APHC010112052019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE 27th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 301 OF 2019 Between: 1. AP. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, Rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, Present at Pandit Nehru Bus Station, Vijayawada, Amaravathi, Andhra Pradesh. ...Petitioner AND 1. P TAQUI AHMED, , S/o. Basheer Ahmed, Muslim, Aged about 51 years, Un-employee, formerly working as Lab Assistant, Vel Tech Dr. RR and Dr. SR Technical University, Chennai, R/o. D. No. 18-116, Syed Saheb Street, Old Market, Proddatur Town and Mandal, Kadapa District. ...Respondent Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High CourtMemorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before this Hon'ble Court being aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 06.09.2018 in M.V.0,P. No. 50/2015 on the file of The Chairman, 2 TCDS,J M.A.C.M.A.NO.301 OF 2019 Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -Cum - II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur 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 77 days in filing the MACMA. 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 fin M.V.O.P. NO. 50/2015 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents ClaimsTribunal- Cum - II Addl. District Judge, Kadapa. Counsel for the Petitioner: ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) Counsel for the Respondent NARASIMHA RAO GUDISEVA The Court made the following order: 3 TCDS,J M.A.C.M.A.NO.301 OF 2019 JUDGMENT:- The present appeal is preferred by the appellant/APSRTC questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal through its order dated 06.09.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.50 of 2015 on the file of Chairman-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum -II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were referred before the Tribunal. 3. The petitioner filed petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act read with rules made therein claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that occurred on 15.06.2014 in which the bus belonging to the respondent/appellant bearing Registration No.AP04-A-0008 was involved. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that he boarded the offending bus at Chennai so as to go to Proddatur. The driver of the said bus drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, and when the bus reached near Keshavareddy School at 4 TCDS,J M.A.C.M.A.NO.301 OF 2019 RTC Colony, Kadapa, at about 3:45 a.m on 15.06.2014, the driver of the bus lost control over the same, and as a result, it dashed against the compound wall of a godown. In view of the accident, the petitioner sustained grievous injury to his spinal cord and fell unconscious. It was further contended that along with him some other passengers have also received injuries. Immediately, the petitioner was shifted to RIMS General Hospital, Kadapa, for treatment. One of the injured, Sri S.Babu, gave a complaint to the Police against the driver of the offending bus, and in furtherance thereto, a case in Cr.No.75 of 2015 was registered on the file of Kadapa Traffic(U/G) Police. The said crime was investigated into and a charge sheet was filed against the driver of the offending bus. 5. It was further the case of the petitioner that, as there was no improvement, the petitioner was shifted to Sri Ramachandra Hospital, Chennai, for better treatment. He was treated there as an inpatient from 15.06.2014 to 11.07.2014 and the Doctor therein diagnosed that the petitioner was found with cervical cord injury with spastic quadriparesis and further found C3-C4, C4-C5 disc prolapsed with cord compression. Further, the Doctors 5 TCDS,J M.A.C.M.A.NO.301 OF 2019 advised the petitioner to take herbal physiotherapy treatment. It was further stated that, in view of the advice of the Doctors, the petitioner was admitted into Punarjani Ayurvedic Speciality Hospital, Bangalore, where he took herbal treatment from 11.07.2014 to 11.08.2014. After his discharge from the said hospital, the petitioner used to take physiotherapy at Proddatur for a period of 165 days. It was further stated that, due to compression of disc nerves in the spinal cord of the petitioner, the right hand and right leg became semi paralyzed, and he was unable to work with his right hand and he was also unable to walk properly. It was further stated that, in view of the same, he was unable to attend to his day-to-day affairs as he was before. It was further averred in the claim petition that he became permanently disabled and later, he lost his employment due to the said disability. In those circumstances, he approached to Tribunal by filing the above mentioned petition. 6. The respondent/APSRTC filed counter affidavit denying the averments made in the claim petition. It was further stated that the injuries sustained by the petitioner were simple in nature and that there was no permanent disability as claimed by him. It was 6 TCDS,J M.A.C.M.A.NO.301 OF 2019 further stated that the petitioner was hale and healthy and was attending to his normal duties without pain and suffering. With the above pleadings, the respondent/APSRTC prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 7. In order to prove the case of the petitioner, he was examined as PW-1 and Doctor Challa Sanjeevaiah, was examined as PW-2. He also marked documents in Ex.A1 to A18. On the other hand, the respondent neither adduced any oral evidence nor marked any documentary evidence. 8. Considering the pleadings and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal, by the order under challenge, partly allowed the claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs.14,66,000/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a from the date of the petition till the date of payment. 9. Aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the present appeal is filed by the APSTRC. 10. Heard Sri Aravala Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and Sri T.Manikanta, learned counsel 7 TCDS,J M.A.C.M.A.NO.301 OF 2019 representing Sri Narasimha Gudiseva, learned counsel for the respondent. 11. Perused the material available on record. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant would strenuously contend that the Tribunal erred in awarding the compensation of Rs.14,66,000/-, despite the petitioner was hale and healthy and the injuries sustained by him were simple in nature. In order to prove the same, except denying the averments made in the claim petition, nothing is placed on record, and the respondent miserably failed to disprove the claim of the petitioner. Further, the appellant/APSRTC neither adduced any oral evidence nor marked any documentary evidence in support of its contention. 13. On the other hand, the petitioner got examined himself as PW-1. A perusal of the evidence of PW-1 would show that he deposed in tune with the averments made in the claim petition. Apart from the same, he also got examined Doctor Challa Sanjeevaiah, who treated him, as PW-2. A perusal of the evidence of PW-2 shows that he was working as Assistant Professor, Orthopaedic Department, RIMS Hospital, Kadapa. He further deposed that he examined the claimant and issued 8 TCDS,J M.A.C.M.A.NO.301 OF 2019 Ex.A15 disability certificate, assessing the disability as 65%. Further, the evidence of PW-2 would reflect that the petitioner was physically and clinically examined and found that he suffered a severe disc problem, due to which the hand and leg are also not working effectively as they were before. Further, the petitioner has also filed copies of medical bills to show that he has incurred substantial amount towards the treatment. Further, it is evident from Ex.A8, the discharge summary issued by Punarjani Ayurvedic Speciality Hospital, Bangalore, where the petitioner has taken treatment from 11.07.2014 to 11.08.2014 on the advice of PW-2. Further, as can be seen from the record, in order to substantiate the claim of the petitioner, he has filed ample evidence to prove the same. 14. Further, it is apparent from the record, as already noted supra, the respondent neither adduced any oral evidence nor produced any documentary evidence in order to disprove the case of the petitioner. In the absence of any material on record, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted and the same is liable to be rejected. A perusal of the order under challenge makes it clear that, after taking into 9 TCDS,J M.A.C.M.A.NO.301 OF 2019 consideration the salary based on the entries in the bank passbook of the petitioner, which was marked as Ex.A18, the Tribunal had computed the compensation by following various judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court. 15. Though the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the compensation was excessive, for the reasons recorded supra, this Court does not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. 16. In the circumstances, viewed from any angle, there are no merits in the appeal. 17. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR 27.07.2026 LSP 10 TCDS,J M.A.C.M.A.NO.301 OF 2019 28 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 301 OF 2019 27.07.2026 LSP