Date of reserved for orders : -- Date of pronouncement : 25.06.2026 Date of uploading : 25.06.2026 APHC010058422019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] THURSDAY, THE 25th DAY OF JUNE 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 107/2019 Between: 1. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD, TRANPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PANDIT NEHRU BUS STATION, VIJAYAWADA, AMARAVATHI. ...APPELLANT AND 1. MADHU BABU, S/ O. M. MURUGAIAH, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, NOW DEPENDENT, R/AT. D. NO. 4- 1379, KAJOOR ROAD, GREAMSPET, CHITTOOR TOWN AND MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 2. S R HARI BABU CHETTY, S/O. RAGHAVA CHETTY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, DRIVER, APSRTC, R/AT. VAJJIREDDIPALLI VILLAGE, PUTHALAPATTU MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. (R-2 NOT NECESSARY IN THIS MACMA) 2 TCDS,J MACMA.No.107 of 2019 ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Cour taggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated. 11.09.2018 in M.V.O.P. No. 251/2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Cum - VIII Additional District Judge, Chittoor IA NO: 1 OF 2019 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 30 days in filing the appeal against the M.V.O.P.No. 251 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Chittoor, Chittoor District and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2019 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 stay of all further proceedings including the execution proceedings in M.V.O.P.No. 251 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Chittoor , Chittoor and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: 3 TCDS,J MACMA.No.107 of 2019 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR MACMA No.107 OF 2019 JUDGMENT :- A.P.S.R.T.C. preferred the present appeal questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal through its order dated 11.09.2018 in M.V.O.P. No.251 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Chittoor. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The petitioner filed the above claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident that took place on 19.03.2014, in which the bus bearing registration No. AP-03-AZ-1972 belonging to A.P.S.R.T.C. was involved. The brief facts of the case on hand are as follows: 4. The petitioner claims that he was working as a Manager at Swarna Granites, Kammarayanimitta, Yadamari Mandal. It was further the case of the petitioner that on 19.03.2014 at about 1.45 p.m., he was proceeding on his 4 TCDS,J MACMA.No.107 of 2019 motorcycle bearing registration No. AP-03-AZ-1972 along with his colleague Sri Amarsingh towards Bangarupalyam while on duty. While so, the offending bus came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle. As a result, the petitioner sustained multiple injuries all over his body and lost consciousness. He was immediately taken to the Government Head Quarters Hospital, Chittoor and later shifted to CMC Hospital, Vellore for better treatment. A case in Crime No.135 of 2014 was registered under Section 337 Indian Penal Code, 1860 on the file of Bangarupalyam Police Station. Later, the said crime was investigated and a charge sheet was filed in C.C. No.151 of 2015 on the file of the III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor. It was further the case of the petitioner that he sustained injuries including crush injury on his right hand, fracture on his left thigh, left proximal tibia and left neck of scalpula. It was further the case of the petitioner that, during the course of treatment, his right hand was amputated up to shoulder level and he became a physically handicapped person. It was further the case of the petitioner that he was drawing a salary of Rs.12,000/- per month and Rs.5,000/- 5 TCDS,J MACMA.No.107 of 2019 towards allowances. In view of the injuries sustained by him, he lost his earning capacity. It is further stated that he had spent an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- towards medical bills and other incidental expenses. As the accident occurred due to the negligence of the offending bus, he approached the Tribunal with the above claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- together with interest. 5. The 1st respondent- driver of the bus remained exparte. The 2nd respondent-A.P.S.R.T.C. resisted the claim through its counter-affidavit. It was the case of the 2ndrespondent that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner/claimant himself. It was further contended that the injuries sustained by the petitioner were not correct and that he did not file any documentary evidence to show that he had taken treatment in CMC Hospital, Vellore. Inter alia, it was also denied that the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board was excessive. It was further contended that the salary certificate filed by the petitioner was fabricated and was created for the purpose of 6 TCDS,J MACMA.No.107 of 2019 claiming compensation. With the above pleadings, the 2nd respondent prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 6. In order to prove the case of the petitioner, PW.1 to PW.4 were examined and Exs.A1 to A19 and Exs.X1 to X6 were marked. On the other hand, the respondents neither adduced oral evidence nor placed any documentary evidence before the Tribunal. Considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence placed before it, the Tribunal by the order under challenge awarded compensation of Rs.18,41,541/- together with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit, by fastening the liability on respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally. Aggrieved by the said compensation awarded by the Tribunal, respondent No.2 has preferred the present appeal. 