The High Court · 2025

2- For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred as they were arrayed before the'lribunal' 3 The briel facts of the case as can be seen from the record are as under a) The petitioner hled claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act claiming compensation of Rs'6'O0'0OO/ - against t1le Respondent/ Corporation for the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident that occurre d' on 2l'lO'2012' The reason assigned by the petitioner for the injuries sustained by him in the accident is that ot 21 7O '2012 at 11'3O PM he 1 2 MCPJ boarded Bus bearing No. AP 16 Z OllO (hereinafter will be referred as 'crime vehicle) at Vijayawada to go to Hyderabad. b) When the bus reached outskirts of pamanugunda Village at about 4.15 AM i.e., on the next day early morning the driver of the bus drove the bus in rash and negligent manner, caused it over turned by the side of the road. Due to which the petitioner and other inmates of the bus sustained multiple injuries and fractures. Immediately, the petitioner was shifted to KIMS Hospital, Narketpally for treatment, wherein he got first aid treatment and later shifted to Sentini Hospital Private Limited, Vijayawada for better treatment. Thereafter, he took follow up treatment at Krishna Institution of Medical Sciences, Secunderabad as he sustained Hemipersis on right side and post traumatic central cord syndrome with quadriparesis and other injuries all over the body. c) A case in Crime No.227 of 2Ol2 was registered for the offence under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code against the driver of the crime vehicle. The petitioner is a retired employee aged about 63 years at the time of the accident. Even after discharge also the petilioner is attending for medical treatment regularly and he spent more than Rs.3,50,000/- towards 3 medical treatmcnt and Rs' 1,5O,00O/- torvards physiotherapy treatment. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by its driver and thus' he claimed compensation of Rs.6,OO,O0O/ - *ith interest @ l2o/o per annum'

4.BeforethelearnedTribunal,inrep\'tot}reabovepetition averments, the respondent hled 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 excessiveandexorbitantandprayedtodismissthepetition. J Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: i) Whether the petitioner sustained injuies due to tle ra-sh and rtegttgent dnuing of dnuer of RTC Bus beaing No. AP 16 Z 0110? iil Whetler tlw petitioner is entitled for compensation' if so, to rtthat amount and from uLnm? iii) To uhat relieft It is pertinent to note that in the said accident' apart from 6. the respondent herein, other injured in the same accident also filed claim petition vide MVOP No'49 of 2O15' As seen from the impugned order, since both the cases are arising out of the ) I I I + same accident, both the cases were clubbed vide orders in I.A.No.22 of 2O2O and a common trial was conducted in both the cases. So far as the present Appeal is concerned, the claimant/respondent herein was examined as PW2 apart from examining PWs 3 to 6 and relying on Exs.A7 to A14. On the other hand, there was no oral or documentary evidence adduced on behaif of tJ.e appeliant/corporation to deny the claim of the petitioner/ claimant/ respondent.

7. The learned Tribunal after considering the oral and documentar5z evidence on record, passed common order in MVOP Nos.49 of 2015 and 5O of 2015. So far as, MVOP No.50 of 20 15 is concerned, the said petition was partly allowed awarding compensation of Rs.2,14,513/- with interest @ 7.5o/o per Ernnum. Aggrieved by the impugned common order in MVOP Nos.49 of 2015 and 5O of 2015, the Appellant/APSRTC Corporation filed the present Appeal to set aside the impugned common order only to the extent of MVOP No.SO of 20 15.

8. Heard Sri Kallakuri Srinivasa Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the Appellant/APSRTC Corporation, Sri Kadaru Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the respondent/claimant 5

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 further contended that the learned Tribunal relied on Exs.Al and A2 in MVOP No.49 of 2O15 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.

11. As stated supra, since the claim petitions in MVOP No.49 of 2015 anci MVOP No. 5O of 2O15 are arising out of the same accident, the learned Tribunal while passing common order in both the cases relied upon Exs.Al and ,A,2 marked in MVOP No.49 of 2015 to decide issue No.1 in MVOP No.sO of 2O15. Ex.Al is the FIR in Crime No.227 of 2Ol2 of Police Station Narketpally and Ex.A2 is the charge sheet filed in Crime No.227 of 2012. Apart from the documentary evidence, the leamed Tribunal relied upon the oral evidence of PW I (claimant in 'I 6 MCPJ MACMANo. 1473 04 2023 MVOP No.49 of 2015) and pW2 (ctaimant in MVOp No.50 of 2015). The learned Tribunal observed in the impugned order that except giving suggestions to pWs I and 2, nothing could be elicited from the cross examination of pWs I arld 2 to establish that they have not sustained injuries in the said accident. Suggestions were given to pWs I and. 2 that they did not travel in the crime vehicle on the date of accident but the same was denied by PWs 1 and 2. Further, a perusal of the record discloses that as per Ex.A2 charge sheet, pWs I and 2 were traveling in the said bus on the date of accident and that the complaint was lodged by one A. Sathyanarayana (LWl/injured) on 22.10.2012 i.e., the same date of accident alleging that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the APSRTC Bus bearing No. Ap 16 Z OllO with high speed. Based on the said report, a case in Crime No.227 of 2O12 was registered by the Police, Nareketpally. As rightly observed by the learned Tribunal in the impugned order, there was no rebuttal evidence against the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the claimant/injured. As seen from Ex.A2, the claimants in these two cases were shown as LWs 3 and 9 and the defacto complainant, who alleged to have lodged report before the concerned Police was shown as LWl. Apart from MCPTJ MACMA ri. 14730f2023 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, LW8 - Danala Shailu. The said incident was witnessed by LW5- Thmuati Aruna and LW6 Thumati Vikram. The Sub Inspector of Police, Narketpally Police Station has filed charge sheet against the driver of the bus for the offence under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code. Thus, the oral evidence of PWs 1 and 2 coupled wi th documentar5r 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.

