TCDS,J MACMA_441_2019 1 APHC010155092019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] FRIDAY, THE 10th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 441/2019 Between: 1. APSRTC, , A.P.S.R.T.C, BUS BHAVAN, VISAKHAPATNAM 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR APSRTC,, HYDERABAD NOW AT VIJAYAWADA ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. THOTA ANANDA RAO, S/O LATE DASU AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDENT OF D.NO. 3-40/1, SAGAR NAGAR, YENDADA VILLAGE VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT 2. MONDURI ESWARA RAO, S/O MUSALAYYA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDENT OF D.NO. 50-72-7, HARIJANA STREET SEETHAMPETA, VISAKHAPATNAM DRIVER OF RTC BUS BEARING NO. AP-31-Z-0110 ...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 Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum- Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases Under SC and ST Cases (POA) Act - Cum - XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam passed in M.V.O.P No. 904/2015 dated 17.1.2019 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2019 TCDS,J MACMA_441_2019 2 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 Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum- Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases Under SC and ST Cases (PGA) Act - Cum - XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam passed in M.V.O.P No. 904/2015 dated 17.1.2019 pending disposal of the above M.A.C.M.A No. /2019 and pass Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. K SRINIVASA PRASAD SC For APSRTC Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. KAKUMANU JOJI AMRUTHA RAJU The Court made the following: TCDS,J MACMA_441_2019 3 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR MACMA No.441 OF 2019 JUDGMENT:- 1. Aggrieved by order dt.17.01.2019 in MVOP No.904 of 2015, on the file of Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-Special Sessions Judge for Trial of cases under SC & ST Cases (POA) Act-cum-XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, the present appeal is preferred by APSRTC. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were referred before the Tribunal. 3. The petitioner/claimant filed petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rules made thereunder claiming compensation of Rs.5,10,000/- on account of injuries sustained by him in the accident that occurred on 05.06.2014 at YMCA Junction, Beach Road, Visakhapatnam due to the rash and negligent driving of RTC bus bearing Registration No.AP31Z- 0110 driven by the 1st respondent. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that he was aged about 48 years at the time of accident and doing tailoring work under a TCDS,J MACMA_441_2019 4 contractor in Seven Hills Hospital, Visakhapatnam. It was further stated that he was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- as salary by stitching uniforms for the hospital staff. It was further stated that, apart from working under the contractor, he used to stitch clothes at his house, earning an additional sum of Rs.5,000/- per month. Thus, in total he was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. It is the further case of the petitioner that on 05.06.2014, after completion of his duty he went to his relative’s house along with his son and while returning to home on his motorcycle bearing Registration No.AP31 AX-2171, when he reached YMCA Junction, Beach Road, the 1st respondent/driver of the RTC bus came behind and dashed him. As a result of which, the petitioner fell down on the road and rear wheels of the bus ran over on the left foot of petitioner and thereby he received crush injury. Immediately, the petitioner was taken to KGH Hospital and later he was shifted to Vyshnavi Hospital for better treatment. He was discharged from the said hospital on 07.07.2014. It was further stated that the petitioner has spent huge amount towards his treatment. 5. It was further stated that a case in Crime No.97 of 2014 under Section 338 IPC was registered against the 1st TCDS,J MACMA_441_2019 5 respondent and after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed in CC No.623 of 2014. In view of the injuries sustained by the petitioner, he approached the Tribunal by filing the above petition claiming compensation of Rs.5,10,000/- under various heads. 6. The respondent Nos.2 & 3 resisted the claim of the petitioner by filing counter affidavit, denying the averments made in the claim petition. It was further contended by the respondents that while overtaking the bus, the petitioner applied sudden break and thereby, he lost balance and hit the road divider and dashed the bus. It was specifically pleaded that there is no fault of the 1st respondent/driver as he was driving bus in normal speed. It was further stated that, complaint was registered against the 1st respondent for wrongful gain, so as to claim compensation. It was further stated that the petitioner has to prove that he had valid license as on the date of accident. With the above pleadings, the respondents prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 7. In order to prove the case of the petitioner, he was examined as PW-1 and one Sri Pukkalla Satyanarayana, eye- witness to the accident was examined as PW-2. He also TCDS,J MACMA_441_2019 6 examined Dr.M.Parthasaradhi, who treated him and conducted surgery as PW-3. He also filed documents, which were marked in Ex.A1 to A5. On the other hand, the driver of the bus was examined as RW-1, however no documents were marked. The Tribunal after trial by order under challenge awarded compensation of Rs.4,40,000/- together with interest @ 6% per annum fastening the liability on respondent Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred by APSRTC. 