APHC010092122019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] WEDNESDAY, THE 12th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 307/2019 Between: The Zonal Manager A.p.s.r.t.c. and Others ...APPELLANT(S) AND Senapati Ramesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. K SRINIVASA PRASAD SC For APSRTC Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. S V R SUBRAHMANYAM 2 The Court made the following judgment: The present appeal is preferred by APSRTC, aggrieved by order dated 17.08.2013, in MVOP No.492 of 2016, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal–cum–II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, apart raising other grounds. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were mentioned in the claim petition. 3. The petitioner approached the Tribunal seeking to pay compensation of Rs.3,43,454/-, on account of injuries sustained by him, due to the accident that occurred on 13.01.2015, in which the offending bus bearing registration No.AP-35-Z-0014 was involved. It was the case of the petitioner that while he was going to bus stop located in BRTS road, near SBI, Gopalapatnam Branch, when he was crossing the road, the 1st respondent/driver of the RTC bus, came in rash and negligent manner and dashed the petitioner from behind. As a result, the petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries on his right hand and head. Thereafter, the petitioner was shifted to Kala Hospital, located at Dwarakanagar. A case in Cr.No.6 of 2015 was registered on the 3 file of Gopalapatnam Police Station, for the offence under Section 338 IPC, against the 1st respondent. It was further case of the petitioner that he was working as electrician in M/s.Vinay Electrical Works, Gopalapatnam, and was earning an amount for Rs.450/- per day. It was further averred that, in view of the injuries sustained by him, he could not attend work for a period of three (03) months, and thereby sustained loss of income of Rs.40,000/-. It was further stated that he has spent an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses. In those circumstances, he approached the Tribunal by filing the above mentioned claim petition. 4. The 1st respondent/driver of the bus remained ex-parte. Respondent Nos.2 & 3 filed counter affidavit, inter alia, denying the averments made in the claim petition. It was contended that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner himself and that there was no negligence on the part of the 1st respondent/driver. Inter alia, it was also denied that the petitioner incurred medical expenses as claimed, and it was further contended that there was no permanent disability to the 4 petitioner. It was further contended that the claim made by the petitioner was excessive and prayed to dismiss the petition. 5. In order to prove the case of the petitioner, he was examined as PW.1 and one Sri P.Chinnarao, proprietor of M/s.Vinay Electrical Works was examined as PW.2. The petitioner also got marked documents in Exs.A1 to A9, and Exs.X1 & X2 were marked through the petitioner. On the other hand, the driver of the RTC bus was examined as RW.1, however no documentary evidence is placed on record on behalf of APSRTC. After trial, the Tribunal by impugned order, partly allowed the claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs.2,38,000/-, together with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of petition till the date of award, and interest at the rate of 7.5% thereafter, till the date of realisation. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is preferred. 6. Heard Sri A.Srinivas Prasad, learned Standing Counsel appearing for APSRTC/appellant and Sri S.V.R.Subramanyam, learned counsel appearing for the claimant. Despite service of notice, there is no appearance for the 2nd respondent. 7. Perused the material available on record. 5 8. The counsel for the appellant would submit that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner himself, and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the RTC bus. In order to prove the said contention, the driver of the bus was examined as RW.1. A perusal of the evidence of RW.1 would show that he deposed in tune with the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. Therefore, the evidence of RW.1 is not helpful to prove the negligence in the case on hand. On the other hand, the petitioner filed copies of FIR and Charge sheet and they were marked as Exs.A1 & A8. A perusal of the contents of the said documents would show that, the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the 1st respondent/driver. Initially, crime was registered against him and later the same was investigated into, and charge sheet was filed. 9. The Tribunal, on the basis of the documentary evidence placed by the petitioner, had come to the conclusion that there was negligence on the part of the 1st respondent. As rightly observed by the Tribunal, nothing was placed on behalf of APSRTC to disprove the evidence placed by the petitioner, as such the contention of the counsel for the appellant in this regard cannot be accepted. 6 10. Further, the counsel for the appellant would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was excessive, and the petitioner was not entitled to receive the same. In this connection, the appellant/APSRTC, except stating that the petitioner was not entitled to receive the compensation, nothing is placed on record to disprove the evidence of the petitioner. Further, it is apparent from the record that the petitioner was working as electrician in M/s.Vinay Electrical Works. Further, it was the case of the petitioner that he was earning Rs.450/- per day, and in order to prove the same, the proprietor of M/s.Vinay Electrical Works was examined as PW.2, who deposed in tune with the averments made in the claim petition. However, the Tribunal did not believe the evidence of PW.2 on the ground that he did not maintain any bank account so as to prove that the salary was being deposited into the account of the petitioner. Accordingly, the Tribunal had fixed the income of the petitioner as Rs.6,000/- per month and by following the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Sarala Verma & Ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.,1 had computed the compensation as Rs.2,38,000/-, and awarded the same together with interest at the rate of 6% per 1 2009 6 SCC 121 7 annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of award, thereafter at the rate of 7.5% per annum till realisation. 11. Though the counsel for the appellant contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, in the case on hand, the accident was occurred during the year 2015, and the income of the daily wage worker was not less than Rs.200/- per day during the relevant period. In view of the same, the contention advanced by the counsel for the appellant is liable to be rejected. 12. Viewed from any angle, there are no merits in the present appeal and accordingly the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR Dt.12.08.2026 DSB 8 39 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR MACMA No.307 of 2019 Date 12.08.2026 U DSB