Date of reserved for orders : - Date of pronouncement : 29.06.2026 Date of uploading : APHC010130512019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] MONDAY, THE 29th DAY OF JUNE 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 355/2019 Between: 1. APSRTC, REP. BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD NOW AT VIJAYAWADA ...APPELLANT AND 1. VARIPALLI NARENDRA, S/O LATE YELLAJI AGED 27 YEARS, RESIDING AT D.NO,48-4-2A GOLEELAPETA, JAGANNAIKPUR, KAKINADA EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 2. SETTIBATHULA SATYANARAYANA, S/O ANANDA RAO AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, DRIVER OF RTC BUS NO. AP- 29-Z-815 RESIDENT OF D.NO. 1-10/1, BROWNPETA SAMALKOTA TOWN, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Courtto allow the appeal by setting aside the Judgment and Decree passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- -IV 2 TCDS,J MACMA.No.355 of 2019 Additional District Judge, East Godavari, Kakinada passed in M.V.O.P No.135 OF 2015 dated 13.07.2018 and pass 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 164 days in filing the Appeal against the Judgement and decree passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Judge, IV Addl District Judge, E G Dist ,Kakinada passed in M V O P No 135/2015 dated 13 07 2018 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 grant stay of execution of Decree passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Judge, IV Addl District Judge, E G Dist ,Kakinada passed in M V O P No 135/2015 dated 13 07 2018, pending disposal of the above MACMA. Counsel for the Appellant: 1. N SRIHARI ( SC FOR APSRTC ) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: 3 TCDS,J MACMA.No.355 of 2019 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR MACMA No.355 OF 2019 JUDGMENT:- 1. The present appeal is preferred by A.P.S.R.T.C aggrieved by order dated 13.07.2018 in M.V.O.P No.135 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum- IVth Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Kakinada. The 1st respondent/claimant filed claim petition under section 166 of M.V.Act and the rules made there under seeking to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident that occurred on 11.10.2014 in which the bus belonging to the appellant bearing registration No.AP 29 Z 815 involved. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was travelling on motor cycle bearing registration No AP 05 TU 323 as pillion rider, when he reached near Durgamma Temple, the offending bus came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle. As a result of which, the petitioner fell down on the road and sustained fracture to his right leg and 4 TCDS,J MACMA.No.355 of 2019 also received bleeding injuries all over the body. Immediately, the petitioner was shifted to Government General Hospital, Kakinada and later he was taken into Sanjivi Orthopedic Hospital, Kakinada for better treatment. It was further case of the petitioner that he underwent surgeries and implants were fixed in his right leg. It was further stated that he has taken treatment for a period of one month as inpatient in the said hospital. A case in Cr.No.158 of 2014 under section 338 Indian penal Code, 1860 was registered against the 1st respondent/driver of A.P.S.R.T.C bus. It was further stated that the petitioner was aged 22 years as on the date of accident and he was working as Mechanic and thereby earning Rs.9,000/- per month. It was further stated that the entire family was depending on the earnings of the petitioner and in that view of the injuries sustained by him, he approached the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. 3. The respondents filed counter-affidavit denying the averments made in the claim petition inter alia contending that there was no negligence on part of the 1st respondent-driver. It was further stated that the claim made by the petitioner was 5 TCDS,J MACMA.No.355 of 2019 excessive. To substantiate the case of the petitioner, the petitioner himself was examined as PW.1 Dr. S. Rama Chandra Kumar, and Dr.N.Surya Prasad were examined as PW.2 and PW.3. He also got marked documents in Ex.A1 to Ex.A5. Copies of the documents in Ex.X1 and Ex.X2 were marked through the witnesses on behalf of the petitioner. On the other hand, the respondents did not adduce any oral evidence nor filed any documentary evidence. After enquiry, the Tribunal by impugned order awarded an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation under various heads. Aggrieved by the same, the present Appeal is filed. 4. Heard, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Though this Court directed the appellant to take out notice on the respondents and file proof of service, nothing is placed on record to show that the appellant has taken out notices on the respondents. As the appeal is pending since 2019, this Court proceeded with hearing of the appeal. The counsel for the appellant would submit that the accident was occurred due to negligence of the petitioner/claimant himself and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the 6 TCDS,J MACMA.No.355 of 2019 bus. To substantiate the same, the counsel for the appellant would rely on averments made in the counter-affidavit. It is apparent from the record that the appellant neither produced documentary evidence nor adduced any oral evidence in this regard. Per contra, the petitioner had filed copies of F.I.R and charge sheet which were marked as Ex.A1 and Ex.A3 respectively. A perusal of the exhibits would show that the complaint given by the petitioner was investigated into and charge sheet was filed. Wherein it was categorically stated that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the 1st respondent/A.P.S.R.T.C driver. In such circumstances, the contention of the counsel for the appellant cannot be countenanced accordingly, the same is answered in favour of claimant and against the appellant. 5. Coming to the quantum of compensation is concerned, in order to prove the case of the petitioner/claimant, he has examined PW.2 and PW.3, the Doctors, who treated him. A perusal of the evidence of PW.2-Dr.S.Ramesh Chandra Kumar, who was working as Assistant Professor of Orthopedic in Government General Hospital, Kakinada categorically 7 TCDS,J MACMA.No.355 of 2019 deposed that the petitioner was admitted in Nuero surgery ward on 12.10.2014 for head injury which was treated conservatively. He further deposed that C.T Scan revealing right cerebella E.D.H and the petitioner sustained a lacerated injury over middle 1/3rd of the right leg size 4 x 2 cms, muscle deep and bleeding present. He further deposed that the said injury was grievous in nature and the petitioner also sustained fracture of both bones, right leg middle. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred to the Orthopedic Department 3rd unit. In support of his evidence, copies of case sheet, X-Rays were placed before the Tribunal and the same were marked in Ex.X1 and Ex.X2. 6. Dr.N. Surya Prasad, Ortho Surgeon in Sanjivi Institute of Orthopedics and Super Specialty Hospital, Ramaraopeta, Kakinada was examined as PW.3, who deposed that the petitioner underwent a surgery of interlocking technique for tibia on 03.11.2014 and he was discharged on 07.11.2014. He further deposed that, a further surgery is required for the petitioner for removal of implants which would approximately costs around Rs.30,000/-. Apart from the same, 8 TCDS,J MACMA.No.355 of 2019 the petitioner also filed a copy of medical bill. On over all consideration of the documents produced by the petitioner and after appreciating the evidence of PW2 & PW3, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- under various heads towards compensation. Though the counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that the same was excessive, nothing is placed on record to disprove the evidence of petitioner/claimant. Per Contra the claimants has filed ample evidence before the Tribunal as to his entitlement receive compensation. For the foregoing reasons, viewed from any angle there are no merits in the present appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any shall stand closed. ________________ T.C.D.SEKHAR, J 29.06.2026 CMK Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasonable Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No 9 TCDS,J MACMA.No.355 of 2019 81 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MACMA NO.355 of 2019 29.06.2026 CMK