ex.A.3 wound certificate, Ex.A.4 discharge summary. However, the claimant got examined P.W.4, through whom he got marked Ex.X.3 - disability certificate, which shows that the petitioner sustained 35% disability. But P.W.4 admitted that he did not treat P.W.1 at any point of time and he saw the petitioner for the first time during the time of issuing Ex.X.3 - disability certificate i.e., on 06.02.2022. In the absence of any supporting evidence to Ex.A.6 - disability certificate, the Tribunal assessed the disability as 10%. Therefore, the loss of earnings would come to Rs.56,971/- (Rs.5,69,712 X 10/100). Considering the age of the claimant as 36 years as on the date of the accident, the appropriate multiplier is „16‟ as per the decision of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in “Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation1”. After applying the multiplier 16, the loss of earnings would come to Rs.9,11,536/- (Rs.56,971 X 16). 14. In addition to the above, the Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards transportation charges, Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering. In total, the Tribunal below awarded Rs.9,31,536/- to the claimant. 15. Considering the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the amount of Rs.9,31,536/- awarded by the Tribunal to 1 2009 ACJ 1298 10 MACMA NO. 604 OF 2023 VS,J. the claimant, for the injuries sustained by him, was on reasonable basis and is sustainable under law, which needs no interference. 16. Accordingly, Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA KS Dated 23.02.2026. 11 MACMA NO. 604 OF 2023 VS,J. 275 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 604/2023 DATED 23.02.2026 KS