APHC010442062022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI 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: 337 OF 2022 Between: 1. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, represented by its Regional Manager, Vizianagaram. 2. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, represented by its Managing Director, Pandit Nehru Bus Station, Vijayawada ...Petitioners AND 1. Shaik Shahensha, S/o. Ismail, Muslim, aged 31 years, R/o D.No.14-137/2, Muslim, Veedhi, Bobbili town, Vizianagaram District. 2. Baru Venkata Ramana, S/o. Late Laxmana, Hindu, aged 58 years, R/o. Mentada Street, Salur, Vizianagaram District. ...Respondents Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying that the High Court may be pleased to set aside Decree and award dated 31.03.2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.98 of 2021 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum- Principal District Judge, Vizianagaram and consequently dismiss the claim Petition and pass such other orders. 2 VS,J MACMA.No.337 of 2022 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 grant stay of operation of Decree and award dated 31.03.2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.98 of 2021 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum- Principal District Judge, Vizianagaram pending disposal of the above appeal in the interest of justice and pass such other orders. Counsel for the Petitioners: K SRINIVASA PRASAD, SC For APSRTC Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following: 3 VS,J MACMA.No.337 of 2022 JUDGMENT: The Insurance Company filed the present appeal challenging the order and decree dated 31.03.2022 in M.V.O.P.No.98 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Vizianagaram, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.8,99,000/- (Rupees Eight lakhs Ninety Nine thousand only) to the petitioner/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 23.05.2019. 02. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 03. The claimant filed the claim petition before the Tribunal under Sections 140 and 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rules 455 and 475 of A.P.M.V. Rules, the case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows: On 23.05.2019, the petitioner, his wife and friend of his wife/Sunitha were returning from Panukuvalasa, after attending a marriage function, on a motorcycle bearing No.AP30-K-4985, when they reached near in between Janumallavalasa and Gadelavalasa tank, at about 6.00 pm, the 1st respondent drove the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP35-Z-0188 in a rash and negligent manner, came in opposite direction with high speed, dashed the motorcycle of the petitioner, as a result, the petitioner and two other ladies fell down on the road and sustained injuries. The petitioner received fracture injury and crush injury to his right leg and also sustained head injury. Immediately, after the 4 VS,J MACMA.No.337 of 2022 accident, the petitioner was shifted to Primary Health Center, Bobbili, from there, he was shifted to Vizianagaram for better treatment. Seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the petitioner in the said accident, filed the claim petition against the driver and employers of 1st respondent. 04. The 1st respondent filed written statement denying the material averments made in the petition and contended that the interest claimed by the petitioner is highly excessive and spurious. The injuries sustained by the petitioner are only due to his negligence and as such the petitioner is not entitled to any compensation. The 1st respondent is having valid and proper driving license as on the date of accident as he is a Servant in APSRTC and he did not commit any act of negligence and prayed to dismiss the petition. 05. The 3rd respondent filed counter and 2nd respondent filed memo adopting the written statement filed by the 3rd respondent, denying the allegations in the petition and contended that the Driver, Conductor and the passengers in the bus categorically stated that there is no negligence on the part of the 1st respondent and that the driver was proceeding very carefully from Bobbili to Panukuvalasa and at the place of accident as the road is very narrow, the bus was plying very slowly, the petitioner in a drunken state came on his bike along with two ladies in a rash and negligent manner dashed front right side and fell down on the road and thus the accident was only due to negligence of the petitioner and prayed to dismiss the petition. 5 VS,J MACMA.No.337 of 2022 06. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the accident, which took place due to rash and negligent driving of the APSRTC bus bearing registration No.AP35-Z-0188 by the 1st respondent/Driver? 2. Whether the accident took place due to the negligence of the petitioner? 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, at what amount and from whom? 4. To what relief?” 07. On behalf of the petitioner/claimant, P.Ws.1 & 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A9 were marked. On behalf of the 1st respondent, R.W. 1 was examined and no document was marked. 08. After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition against respondent Nos.1 to 3, awarding compensation of Rs.8,99,000/- with subsequent interest @6% per annum from the date of claim petition, till the date of realization and respondent Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount within one month from the date of this order, on such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- with interest and the remaining amount shall be deposited in any Nationalized Bank for two years, the petitioner is directed to pay the court fee within one month from the date of this order, failing which, this petition stands dismissed. The office is directed to prepare the decree only after payment of court fee. 6 VS,J MACMA.No.337 of 2022 09. Aggrieved by the said award, the respondent Nos.2 and 3/APSRTC preferred this appeal contending that the Tribunal failed to consider that there is contributory negligence on the part of the 1st respondent who drove the bike and caused accident, since it is head on collision, the contributory negligence on the part of the bike is not assessed by the Tribunal, the 1st respondent/claim petitioner was not in proper condition to ride the bike. Thus there is admittedly negligence of the bike rider i.e., the claim petitioner himself. Therefore, contributory negligence has to be assessed and deducted in the compensation. The Tribunal failed to consider the disability certificate was not issued by the competent Medical Board. The Tribunal failed to consider that the petitioner did not chose to file the admission and discharge summary to show that he sustained the injuries only on account of this accident. Thus, without any discharge summary, the Tribunal awarding compensation of for loss of earning power Rs.8,64,000/- without any income proof is bad in law. It is, 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. Though notice was served on the 1st respondent/owner of the offending vehicle, there is no representation on his behalf. 12. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? 7 VS,J MACMA.No.337 of 2022 POINT: 13. It is the 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 awarding compensation for loss of earning capacity without any income proof is bad 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 documents. Ex.A8 X-ray shows the details of crush injury and Ex.A2 wound certificate shows that there is deformity due to two grievous injuries and also the evidence of PW2 the percentage of disability assessed at 50%. When the said treatment is endorsed by the various documents mentioned above supported by the evidence of PW2, Doctor, and unchallenged evidence proves that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent act of the 1st respondent/driver. Nothing was elicited during his cross-examination to disbelieve his testimony and no evidence is put forth to say that there is contributory negligence on the part of the injured in causing the accident. Therefore, it is righty held by the Tribunal, that the Respondent No.1 is responsible for the accident. 15. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the petitioner claimed that he was doing electrical work and used to earn Rs.15,000 per month as an electrician. As no document was filed to show that the 8 VS,J MACMA.No.337 of 2022 petitioner/injured used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month, the Tribunal notionally fixed the income of the petitioner as Rs.300/- per day as an unskilled labour which comes to Rs.9,000/- per month. As the age of the deceased was 35 years as per Ex.A2, wound certificate as on the date of accident, the Tribunal below rightly applied the multiplier as 16 in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd.,1. As stated supra, the Tribunal below took the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.9,000/- per month. Accordingly, the Tribunal arrived at the annual income of the deceased after applying the multiplier is Rs.17,28,000/- (Rs.9,000/- × 12 x 16). Since the Tribunal arrived at the disability of the petitioner at 50%, the loss of earning power with the said disability would be Rs.8,64,000/- (Rs.17,28,000/- x 50/100). In addition to this, the Tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.10,000/- towards transport charges. In total, the Tribunal below awarded Rs.8,99,000/- to the petitioner. Thus, no interference is required with the said finding of the Tribunal as it is well reasoned order. 16. Having regard to the above discussion, no interference necessitates to the findings recorded by the Tribunal regarding all aspects and as there is no need to disturb the well-articulated order passed by the Tribunal, as such, the appeal preferred by the appellants is liable for dismissal. 17. Viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the award impugned in this appeal. 1 2009 ACJ 1298 9 VS,J MACMA.No.337 of 2022 18. 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