The High Court · 2025

Judgment

This appeal is frled aggrieved by the order I ated 29 'O7 '2022 passed. in M.V.O.P.No.49 of 2015 by the learned rlhairman' Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum-lV A<iditional District 'ludge ' Nalgonda'

2. Both the learned counsel present' It is represented that connected matter i e N4 A'C M'A'No 1473

3. of 2023 was disposed of by this Court uide order dated 24'Ol 2025 '

4. Both the learned counsel have consented that:r consent order be passed in terms of the order d'ated' 24'Ol'2025 in lV 'A'C M A'No 1473 of 2023.

5. Accordingll', M.A.C M'A-No '367 of 2023 is dismissed as per the reasoning given in M.A.C M'A'No -1473 of 2023' No ('osts' Miscellaneous applications, if any, pendirlg irr this appeal sirall stand closed. //TRUE COPY//

SD/. N. SRIHARI DEPUTY REGISTRAR L SECTION OFFICER I To, P Judge at Nalgonda.

1. The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum lV. Additional Distfict 2. One CC to Sri Kallakuri Srinivasarao, Advocate [OPUO] 3. One CC to Sri Kadaru Prabhakar Rao, Advocate [Opt_91 4. Two CD Copies ASATVR r$ ,} _ . -..,,,-rIB"i.i1 t:: ; Il I ,i-:.", t, .-l' fff$1l:- i,r'." t- ,-- i I l I I ! I 1 1 t. HIGH COURT DATED:1910612025 JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.No.367 of 2023 1!) \Ja ilj '2[6 D i-) '.,, i\- ..-4. 'i..," i". MACMA IS DISMISSED WITHOUT COSiTS V HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI M.A.C.M.A.No.L473 OF 2023 JUDGMENT: Aggrieved by the order and decree dated 29.07.2022 (hereinafter will be referred as 'impugned orderJ passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - iV Additional District Judge, Nalgonda (hereinafter will be referred as .'Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.50 of 2O15, the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation has hled the present Appeal to set aside the impugned order.

2. .For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred as they u.ere arrayed before the Tribunal

3. The brief facts of the case as cal be seen from the record ale as under: a) The petitioner hled claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/ against the Respondent/Corporation for the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident that occurred on 21.1O.2OL2. The reason assigned by the petitioner for the injuries sustained by him in the accident is that on 2L.1O.2O72 at 11.3O PM he 2 boarded Bus bearing No. AP 16 Z Ol lO (he:-,-inafter will be referred as 'crime vehicle') at Vijayawada to go to Hyderabad. b) When the bus reached outskirts of pamar.r-tgunda Village at about 4 . 15 AM i.e. , on the next day early mr; -ning the driver of the bus drove the bus in rash and negligent tnanner, camsed it over turned by the side of the road. DtL,' to which the petitioner and other inmates of the bus su -r: ained multiple injuries ald fractures. Immediately, the petitir'ter was shifted to KIMS HospitaL, Narkctpally lor treatment, wh c rein he got first aid treatment and later shlfted to Sentini l{ospital Private Limited, \'ijayawada for better treatment. Th:-eafter, he took follow up treatment at Krishna Institution of l{rrdical Sciences, Secunderabad as he sustained Hemipersis ort right side and post traumatic centrzrl cord syndrome with qr:,rdriparesis and other injuries all over the bod1,. c) A case in Crime No.227 of 2Ol2 was rc glste red for the offence under Section 337 of the Indian Penal ( ode against the driver of the crime vehicle. The petitioner is a letired employee aged about 63 years at the time of the accicii'nt. Even after discharge also the petitioner is attending for nrcLical treatrnent regularly and he spent more than Rs.3,5l OOO/- towards 3 medical treatment and Rs.1,50,000/- towards physiotherapy treatment. The accident occurred dr.re to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by its driver and thus, he claimed compensation of Rs.6,O0,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum.

4. Before the learned Tribunal, in reply to the above petition averments, the respondent fi1ed counter denying the averments of the petition including the involvement of the crime vehicle, negligence on the part of the driver. It is mainly contended that the claim of the petitioner under different heads is highly excessive and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: i1 Whether the petitioner sustained injuries due to the rash and negTigent diuing of diuer of RTC Bus bearing No. AP 16 Z O11O? i, WTrcther the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to uhat amount and from uhom? iii) To u.that relieJ?

6. It is pertinent to note that in the said accident, apart from the respondent herein, other injured in the same accident also hled claim petition vide MVOP No.49 of 20i5. As seen from the impugned order, since both the cases are arising out of the 4 same accident, both the cases were clubbed vide orders in I.A.No.22 ()f 2O2O and a common trial was co:-t:lucted in both the cases. So far as the present Appeal is ::oncerned, the ciaimant/ respondent herein was examined as FW2 apart from examining PWs 3 to 6 and relying on Exs.A7 t ' A14. On the other hand, there was no oral or documentary evicience adduced on behalf of the appellant/corporatron to deny the claim of the petitloner/ claimant/ respondent.

