APHC010082132020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] TUESDAY, THE 11th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 211/2020 Between: 1. VC AND MD,, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REP. BY REGIONAL MANAGER, APSRTC, VIJAYAWADA, VIJAYAWADA URBAN, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1. BODDU ANANDA RAO, S/O SUBBARAYUDU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, PROPRIETOR OF BODDU ANANDA RAO HANDLOOM CLOTH MERCHANTS, BRAHMAPURAM, PEDANA, D.NO .10-195-19, BRAHMAPURAM, PEDANA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 2. BANTUMILLI YOGESWARA RAO, S/O KRISHNA, DRIVER OF APSRTC BUS BEARING NO. AP 28 Z 5986, AGED 44 YEARS, HINDU, D.NO. 20/72, NEAR HYNI SCHOOL, GANDHI NAGAR, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. (2ND RESPONDENT IS NOT A NECESSARY PARTY TO THE APPEAL) ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 TCDS,J MACMA_211_2020 Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Courtpleased to allow the MACMA by setting aside the Judgment and Decree dated 17-07-2019 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 117 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Motor Accidents claims Tribunal- cum-X Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam IA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 days in filing the appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated 17-07-2019 passed in M.V.O.P.No.117 of 2018 on the File of the Court of Motor Accidents claims Tribunal-cum-IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam IA NO: 2 OF 2020 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 pleased to grant stay of all fuirther proceedings pursuant to the Judgment and Decree dated 17-07-2019 passed in M.V.O.P.No.117 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Motor Accidents claims Tribunal-cum-X Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam including the execution proceedings, pending disposal of the above M.A.C.M.A Counsel for the Appellant: 1. K SRINIVASA PRASAD SC For APSRTC Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. NARASIMHA RAO GUDISEVA The Court made the following: 3 TCDS,J MACMA_211_2020 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR MACMA No.211 OF 2020 JUDGMENT :- 1. The present appeal is preferred by APSRTC aggrieved by order dated 17.07.2019 on the file of Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal-cum- X Additional District and Special Sessions Judge, Krishna District at Machilipatnam. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as they were referred before the Tribunal. 2. The petitioner filed claim petition under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act and the rules made there under. Claiming the compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for the injuries sustained in the accident that occurred on 16.07.2017 in which the bus belonging to the A.P.S.R.T.C bearing registration No.AP 28 Z 5986 was involved. 3. The case of the petitioner that he, along with others was going to morning walk, then the offending bus driven by the respondent No.1 came in rash and negligent manner and dashed the petitioner and others near Suvarna Oil filling station situated at Pedana-Gudivada main road. In the said accident 4 TCDS,J MACMA_211_2020 the petitioner sustained multiple grievous bleeding injuries to his chest, Hemoperitoniem, head injury, right hand, right shoulder, fracture mandiable zygoma and left eye, he sustained injuries to his right side of stomach and all over the body. It was further averred that one Rama Krishna member of walkers group died on the spot and other members along with the petitioner Busam Anand Rao and Mallireddy Rama Krishna Reddy were also sustained grievous injuries. It was further stated that the accident was witnessed by the injured persons and one Bezawada Panduranga Rao and other pedestrians who were present at that time, immediately came to rescue of the petitioner and other injured persons and they were shifted to Kali Nursing Home, Pedana for first aid. Thereafter, the petitioner was shifted to Ayush Hospital, Vijayawada. A case in Cr.No.98 of 2017 under section 304-A & 337 Indian Penal Code (for short I.P.C) was registered on the file of the Pedana Police Station and after investigating into the matter, charge sheet was filed on the file of the Special Mobile Judicial First Class Magistrate, Machilipatnam. The petitioner was treated as in patient from 16.07.2017 to 26.07.2017 in Ayush Hospital, 5 TCDS,J MACMA_211_2020 Vijayawada for the injuries sustained by him. A surgery was conducted on 19.07.2017 and the petitioner was informed that he is required to undergo another surgery, and advised him to take bed rest for one year. After discharge from Ayush Hospital, Vijayawada, the petitioner took treatment in Kali Nursing Home from 27.07.2017 to 17.08.2017 as in patient and thereafter, he was advised to take follow up treatment. It was further averred that surgeries were conducted to the petitioner on 17.07.2017, 18.07.2017, 19.07.2017 and 21.07.2017. Due to head injury received by the petitioner he was in Intensive Care Unit (I.C.U) with the support of ventilation and spent huge amount towards medical expenses. In view of the same, he could not attend his regular work and business transactions as he was suffering from continuous headache, vomiting. It was further the case of the petitioner that he sustained fracture of mandiable at left zygoma left area, left ear and left eye, two teeth were completely broken and the doctors conducted surgery and inserted steel rods in the teeth for protection. In view of the injuries sustained by him it was stated that he underwent mental agony and thereby filed the above petition 6 TCDS,J MACMA_211_2020 claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-, however, later the same was restricted to Rs.8,00,000/-. 