1 MACMA NO. 500 of 2022 VS,J. APHC010628002022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 500/2022 Between: 1. APSRTC, BY ITS V.C AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, APSRTC, RTC HOUSE, PANDIT NEHRU BUS STATION, VIJAYAWADA. ...APPELLANT AND 1. GADIPINGI MURALI, S/O KRISHNA RAO @ KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, MASON, R/AT DOOR NO.1-120, SC STREET, LIVIRI VILLAGE, BHAMINI MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT 2. BABULA NATH, S/O LATE PITAMBARANATH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, DRIVER OF APSRTC BUS BEARING NO. AP30-Z-0062, PALASA, DEPOT, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, R/AT PUTTURU VILLAGE, MANDASA MANDAL, SIKAKULAM DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant: 1. K SRINIVASA PRASAD SC For APSRTC Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GORIPARTHI GOPINADH YADAV The Court made the following: 2 MACMA NO. 500 of 2022 VS,J. THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 500/2022 JUDGMENT: 1. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short APSRTC) preferred the present Motor Accident Claims Miscellaneous Appeal (for short MACMA) challenging the Order/Award and Decree passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short MACT) –cum- I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam in M.V.O.P.No.55 of 2020 dated 17.08.2022, wherein the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.13,80,190/- as against the claim of Rs.20,00,000/-. 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 2nd respondent, 1st respondent herein as petitioner and 2nd respondent herein as 2nd respondent. 2. The Petitioner being injured filed claim petition in M.V.O.P.No.55 of 2020 under section 153A & 166 of M.V Act, 1988 and Rule 455 of A.P Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- together with interest and costs for the injuries sustained by him in an accident. 3. Brief averments of the claim petition in MVOP No.55 of 2020 are that: the petitioner was hale and healthy, aged 45 years, doing mason work and used to earn not less than Rs.15,000/- per month. 3 MACMA NO. 500 of 2022 VS,J. i. While so, on 25.05.2019, the petitioner was taking his daughter - Gowri to Narasannapeta Residential School for admission into Intermediate 1st year and they reached RTC Complex at Tekkali at 10.00 a.m.,. Respondent No.1 who was driver of the RTC Bus bearing No.AP 30 Z 0062, while taking the bus on to the platform, drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner. Petitioner sustained grievous injuries to his left foot and left knee and other parts of the body, admitted in Area Hospital, Tekkali. The Station House Officer, Tekkali Police Station, registered a case in crime No.123/2019 for the offence punishable under section 338 of IPC against respondent No.1, after investigation, charge sheet was filed against respondent No.1. ii. In view of fracture of both bones of left leg, petitioner was shifted to KIMS Sai Seshadri Hospital, Srikakulam. He underwent surgery on 25.05.2019 and then referred him to Apollo Hospital, Visakhapatnam on 26.05.2019, there also he underwent operation on 26.05.2019 and 28.05.2019 and after a prolonged treatment he was discharged on 10.06.2019. He spent Rs.1,00,000/- for the surgeries. In the surgery steel rods were inserted in his left leg and for removal of the said steel rods, he has to incur Rs.1,00,000/- again. He was advised to take rest for six (06) months. He spent Rs.8,00,000/- for his treatment. He availed male assistance by paying Rs.1,00,000/-. 1st respondent caused this accident in the course of his employment under 2nd respondent and hence respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. 4 MACMA NO. 500 of 2022 VS,J. 4. Respondent No.1 remained ex-parte. 5. Respondent No.2 filed written statement, stating that the 1st respondent is an expert driver with valid driving license and when respondent No.1 stopped the bus in the platform, the petitioner tried to board the running bus and fell down on the platform, as such the accident occurred due to the petitioner's negligence only and hence he is not entitled to any compensation. The police filed charge sheet without proper investigation, the claim is highly excessive and the petitioner sustained simple injuries. 6. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:- 1) Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the motor vehicle accident which occurred on 25.05.2019 at about 10.00 a.m., at RTC Complex, Tekkali, Srikakulam District, due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent being the driver of APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 30 Z 0062? 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for the compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident, if so, to what amount and from whom?? 3) To what relief? 7. During trial, petitioner himself got examined as P.W.1, Dr.A.Siva Pasada examined as P.W.2, Dr. A. Thaj Kumar examined as P.W.3. Dr. Suneetha, G.Yelavarthi examined as PW4. (PWs 2 to 4 were examined through Advocate Commissioner) and got marked Ex.A.1 – certified copy of F.I.R in 5 MACMA NO. 500 of 2022 VS,J. Crime No.123/2019 of Tekkali police station, Ex.A.2 – certified copy of charge sheet, Ex.A.3 – certified copy of wound certificate, Ex.A.4 – certified copy of motor Vehicle Inspector report, Ex.A.5 – Discharge summary issued by KIMS Hospital, Srikakulam, Ex.A.6 – Outpatient record issued by KIMS Hospital, Srikakulam, Ex.A.7 – Lab reports issued by KIMS Hospital, Srikakulam, Ex.A.8 – C.T Scan issued by Apollo Hospital, Visakhapatnam, Ex.A.9 – X-Ray report, Ex.A.10 – Report issued by Anthology Department, Ex.A.11 – Discharge Summary issued by Apollo Hospital, Visakhapatnam, Ex.A.12 – Disability certificate issued by Area Hospital, Palakonda, Ex.A.13 – medical prescriptions (6), Ex.A.14 – Bunch of medical bills (44) for Rs.6,28,730/-. Ex.A.15 – X-Rays (27), Ex.X.1 – case sheet and Ex.X.2 – case sheet. On behalf of the Respondents, 1st respondent himself got examined as R.W.1 and no documents were marked for the respondents. 8. Upon hearing learned Counsel for Petitioner as well as Respondents and upon perusing the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the Tribunal awarded Rs.13,80,190/- as compensation to the Petitioner directing respondent No.2 to deposit the compensation amount within two (02) months from the date of order with costs and interest at 9% p.a on award amount. 