7. The learned Tribunal after considerinll the oral and documentary evidence on record, passed cor lmon clrder in MVOP Nos.49 of 2015 ald 50 ol 2O15. So far r s, MVOP No.50 of 201li is concerned, the said petition lva:; partly allowed arvardirrg compensation of Rs.2, 14,513/- with .:tcrcst @) 7.5% per an..unl. Aggrieved by the tmpugned commor order in MVOP Nos.49 of 2O15 and 50 of 2O15, the A1; rellant/APSRTC Corporation hled the prescnt Appcal to set asi l,: the impugned common order only to the extent of MVOP No.5() ol 20 15

8. Heard Sri Kallakuri Srinivasa Rao, L: irned Standing Counsel for the Appellant/APSRTC Corporali.rn, Sri Kadaru Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the resp'c,ndent/claimant 5 arrd perused the material available on record including the grounds of Appeal

9. It is to be seen that the injured/ claimant has not preferred any Appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal.

10. The first and foremost contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that there is no negligence on the part of driver of APSRTC Bus bearing No. AP 16 Z OllO of Autonagar Depot and in fact the driver was driving the bus slowly. It was furthbr contended that the learned Tribunal relied on Exs.Al ar,d A2 in MVOP No.49 of 2015 to establish that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the bus but the same is no conclusive proof to hold that the driver of the bus was rash and negligent i 1. As stated supra, since the ciaim petitions in MVOP No-49 of 2Ol5 artd MVOP No. 50 of 2Ol5 are arising out of the same accident, the learned Tribunal while passing common order in both the cases relied upon Exs.A1 an:d A2 marked in MVOP No.49 of 2015 to decide issue No. I in MVOP No.50 oi 2015. Ex.A1 is the FIR in Crime No.227 of 201,2 of Police Station Narketpally and Ex.A2 is the charge sheet filed in Crime No.227 6 of 2072. Apart from the documentary evide:l,:c, the learned Tribunal r'elied upon the oral evidence of P'v\'l (clatmant in MVOP No 49 of 2075) and PW2 (claimant in \'IVOP No.5O of 2015). The learned Tribunal observed in the nipugned order that exr;ept giving suggestions to PWs 1 and 2, r othing could be elicited from the cross examination of PWs 1 a:::1 2 to establish that they have not sustained injuries in the said accident Suggestions were given to PWs I and 2 that tl:t'v did not travel in the crime vehicle on the date of accident b'- i the salrle was denied by PWs 1 and 2. Further, a perusei of the record discloses that as per trx.A2 charge sheet, PVr ' I and 2 were traveling in the said bus on the date of accident and that the complaint rvas lodged by one A. Sathyanarayara (LW1/injured) on 22.1O.2O12 i.e., the same date of accident r-iLcging that the accident occurred due to rash and negligerlr drivrng of the APSRTC Elus bearing No- AP 76 Z Ol10 with h 5.h speecl. Based on the said report, a case in Crime No.2l2 i of 20 i2 lvas registered by the Police, Nareketpally. As rigJ tllz observed by the learned Tribunal in the impugned order there was no rebuttal evidence against the oral and docurr entary evidence adduced by the clarmant/injured. As seen rom Ex.A2, the claimants in these two cases were shown as l-\,Vs 3 and 9 and the defacto complainalt, who alleged to have lodged report before the concerned Police was shown as LW I - Apart from them, there are other passengers, who have sustained injuries in the said accident and they are LW2 - Abbaru Lopa Mudra, LW4 Jagarlamoodi Raghava Rao, LW7 - Kanakaparthy Bhavani, LWS - Danala Shailu. The said incident was witnessed by LW5- Thmuati Aruna and LW6 Thumati Vikram. The Sub lnspector of Police, Narketpaily Police Station has filed charge sheet against the driver of the bus for the offence under Section 337 of the lndian Penal Code. Thus. the oral evidence of PWs I and 2 coupled with documentary evidence under Exs.A 1 to A2 establishes that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by its driver. 72 The other contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Tribunal failed to see that only due to gross negligence on the part of the claimant injuries were sustained by the claimant. [n order to establish the above said contention, there is no material placed either before the learned Tribunal or before this Court. Moreover, there is no explanation as to how the negligence on the part of the appellant can cause injuries to him, more particularly, when the appellant was sitting inside the bus. E

13. The learned Standing Counsel for the Alrpellant argued that the learned Tribunal has grossly erred in al, arding amount of Rs.2,14,51 3l ' @ 7 .5% per annum under riifferent heads, which is highly excessive and otlt of all proportir)rls.