4. The respondent Nos.1 & 2 filed separate counter affidavits denying the averments made in the claim petition. Further it was also denied the manner in which the accident was taken place. It was further contended that the walkers’ were chit chatting and walking on the road without observing the traffic rules. It was further contended that on the date of accident there was heavy rain and fog. 5. It was further case of the respondent Nos.1 & 2 that suddenly buffaloes entered on the road and after seeing the same the walkers turned on the right side and came on the road without observing that the bus was coming in the opposite direction. It was further stated that, the driver applied brakes so as to avoid the accident, however, he could not avoid the same, as the walkers suddenly came on the road, thereby the accident was occurred. It was further contended that the claim made by the petitioner was excessive. With the above pleadings, the respondent prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 7 TCDS,J MACMA_211_2020 6. In order to prove the case of the petitioner he was examined as PW.1. Doctors who treated him were examined as PWs’ 2 to 4. The petitioner also marked documents in Exhibits A1 to A7. Exhibit X1 case sheet of the petitioner was marked through PW1. On the other hand, the respondent No.1/driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C was examined as RW-1. However, no documentary evidence was placed on record. Considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal by order under challenge awarded compensation of Rs.5,87,000/- together with the interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit by fastening the liability on respondent Nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent No.2/A.P.S.R.T.C preferred this appeal. 7. Heard, Sri Penumaka Venkata Rao, learned Standing counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri T Manikanta, learned counsel representing Sri Narasimha Rao Gudiseva appearing for respondent No.1. As per cause title respondent No.2 was shown as not necessary party. 8 TCDS,J MACMA_211_2020 8. The counsel for the appellant would submit that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner himself in as much as after seeing the buffaloes, the petitioner and other walkers suddenly entered into the main road, without observing that the bus was coming in the opposite direction. He would further submit that, despite taking precautions by the driver, who applied sudden brake nevertheless, the accident was occurred as there was heavy rain and fog. In order to substantiate the contention of the appellant, the driver of the offending bus was examined as RW.1. A perusal of evidence of RW.1 would show that he has deposed in tune with the averments made in the counter affidavit. Therefore the same cannot be taken into consideration as it was not helpful to establish the negligence of the petitioner. In order to establish the negligence on the part of the respondent No.1/driver, the petitioner places reliance on the crime which was registered against the respondent No.1 on the file of the Pedana Police Station. Later the same was investigated into and charge sheet was filed against the respondent No.1. The factum of registering the case against the driver of the bus and filing of 9 TCDS,J MACMA_211_2020 charge sheet were not denied by the appellants/respondents. Therefore it can be held that the accident was occurred due to answered accordingly. 9. Coming to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, it is apparent from the record that the petitioner had sustained the following injuries : (i) Blunt injury chest Collapse consolidation right lower lobe of lung. (ii) Blunt injury abdomen-Mesentric injury with small Pseudoenurism, mild hermoperitoneum. (iii) Head Injury-Mild Subarachanoid Haemorrage of right hiperital region. (iv) Right hand. (v) Right shoulder. (vi) Fracture Mandible Zygome. (vii) Left eye and (vii) Sustained injury to his right side of stomach. 10. Further the petitioner also filed wound certificate which was marked in Ex.A2 dated 30.08.2017, issued by Ayush NRI LEPE Health Care Private Limited. Apart from the same he has also filed copies of discharge summaries, bunch of prescriptions, medical bills to prove his case. Further the petitioner got examined 4 doctors who conducted surgeries and gave treatment to him during his stay in the hospital as in patient. PW2 has deposed that the petitioner sustained the following injuries : 10 TCDS,J MACMA_211_2020 (i) Blunt injury on chest collapse consolidation on right lower lobe of lung. (ii) Blunt Injury on abdomen, mescentric injury with small psudo annurism, mild heamoperitoneum. (iii) Head injury mild sub Arachnoid haemarrage of right high parietal region. 11. PW3 was Pulmanologist and Neuro surgeon in Ayush Hospital, Vijayawada who deposed that the petitioner was with ventilator for three days and thereafter he was shifted to room and later discharged on 26.07.2017. Further, to corroborate his evidence petitioner has filed Exhibits A7 & A8 discharge summary and patient assessment record furnished by the hospital. Apart from the same the petitioner has also filed bunch of medical bills showing that he has incurred an amount of Rs.3,18,417/- towards the treatment and other expenses. After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence placed by the petitioner the compensation that was entitled received by the petitioner was computed and an amount of Rs.5,87,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal under various conventional heads. Though the counsel for the appellant would submit that the same was excessive, in view of the findings recorded by the Tribunal, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the order under challenge. The 11 TCDS,J MACMA_211_2020 Tribunal after appreciating the evidence on record had arrived at just compensation. 12. For the reasons recorded, Supra this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of the Tribunal and accordingly the appeal is dismissed. Further the appellant is directed to deposit the compensation awarded by the Tribunal together with the interest @ 7.5 % per annum within the period of 2 months from the date of receipt of the copy of order. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any shall stand closed. ________________ T.C.D.SEKHAR, J 11.08.2026 CMK 12 TCDS,J MACMA_211_2020 118 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MACMA NO.211 of 2020 11.08.2026 CMK