9. Being aggrieved by the said order and decree, the 2nd Respondent – APSRTC has preferred the present appeal on the ground that except P.W.1 – 6 MACMA NO. 500 of 2022 VS,J. injured person, there is no independent eyewitness examined on behalf of P.W.1 to prove that there is negligence on the part of driver and in such case, the Tribunal ought not to have believed the version of the claimant/injured. The further contention of the appellant is that the injured tried to board moving bus without waiting till the bus is brought to platform and fell down, as such he is also equally responsible for the injuries sustained in the said accident. Hence, prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the Order/award and decree dated 17.08.2022 in MVOP No.55 of 2020 passed by the Chairman, MACT –cum- I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam. 10. Heard the learned counsel for appellant as well as the respondent and perused the material available in record. 11. Now the point for determination is: Whether the Order/award passed by the Tribunal needs any interference? 12. POINT: On perusal of the order/award passed by the Tribunal it can be observed that P.W.1/injured got examined himself as P.W.1 who deposed that he along with his daughter were going on extreme left side of the road at Tekkali RTC bus stand, 1st respondent being driver of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP30 Z 0062 drove in a rash and negligent manner, with high speed, without blowing horn and dashed the petitioner, while taking the bus on to the platform. Though 7 MACMA NO. 500 of 2022 VS,J. there is no other independent eyewitness examined to prove that the claimant sustained injuries because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC bus, by relying upon Ex.A.1 – F.I.R, Ex.A.2 – charge sheet, filed against Respondent No.1, the Tribunal held that Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 are sufficient to prove that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Respondent No.1. 13. As per the evidence of P.W.1, he was working as Mason and he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. In the absence of any evidence to prove the occupation and earnings of the claimant, the Tribunal assessed the income of the claimant as Rs.7,500/- per month, in view of the circular issued by the State Legal Services Authority in connection with settlement of cases before the Lok Adalath. 14. To prove the injuries, he got marked Ex.A.3 - wound certificate, Ex.A.5 - discharge summary issued by KIMS Hospital, Srikakulam, Ex.A.6 - Outpatient record issued by KIMS Hospital, Srikakulam, Ex.A.7 - Lab reports issued by KIMS Hospital, Srikakulam, Ex.A.8 - C.T Scan issued by Apollo Hospital, Visakhapatnam, Ex.A.9 - X-ray report, Ex.A.10 - report issued by Amathology department, Ex.A.11 - discharge summary issued by Apollo Hospital, Visakhapatnam, Ex.A.12 - Disability certificate issued by Area Hospital, Palakonda, Ex.A.13 - Medical prescription, Ex.A.14 - Bunch of medical bills for 8 MACMA NO. 500 of 2022 VS,J. Rs.6,28,730/-, Ex.A.15 - X-Rays. To prove said documents, the claimant got examined P.W.2, who deposed that on 25.05.2019 at 02.00 p.m., the petitioner was admitted into KIMS Sai Seshadri Hospital, Srikakulam for fracture fibula left, fracture calcanium left, crush injury, left leg and left ankle and left foot. Ex.X.1 is the case sheet maintained by the KIMS Hospital, Srikakulam. P.W.2 stated that the KIMS Hospital, Srikakulam issued final bill for Rs.38,971/- vide bill No.457 dated 25.05.2019. 15. P.W.3 – Dr. A.Tajah Kumar, Orthopedic surgeon in Area Hospital, Palakonda, deposed that their hospital issued Ex.A.12 - disability certificate and assessed the disability as 45%. 16. P.W.4 – Dr. Suneetha G.Velavarthi, deposed that the petitioner was admitted in their hospital on 20.05.2019 and underwent two surgeries. She advised the petitioner to take rest for six months. According to her, Ex.X.2 is the case sheet maintained by the hospital. Ex.A.8 to Ex.A.11 and Ex.A.15 are the bills issued by their hospital for a sum of Rs.3,87,469/-. 17. Considering the age of the petitioner as 45 years as on the date of the accident, the Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the petitioner as Rs.7,500/-. Therefore, annual income would come to Rs.90,000/- (Rs.7,500 X 12). As the age of the claimant is 45 years as on the date of the accident, he is entitled for an additional amount of 25% of his income towards his future 9 MACMA NO. 500 of 2022 VS,J. prospects as held by the Apex Court in “National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi1”, as such the annual income of the claimant would come to Rs.1,12,500/-. (Rs.90,000+22,500(90000X25/100)). Considering the age of the claimant as 45 years as on the date of the accident, the appropriate multiplier applicable is „14‟ as per the decision of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in “Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation2”. Considering the disability of 45% and after applying the multiplier 14, the loss of future income would come to Rs.7,08,750/- (Rs.1,12,500 X 14 x 45/100). 18. In addition to the above, the Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.25,000/- towards expenditure on attendant and extra nourishment, Rs.25,000/- towards loss of amenities and enjoyment, Rs.45,000/- (Rs.7,500 X 6) towards loss of income for 6 months and Rs.4,26,440/- towards medical expenditure. In total, the Tribunal below awarded Rs.13,80,190/- to the claimant. 19. Considering the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the amount of Rs.13,80,190/- awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant, for the injuries sustained by the claimant, was on reasonable basis and is sustainable under law, which needs no interference. 1 2018 ACJ 2782 2 2009 ACJ 1298 10 MACMA NO. 500 of 2022 VS,J. 20. Accordingly, Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA KS Dated 10.03.2026. 11 MACMA NO. 500 of 2022 VS,J. 263 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENTS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO:500 /2022 DATED 10.03.2026 KS