14. T}ie learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 10,OOCI, - each towards transportation and extra nourishment. Sincr: the claimant/ injured sustaincd grievous injuries at the timr: ol accident, he require:; good nutritious food along with vitamitr supplements to recover qr-rickly from the injuries. Further, t- ri: injured took treatment and also follow up treatment in t hree different hospitals at Vijayawada, Narketally and Ser:underabad, he might harze incurred certain amount toward s transportation charges. Though the cLaimant/injured clairr:C Rs.35.925/- towards 1-ransportation by relying on Ex.A 1 3. the lcarned Tribunal failed to consider the same on thc r:.round that the injured failed to examine the owner or the pe:-on, who issu.ed Ex.A13. Thus, the amount of Rs.10,000/- eac:: awarded by the learnei towards transportation and extra llourishment is appearing to be just ald reasonable. 1 5. 'I'he injured relied upon Exs.A7 to l. i0 and A14 to sl-rbstantiate that he incurred Rs.1,44,513/ orvards medrcal 9 expenses. Exs.A7 to A10 and A14 are the original discharge summary and fol1ow up card issued by KIMS Hospital at Narketpally, original discharge summary issued by Sentini Hospital, Vijayawada, original discharge summary issued by KIMS Hospital, Secunderabad, original hnal bill issued by Sentini Hospitai, Vijayawada and IP and final Bill issued by KIMS, Secunderabad. The above said documentary evidence is well supported by the evidence of PWs 3 to 6. PWs 3 and 4 are the consultant orthopedic centre and billing incharge in Sentini Hospital, Vrjayawada, PWs 5 and 6 are the consultant and deputy billing manager in KIMS Hospital, Secunderabad. Thus, the amount of Rs. 1,44,513 / - towards medical expenses awarded by the learned Tribunal is also appearing to be justihed.

16. Now coming to the compensation amount of Rs.50,000/ awarded by the learned Tribunal towards pain and suffering for loss of pleasure and amenities, as seen from the record, the injured alleged to have undergone surgery on 01.05.2O13 in KIMS hospital, Secunderabad. Further, the injured alleged to have taken physiotherapy treatment at Sentini Hospital, Vijayawada for the post traumatic central cord syndrome. The injured was retired employee aged about 63 years at the time of 10 accideni and at that o1d age he suffered grievour; injuries, due to which l:re might have suffered physical and mental agony. Hence, the compensation amount of Rs.SO,OC'tl/- awarded by the learned Tribunal towards pain and sufl'::ing for loss of pleasur,: and amenities is appearing to be justif',t'd .

77. Except raising the grounds in the groun,ls of appeal, the appellant/APSRTC Corporation has not piaced any material either beforc the leetrned Tribunal or befor: this Court to establish that the compensation amount oi Rs.2,14,513/- awarded by the learned Tribunal against tri: clarm of the injured at Rs.6,00,00O/- is excessive or exorbit: nt. Though the injured/ claimant claimed Rs.1,68,0OO/- towarl s ph1'siotherapy charges by relying on EX.A1 1, the learned 'f ribunal did not consider the same on the ground that the i:-r-jured/ claimant failed to examine the physiotherapist, who has given treatment to the injr-rred/ claimant. 1 8. 'I'he learned Standing Counsel for the '\PSRTC further submitted that the interest on the compensatiort awarded by the learnecl Tribunal at 7.5'k per annum is high. ]lut it is pertinent to noto that the learned Tribunal has awardecl interest on the compensation amount (q 7.5% per annum trl' relying on the 11 IICP,J v.\cur No l{7r of.r02l decision of the Honourable Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Mannat Johal and othersr. Hence, the above contention is unsustainable

19. Thus, viewed from any angle, the above contentions of the learned Standing Counsel for the APSRTC are untenable, more particularly, in the absence of any material placed by the appellant either before the learned Tribunal or before this Court. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the Appellant failed to establish any of the grounds in the appeal to succeed in the Appeal. There are no tenable grounds to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the learned Tribunal. Hence, this appeal is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.

20. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. Date: 24.O1.2O2) ' 2019 2 TAC 705 {SC) JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI 134421 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 367 OF 2023 Between: Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its General Manager, Musheerabad, Hyderabad (APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP1620110 of Auto Nagar Depot) (presently at Pandit Nehru Bus Station, Vijayawada, Krishna District) ...Appellant AND Chookulla Laxminarayana Prasad, S/o Natraj, aged 38 years, Occ. I\4edical Representative, N/o Mallikarjuna Nagar, Hyderabad R/o. Nalgonda Town. Appeal filed Under Section 173 of tvlotor Vehicles Act against the Judgment and decree in M.V.O.P.No.49 oI 2015 dated. 2910912022 on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- lV Additional District Judge at Nalgonda. ... Respondent This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the Case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri K.Prabhakar Rao, for the Respondent. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil fMiscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is dismissed;

2. That save as aforesaid, the Judgment and decree of the Tribunal shall stands confirmed in all other respects; and :-,=}ti

3. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal //TRUE COPY// SD/. N. SRIHARI DEPUTY REGISTRAR e SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum. lV Additional District J udge at Nalgonda.

2. Two CD Copies AS,A]VB P { HIGH COURT DATED:1910612025 DECREE MACMA.No.367 ot 2023 MACMA IS DISMISSED WITHOUT COS|TS A.-,