7. Heard Sri Aravala Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant. Despite service of notice, there is no appearance for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 remained exparte before the Tribunal and there is no appearance. Perused the record. 7 TCDS,J MACMA.No.107 of 2019 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner/claimant himself. In order to substantiate the same, the appellant/A.P.S.R.T.C. neither adduced any oral evidence nor placed any documentary evidence on its behalf. On the other hand, the petitioner himself was examined as PW.1 and deposed in tune with the averments made in the claim petition. Apart from the same, he also filed copies of the F.I.R. and charge sheet, which were marked as Exs.A1 and A3. 9. A perusal of the contents of the above documentary evidence would show that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus. From the above, it is clear that the accident was occurred as there was negligence on the part of the 1st respondent-driver of the offending bus. Further, in the absence of any evidence on behalf of the appellant in this regard, the contention of the appellant cannot be countenanced and the same is hereby rejected. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant would also contend that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was 8 TCDS,J MACMA.No.107 of 2019 excessive and that the petitioner did not file any documentary proof to show that he had taken treatment in CMC Hospital, Vellore. Inter alia, it was also contended that the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board was excessive. As already observed supra, the respondents neither adduced any oral evidence nor placed any documentary evidence. Except making a bald denial, nothing is placed on record to substantiate its contention. 11. On the other hand, petitioner has got examined Dr. Pavan Kumar Reddy and Dr. P.Laxmipathi as PW.2 and PW.3 who treated him in CMC Hospital, Vellore. 12. A perusal of evidence of PW.2 and PW.3 coupled with Exs.A2, A6, A7, A8 and A11, it is clear that the petitioner sustained multiple injuries all over the body including crush injury on his right hand, fracture on his left thigh, left proximal tibia and left neck of scalpula. Ex.A2 is the certified copy of wound certificate issued by the Doctor at District Head Quarter Hospital, Chittoor. As per the said certificate it was found that the petitioner sustained three (03) injuries. (1) Traumatic amputation of right upper limb skin is attached to the limb, (2) 9 TCDS,J MACMA.No.107 of 2019 Multiple abrasions of face and left upper limb and shoulder and (3) Swelling and crepitus over the left leg. 13. From the above, it is clear that there is no dispute with regard to injuries sustained by the petitioner. It was further deposed by PW.2 that the petitioner required Artificial Hand which will cost around Rs.1,00,000/-. Further, it is not in dispute that the petitioner’s right hand got amputated, in view of the injuries sustained by him in the accident, therefore, the petitioner in order to prove his case has filed documents, i.e., discharge summaries, a bunch of medical bills and cash receipts issued by CMC Hospital, Vellore. Apart from the same, the petitioner had also filed a copy of salary certificate issued by his employer of M/s Swarna Granites to show that he was drawing an amount of Rs.17,000/- per month. Further he also filed copy of disability certificate issued by the District Medical Board, which was marked as Ex.A.18. A perusal of the said disability certificate would show that the petitioner has suffered disability of 90% of a particular limb. 15. By taking into account all these aspects and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence put forth by 10 TCDS,J MACMA.No.107 of 2019 the petitioner, the Tribunal had awarded an amount of Rs.18,41,541/- towards compensation under various heads. Though counsel for the appellant would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was excessive, as already mentioned above, the appellant/respondent A.P.S.R.T.C. did not produce anything on record to substantiate its case. In the absence of any evidence, the contention of the counsel for the appellant is liable to be rejected. 16. For the aforesaid reasons, there are no merits in the present Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and accordingly, the same is dismissed. There is no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any shall stand closed. ________________ T.C.D.SEKHAR, J 25.06.2026 SSA Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No 11 TCDS,J MACMA.No.107 of 2019 75 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MACMA NO.107 of 2019 25.06.2026 SSA