1 VS,J MACMA_514 of 2022 APHC010655392022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 514/2022 Between: 1. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD, REP. BY IT'S MANAGING DIRECTOR, RTC HOUSE, PNBS, VIJAYAWADA ...APPELLANT AND 1. DIVVELA MOUNISH KUMAR, S/O SAMBASIVARAO, OCC BUSINESS, AGED 33 YEARS, TUBADU VILLAGE, NADENDLA MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. PIDATALA LAKSHMANNA, S/O PEDDA KONDAIAH, / AGED 46 YEARS, RTC DRIVER, R/O JUPADU BUNGLAW VILLAGE, NANDIKOTKUR MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. (RESPONDENT NO.2 IS NOT NECESSARY PARTY) ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased tobegs to prefer this memorandum of appeal being aggrieved by the decree and judgment passed in MVOP No. 37 cif2019, dated 13.07.202 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cumj- III Additional District Judge, Narsaraopet IA NO: 1 OF 2022 2 VS,J MACMA_514 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 pleased to condone the delay of 11 days in filing the above MACMA in MVOP No. 37 of 2019, dt. 13-07-2022 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum XIII Addl. District Judge, Narasaraopet 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 pleased to grant stay of operation of Decree and award dt. 13-07-2022 passed in MVOP no. 37 of 2019 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum XIII Addl. District Judge, Narasaraopet Counsel for the Appellant: 1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. RAMA MOHAN RAO KOTHA The Court made the following: 3 VS,J MACMA_514 of 2022 JUDGMENT:- This appeal is filed by the appellant – APSRTC challenging the award dated 13.07.2022 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – XIII Additional District Judge, Narasaraopet in M.V.O.P.No.37 of 2019 filed by the respondent No.1/claimant seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him due to the accident that occurred on 03.06.2018 at Jupalli Center, Vinukonda road, Narasaraopet. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The petitioner is the injured, the 1st respondent is the driver of the bus bearing No.AP 21 Z 0263 and the 2nd respondent is APSRTC. The petitioner is a resident of Tubadu village of Nadendla mandal of Guntur district. On 03.06.2018, at 02.30 p.m., while the petitioner, as a pillion rider of motorcycle bearing No.AP 07 BZ 4000 was going to Sunshine school, Jupalli center, Narasaraopet, the 1st respondent – driver of the bus bearing No.AP 21 Z 0263 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the bike on which the petitioner was travelling as a result of which, the petitioner fell down and sustained injuries. Immediately, the petitioner was shifted to Tirumala Hospital. The incident was reported to the Police, who in turn registered a case in Crime No.254 of 2018 for the offence punishable under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code. It is the case of the petitioner that on 03.06.2018, he was admitted in Viswas hospital and got discharged on 08.06.2018 and that he has spent certain amount for undergoing treatment for the injuries sustained by him in the accident. As such, the petitioner filed the petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. 4 VS,J MACMA_514 of 2022 3. The respondents contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence and rash driving of the rider of the bike on which the petitioner was travelling as a pillion and that the rider has not followed traffic rules. Thus, the respondents requested the Tribunal to dismiss the petition. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 1) Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in an accident occurred on 03.06.2018 at 2.30 pm on the road Vinukonda to Narasaraopet at a distance of 2 kms from Narasaraopet, due to dash of the offending APSRTC Bus bearing registration No.AP 21 Z 0263 driven by the first respondent in rash and negligent manner? 2) Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so What is the quantum and against whom? And 3) To what relief? 5. During the course of trial, in support of his case, the petitioner got examined himself as P.W.1 and one Dr. Upendra Shobanadri as P.W.2. He got marked Exs.P1 to P5. On behalf of the respondents, the 1st respondent got himself examined as R.W.1, however, no documentary evidence was reported 6. The Tribunal, relying upon the oral evidence adduced by P.Ws.1 and 2 and relying upon the documentary evidence put forth before it, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent and fixed liability of paying compensation to the petitioner on the respondent corporation. 7. Considering the evidence adduced by the witnesses and after taking into account the rival contentions of both the parties, the Tribunal 5 VS,J MACMA_514 of 2022 awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,76,034/- to the petitioner, payable by both the respondents with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the compensation awarded to the petitioner, this appeal was filed. 8. Heard Sri. Aravala Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and Sri. Kotha Rama Mohan, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. 9. During the course of arguments, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC has contended that the Tribunal, in the absence of any evidence regarding the income of the petitioner, the Tribunal awarded Rs.30,000/- towards loss of earnings and without there being any whisper as to who issued the medical bills putforth by the claimant, the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,96,034/- to the claiamant towards medical expenses allegedly endured by him. He further contended that there is contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle on which the petitioner was travelling. Thus, requested to set-aside the impugned award. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 1st respondent/petitioner supported the award passed by the Tribunal in all aspects and contended that the same does not warrant interference of this Court. Thus requested to dismiss the appeal. 11. Perused the entire material available on record. Admittedly, immediately after the accident, the rider of the motorcycle reported the incident in Narasaraopet Rural Police station and accordingly, a case was registered in Crime No.254 of 2018. After due enquiry, Police filed a charge sheet on the file of the Court of I Additional judicial First Class 6 VS,J MACMA_514 of 2022 Magistrate, Narasaraopet against the 1st respondent alone which proves that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 1st respondent. Considering the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with FIR (Ex.P.1) and the charge sheet (Ex.P2), the Tribunal has rightly come to a conclusion that the petitioner sustained injuries i.e. fracture to right temporal bone, fracture to left temporal bone, due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent. 12. Though the petitioner claimed that he used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month by way of business, in the absence of any documentary evidence, the tribunal, relying on Ex.P4 – discharge summary, as per which the petitioner is said to have admitted in the hospital on 03.06.2018 and got discharged on 08.06.2018, awarded Rs.30,000/- as compensation to the petitioner under the head of loss of earnings. Further, the petitioner got marked the medical bills as Ex.P5, as per which, he incurred an expenditure of Rs.1,96,034/- towards medical expenses in view of head injury, hemorrhagic contusion in left temporal lobe. Relying on the same, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,96,034/- to the petitioner towards medical expenses. As the petitioner was admitted in hospital for three days for the injuries sustained by him, the Tribunal observed that it is quite natural to take nutritious food for speedy recovery. As such, it awarded Rs.20,000/- under the head of extra- nourishment to the petitioner, which is just and reasonable. Under the head of pain and sufferance, the Tribunal awarded Rs.30,000/- to the petitioner. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, this Court feels that the Tribunal has sufficiently awarded the amount to the petitioner under the head of pain and suffering. It appears that the appellant herein has filed the present appeal only as a matter of routine 7 VS,J MACMA_514 of 2022 procedure. In view of the same, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. 13. The Tribunal considering the evidence adduced by the petitioner and as well as exhibits relied on by him, has rightly awarded the said amounts and held that in all, the petitioner would be entitled for a compensation of Rs.2,76,034/- which is just and proper and cannot be said to be excessive or on higher side. This Court finds no error in the order of the Tribunal granting the said compensation to the petitioner. Viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any grounds to interfere with the award impugned in the appeal. 14. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date:02.02.2026. Gss