APHC010852892015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 124/2025 Between: 1. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD (OWNER OF THE BUS BEARING NO. AP 11 Z 5579) ...APPELLANT AND 1. YAMPARALA VENKATA RAO, S/o. Subba Rao, R/o. Gudipudi Village, Bapatla MandafGuntur District ...RESPONDENT Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased topleased to allow the MACMA by setting aside the Order and Decree dated 12- 04-2013 passed by the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-VI Additional District Judge (FTC), Guntur in M.V.O.P No. 19 of 2011 IA NO: 1 OF 2015(MACMAMP 1179 OF 2015 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 condone the delay of 626 days in presenting the appeal filed against the order and decree dated 12-04-2013 passed in MVOP NO. 19 of 2011 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-VI Additional District Judge (FTC), Guntur District and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2015(MACMAMP 1535 OF 2015 2 VS,J MACMA No.124 of 2025 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 all further proceedings pursuant to the order and decree dt. 12/04/2013 passed in OP.no. 19 of 2011 on thefile of the Court of the MACT- cum-VI Additional District Judge (FTC) Guntur District, including of execution proceedings, pending disposal of the above MACMA IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 permit the petitioner to withdraw the amount deposited by the appellant as per the order dated 21.04.2015 in MACMAMP. NO. 1535/2015 in MAGMA (SR) 9981/2015 and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2024 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 vacate interim stay order dated 21.04.2015 in MACMAMP. NO. 1535/2015 in MACMA (SR) 9981/2015 and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) Counsel for the Respondent: 1. BHAVANI K The Court made the following: 3 VS,J MACMA No.124 of 2025 J U D G M E N T: The appeal is filed by the appellant/APSRTC, challenging the order and decree dated 12.04.2013 passed in M.V.O.P.No.19 of 2011 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Guntur, wherein the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,35,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty Five Thousand only) to the claimant/respondent herein, as against the claim of Rs.1,75,000/-, for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that occurred on 02.10.2010. 02. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 03. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows: On 02.10.2010 at about 6.20 p.m., while the petitioner was travelling on a motorcycle from Ponnur to Gudipudi and when he reached the outskirts of Eteru Village, the driver of the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 5579, coming in the opposite direction, drove the vehicle at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, without taking proper care and caution and dashed against the motorcycle. As a result, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. Immediately he was shifted to Government General Hospital, Guntur for treatment. A case in Crime No.104 of 2010 was registered by Bapatla Rural Police Station under Section 337 of IPC against the driver of APSRTC Bus. 4 VS,J MACMA No.124 of 2025 04. The petitioner contended before the Tribunal that he was working as a coolie and earning Rs.100/- per day. He sustained fractures to his right leg above knee, fracture of the right hip joint, and other multiple injuries. It is further stated that he incurred considerable expenditure towards medical treatment and suffered mental agony, pain and loss of earnings and therefore claimed compensation of Rs.1,75,000/-. 05. The respondent/APSRTC filed a written statement denying the allegations and contended that the petitioner received only simple injuries and that the accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. It was further contended that the police investigation was not proper and that a false charge sheet was filed. It was also stated that the driver possessed a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident, and hence, the respondent is not liable to pay compensation. 06. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 5579 and that resulted in causing injuries to the petitioner? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so what amount against whom? 3. To what relief?” 07. In support of his case, the petitioner examined himself as P.W.1 and the doctor as P.W.2, and marked Exs.A1 to A9, along with Ex.X1/case sheet and 5 VS,J MACMA No.124 of 2025 Ex.X2/Check X-rays. On behalf of the respondent, R.W.1/driver of the bus was examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked. 08. After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition with the following terms: “1. The Petitioner is entitled for the total compensation of Rs.1,35,000/- (Rupees one lakh thirty five thousands only); 2. The Petitioner is entitled for the interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on the amount awarded from the date of the petition till the date of deposit; 3. The Respondent is directed to deposit the said amount within 30 days from the date of this order; 4. On making such deposit the Petitioner is entitled to withdraw an amount of Rs.50,000/- at first instance and the rest of the awarded amount shall be kept in any nationalized bank for a period of 3 years or until further order; 5. The rest of the claim is dismissed without costs; 6. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/-; 7. The award is subjected to any compensation already awarded u/s. 140 of M.V. Act and subjected to payment of deficit court fee if any payable; 8. The Petitioner is not entitled for any interest for the period where the petition was dismissed for default and till it was restored, if any. 6 VS,J MACMA No.124 of 2025 09. Aggrieved by the said award, the APSRTC preferred the present appeal contending that the Tribunal erred in holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver without acceptable evidence, and also erred in fixing the income of the petitioner in the absence of proof. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner/claimant has supported the impugned award and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 11. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? POINT: 12. The claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, under which the claimant is not required to establish that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the APSRTC bus; however, it is sufficient if the occurrence of the accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle is proved. As held by the Apex Court in Managing Director, Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation vs. Sarojamma and another1, Section 163-A, inserted by Act No.54 of 1994 with effect from 14.11.1994, makes it clear that it is not necessary for the claimant to plead or establish that the death or injury occurred owing to any wrongful act, neglect or default of the owner of the crime vehicle. Therefore, proof of the occurrence 1 2008(4) ALD page 1 (SC) 7 VS,J MACMA No.124 of 2025 of the accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle is sufficient to claim compensation under the said provision. 13. Even otherwise, it is the contention of the appellant that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner. However, a perusal of the impugned award reveals that the petitioner examined himself as P.W.1, being an injured eyewitness, and deposed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the APSRTC bus. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the evidence of P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A4, including Ex.A1–FIR, rightly concluded that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the bus driver. Though R.W.1, the driver of the bus, deposed that the petitioner was riding the motorcycle in the wrong direction and fell down on his own, the said testimony is a self-serving statement and is not corroborated by any independent evidence. Hence, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the same. 14. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, in the absence of specific proof of income of the petitioner, the Tribunal, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner was an unskilled labourer working as a coolie and was hale and healthy, assessed his income at Rs.100/- per day, i.e., Rs.3,000/- per month, which, in the opinion of this Court, is just and reasonable. Further, the evidence of P.W.2, the doctor who treated the petitioner, coupled with the nature of the injuries mentioned in Ex.A2/Wound Certificate, shows that the Tribunal rightly considered the permanent disability at 35% and, by applying the relevant multiplier of ‘17’ applicable to the age of 8 VS,J MACMA No.124 of 2025 the petitioner, i.e., 24 years as recorded in Ex.A1/FIR, arrived at the loss of earning capacity at Rs.2,14,200/- (Rs.36,000/- x 17 x 35/100). However, as the petitioner claimed only Rs.1,20,000/- under this head, the same was rightly restricted to Rs.1,20,000/- towards loss of earning capacity. Further, the Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities and enjoyment of life and Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering, which are also just and reasonable and do not warrant any interference. In all, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,35,000/- for the injuries sustained by the petitioner, which is just and proper and cannot be said to be excessive or on the higher side. 14. Viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any error in the order of the Tribunal, warranting interference in this appeal. 15. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 02.03.2026 KGR