MACMA/1236/2019 of THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs TALARI SUBBARAYUDU on 1 April 2026

1. THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, APSRTC, VIJAYAWADA, AMRAVATI.

...APPELLANT AND

1. TALARI SUBBARAYUDU, S/O. SUBBANNA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, HINDU, CAR DRIVER, R/O. D.NO.13/171-1, PENNA NAGAR, PRODDATUR TOWN AND MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT

2. PASALA MALLIKARJUNA REDDY, S/O. MALLA REDDY, AGED 35 YEARS, HINDU, DRIVER OF APSRTC BUS BEARING NO. AP28-Z-2521, R/O. NEAR SBI BANK, KADAPA ROAD, MYDUKUR TOWN AND MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT

...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased toMemorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before this Hon'ble Court being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 07- 09-2018 in M.V.O.P.No. 178 of 2015 on the file the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Cum - II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur, Kadapa 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 pleased to condone the delay of 341 days in filing the M.A.C.M.A. and pass 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 pleased to stay all further proceedings including the execution proceedings in M.V.O.P.No. 178 of 2015 on the file the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum - II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur, YSR Kadapa District and pass Counsel for the Appellant:

1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. D KODANDARAMI REDDY

The Court made the following judgment:

Questioning the order dated 07.09.2018 in MVOP No.178 of 2015, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Court, Kadapa at Proddatur, the 2nd respondent/APSRTC preferred the present appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were referred before the Tribunal.

3. The petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- on account of injuries sustained by him in the accident in which the offending bus bearing registration No.AP28-Z-2521 was involved. It is the case of the petitioner that he was working as driver under one Sri B.Vishnu Vardhan Reddy, the owner of Innova car bearing registration No.AP04-M-0112. On 07.06.2014, the petitioner, along with friends of Sri B.Vishnu Vardhan Reddy, was proceeding towards Jammalamadugu. When the car reached VRO Colony of Jandlavaram Village on Mydukur – Badvel main road, the offending bus, driven by the 1st respondent, came from the opposite direction at high speed in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Innova car. As a result, the car was badly damaged and the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. It is further the case of the petitioner that an inmate of the Inovva car,

Smt.V.Kondamma @ Lakshumma, succumbed to injuries. The petitioner and other injured persons were shifted to Government Hospital, Proddatur. One of the injured, Sri B.Subbarayadu Naik, gave complaint, and the same was registered against the 1st respondent in Cr.No.185 of 2014 on the file of Mydukur Police Station. Subsequently, the crime was investigated and chargesheet was filed.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the 1st respondent/driver, due to which the petitioner sustained fracture to left femur bone and a bleeding injury on his forehead. Thereafter, the petitioner was shifted to Government General Hospital, Kurnool, for better treatment, where he was treated as an in- patient from 08.06.2014 to 18.07.2014. The petitioner underwent surgery on 24.06.2014, to his left humerus bone, in which a steel road, plates and screws were inserted. Another surgery was conducted on 10.07.2014 to left femur, and inserted a steel road. It was further case of the petitioner that he spent an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards medicine and taken follow up treatment and incurred Rs.20,000/- towards transportation. Due to the injuries, the petitioner contends that he is unable to bend his left leg and left hand, and unable to walk properly. It was his further case that, he was unable to attend day to day activities. It was the specific case of the petitioner that he was earning Rs.6,000/- per month as driver and was contributing his entire earnings to his family. In view of the injuries sustained by him, he has lost his earning capacity as he has been permanently disabled.

5. The 1st respondent remained ex-parte. The 2nd respondent/APSRTC filed counter affidavit denying the averments made in the claim petition by contending that there was no negligence on the part of the 1st respondent/driver. It was contended that the petitioner without observing the traffic rules drove the car in rash and negligent manner and dashed the offending bus. It was further contended that the petitioner had no valid driving license as on the date of the accident and in order to fasten the liability on the 2nd respondent, crime was registered. It was also stated that the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of the insurer of Innova car as party respondent. With the above pleadings, the 2nd respondent prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

6. In order to prove the case of the petitioner he was examined as PW.1 and he also examined Sri Dr.C.Sanjeevaiah as PW.2, who treated him. He got marked Exs.A1 to A8 in support of his claim.