12. The other contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Tribunal failed to see that only due to gross nt-'gligence on the part of the claimant injuries were sustained by the claimant. In order to establish the above said contention, there is no material placecl either before the learned Tribunal or before this Court. Moreover, there is no explanation as to how the negligence on the part of tJle appellant can cause injuries to him, more particularly, when the appellant was sitting inside the bus. I a M(iPJ MACrttNe rr73 0r 2@3

13. The learned Standing Counsel for the Appellant argued that the learned Tribunal has grossly erred in awarding amount of Rs.2,14,513/- @ 7.5% per annum under different heads, which is highly excessive and out of all proportions.

14. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- each towards transportation ald extra nourishment. Since the claimalt/ injured sustained grievous injuries at the time of accident, he requires good nutritious food along with vitamin supplements to recover quickly from the injuries. Further, the injured took treatment and also follow up treatment in three different hospitals at Vijayawada, Narketally and Secunderabad, he might have incurred certain amount towards transportation charges. Though the claimant/ injured claimed Rs.35,925/- towards transportation by relying on Ex.A 13, the learned Tribunal failed to consider t1.e same on the ground that the injured faiied to examine the owner or the person, who issued Ex.A13. Thus, the amount of Rs. 1O,0O0/- each awarded by the learned towards transportation and extra nourishment is appearing to bejust and reasonable.

15. The injured relied upon Exs.A7 to AIO and A14 to qubstantiate that he incurred Rs.1,44,513/- towards medical 7 9 expenses. Exs.A7 to A10 and A14 are the original discharge summary and follow up card issued by KIMS Hospital at Narketpaliy, originai discharge summary issued by Sentini Hospital, Vijayawada, original discharge summary issued by KIMS Hospital, Secunderabad, original final bill issued by Sentini Hospital, 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, Vijayarvada, 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 bv the learned Tribunal is also appearing to be justified.

16. Now coming to the compensation amount of Rs'5O,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 O1'05'2013 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 I 10 accident and at that old age he suffered grievous injuries, due to which he might have suffered physical and mental agony. Hence, the compensation amount of Rs.50,0OO/- awarded by the learned Tribunal towards pain and suffering for loss of pleasure and amenities is appearing to be justified.

17. Except raising the grounds in the grounds of appeal, the appellant/APSRTC Corporation has not placed any material either before the learned Tribunal or before this Court to establish that the compensation amount of Rs.2,14,513/- awarded by the learned Tribunal against the claim of the injured at Rs.6,O0,0OO/- is excessive or exorbitant. Though the injured/claimant claimed Rs. 1,68,000/- towards physiotherapy charges by relying on EX.AI 1, the learned Tribunal did not consider the same on the ground that the injured/claimant failed to examine the physiotherapist, who has given treatment to the injured/ claimant. i8. The learned Standing Counsel for the APSRTC further submitted that the interest on the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal at 7.5o/o per annum is high. But it is pertinent to note that the learned Tribunal has awarded interest on the compensation amount @ 7 .5o/o per annum by relying on tJte MCPJ rr^cM,{ No r473 0f 20)] decision of thc Honourable Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Mannat Johal and othersl. 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 t]re 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. t{ence, 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. Miscr:llaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. 2ot1 z Tac -to; \ To //TRUE COPY// sd/- MoHD. ASSISTANT REG MAIL TRAR SECTION OFFICER

1. The chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- lV Additional District Judge at Nalgonda. (With Records if any)

2. One CC to SRI KALLAKURI SRINIVASARA, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI KADARU PRABHAKAR RAO, Advocate TOPUCI 4. Two CD Copies pr w I I HIGH COURT DATED:2410112025 f I I I JUDGMENT MACMA.No.1473 ol 2023 rHE SI4 24 APB 2M ( o o r:), // ) a {\- _7 DISMISSED 6 1 4 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENW FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLAN EOUS APPEAL NO: 1473 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) AND ,..APPELLANT/RESPONDENT Kilaru Raghu Kumar, S/o Venkateshwarlu, aged 63 years, Occ; Retired Teacher, Nio NTR Circle, Patamata R/o. Narketpally(V) and (M), Nalgonda District ...RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor vehicles Act., against the Judgment and decree, made in M.V.O.P.No.50 of 2015 daled.29.O7.2022 on the file of the chairman, Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum- lv Additional District Judge at Nalgonda. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the court below and the material papers in the MVOP and upon hearing the arguments of SRl. KALLAKURI SRINIVASARAO, Advocate for the appellant and of sRl KADARU PRABHAKAR RAO, Counsel for the Respondent, This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

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

2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. I //TRUE COPY' Sd/- MOHD. I ASSISTANT REGI AIL \ SI=CTION OFFICER

1. The chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- IV Additional District J udge at Nalgonda.

2. Two CD Copies w To HIGH COUR'I- DATED:2410112025 ,/ DECREE MACMA.N o.1473 of 2023 DISMISSED @ 4l ,tla{