8. Heard Sri K.Srinivasa Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and Sri Kakamanu Jogi Amrutha Raju appearing for respondent No.1. Notice sent to Respondent No.2 is not yet returned/served. As the matter is pending adjudication since 2019, the same is taken for hearing. 9. Perused the record. 10. The counsel for the appellant would contend that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the claimant inasmuch as while over taking the bus, the claimant suddenly applied break and thereby he hit the road divider and dashed the bus. As a result of which, he fell down on the road, thereby the TCDS,J MACMA_441_2019 7 accident was occurred. In order to prove the said contention, the driver of the bus was examined as RW-1, who deposed in turn with the averments made in the counter affidavit. 11. On the other hand, the petitioner has got examined Sri Pukkalla Satyanarayana, who was eye-witness to the accident. A perusal of the evidence of PW-2 to show that, he has witnessed the accident and it was categorically deposed that, the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the driver of APSRTC Bus. Further, the petitioner also filed copies of FIR and charge sheet, which were marked as Exs.A1 to A5. 12. A perusal of the contents of the above documents would show that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the 1st respondent/driver. Therefore, the contention of the counsel for the appellant cannot be countenanced inasmuch as the Investigating Officer has filed charge sheet alleging that the 1st respondent was responsible for the accident. Further as rightly observed by the Tribunal, the appellants have not placed any material to disprove the case of the petitioner in this regard. In such circumstances, the contention of the appellant is liable to be TCDS,J MACMA_441_2019 8 rejected. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the claimants. 13. The counsel for the appellant would strenuously contend that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was excessive and the petitioner was not entitled to receive the same. He would further submit that the claimant did not place any material before the Tribunal, despite the same, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.4,45,000/- as compensation. To substantiate the contention of the appellant, as already noted supra, neither any oral evidence was adduced nor any documentary evidence was marked. On the other hand, a perusal of the record would show that the petitioner has sustained crush injury to his left foot and the same evident on perusal of wound certificate, which was marked as Ex.A9. Apart from the same, the petitioner also filed copies of discharge summary, cash bills, X- rays, disability certificate and medical certificates along with prescriptions and the said documents were also marked before the Tribunal. Further, the petitioner also examined Dr.M.Parthasaradhi, who treated the petitioner and conducted surgery to his left foot. TCDS,J MACMA_441_2019 9 14. A perusal of the evidence of PW-3 would reveal that the petitioner sustained crush injury to the left ankle and great toe and also loss of skin. Further, a copy of the report furnished by Motor Vehicle Inspector shows that there is no mechanical defect to the offending RTC bus. Considering the above documents and oral evidence recorded by the Tribunal, it is clear that, the petitioner has sustained crush injury to his left ankle and great toe. Further, a perusal of the order under challenge, it is clear that the Tribunal had taken the income of the petitioner is Rs.20,000/- per month. The Tribunal had come to such conclusion placing reliance on Ex.P11 salary certificate issued by Principal, Seven Hills Hospital School of Nursing, Visakhapatnam. Further, it was also the case of the petitioner that he was earning an amount of Rs.5,000/- by stitching cloths to school going children at home. 15. Though, the petitioner was cross examined at length, nothing was elicited to disprove his evidence. By appreciating the oral and documentary evidence placed by the petitioner before the Tribunal, he was awarded compensation of Rs.4,40,000/- together with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit under various heads. TCDS,J MACMA_441_2019 10 16. Though, the counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was excessive, as observed supra, the appellants have miserably failed to disprove the case of the petitioner. In such circumstances, the contention of the counsel for the appellant does not merit consideration, accordingly the same is rejected. 17. For the reasons recorded supra, the order under challenge does not warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR 10.07.2026 DR TCDS,J MACMA_441_2019 11 180 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MACMA No.441 of 2019 Date: 10.07.2026 U DR