7. On the other hand, the respondent examined the driver of the offending bus as RW.1 and no documentary evidence was marked. Considering the oral and documentary evidence of the parties, the Tribunal by order under challenge awarded an amount of Rs.3,10,000/- as compensation together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred.

8. Heard counsel for the appellant and counsel for the 1st respondent. Despite service of notice there is no appearance for the 2nd respondent.

9. Perused the material available on record.

10. The counsel for the appellant would strenuously contend 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, the driver of the offending bus. In order to substantiate the said contention, the 1st respondent/driver of the offending bus was examined as RW.1.The said driver reiterated the contents of the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent in his evidence. Except denying that there is no negligence on his part, no material has been placed on record to substantiate the said contention. On the contrary, the petitioner has filed copies of the FIR and charge sheet, which were marked as Exs.A1 to A3. A perusal of the contents of the said documents would reveal that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 1st respondent/driver of the offending bus. Apart from the same, during the course of cross-examination, RW.1 has categorically admitted that he did not give any complaint against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner was responsible for occurrence of the accident.

11. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, it can be held that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending bus. Therefore, the contention of the appellant in this regard is liable to be rejected.

12. Further, the counsel for the appellant would strenuously contend that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, as the petitioner failed to place any material on record to establish that he was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. A perusal of the order under challenge makes it clear that, though the petitioner claimed income of Rs.6,000/- per month, the Tribunal did not consider the same, and fixed the income of the petitioner as Rs.112/- per day, in accordance with the minimum wages notification issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. Accordingly, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.3,10,000/- under various conventional heads. As already noted supra, the 2nd respondent/APSRTC has miserably failed to place any material on record to demonstrate that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. In the absence of any such material, the contention of APSRTC cannot be countenanced. Accordingly there are no merits in the appeal, and the same is hereby dismissed.

13. During the course of hearing, the counsel for the respondent/claimant would contend that the Tribunal erred in properly appreciating the case of the petitioner, inasmuch as it was his specific case that he was working as driver and earning Rs.6,000/- per month. In order to substantiate the same, he filed copy of the driving license, which was marked as Ex.A7. Despite the same, the Tribunal did not accept the said contention on the ground that the petitioner failed to examine his employer and did not file salary certificate to prove his income.

14. It is pertinent to note that, though the petitioner filed his driving license which was marked as Ex.A7, the Tribunal failed to assign any reasons as to why the same was disbelieved. Further, it is apparent on the face of the record that the petitioner himself was driving the Innova car at the time of the accident, and the said fact was also not disputed by the respondents. Therefore, the reasoning given by the Tribunal that the petitioner failed to examine his employer and did not file salary certificate to prove his income is without merit or substance.

15. It is the duty of this Court to see that just compensation is awarded to the victim/claimants. If the claimant is entitled to receive compensation over and above the claim made, the same has to be awarded. In fact, the Honb’e Apex Court in the case of Ramla and others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited1 had held as such.

16. In view of the above, the finding recorded by the Tribunal in this regard is liable to be interdicted and accordingly, the same is set aside. In the present case, the accident occurred on 07.06.2014, and during the 1 (2019) 2 SCC 192

said period, the income of a driver would be around Rs.7,500/- per month. Taking the same into consideration, the income of the petitioner is fixed as Rs.7,500/- and accordingly the compensation is computed as under: Description of the Head Amount Entitled in Rupees Net Annual Income Rs.7,500x12=Rs.90,000/- Multiplier

Disability 45% Loss of future earnings Rs.90,000/x45%x16 =Rs.6,48,000/- Treatment, Medical bills and Transport charges 25,000/- Pain and Suffering 50,000/- Total Compensation Rs.7,23,000/-

17. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any merit in the appeal accordingly the same is dismissed. Further, having regard to the submissions made by counsel for the respondent/claimants, the appellant is directed to pay compensation of amount of Rs.7,23,000/-, together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per month from the date of petition till the date of realization within a period of two (02) month from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.

______________________

JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR

Dt.02.04.2026 DSB

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR

MACMA No.1236 of 2019 Date 02.04.2026

U

DSB