Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport ... vs Sudha Rama Lakshumma on 6 February, 2026
APHC010275392018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3548]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 925/2018
Between:
1. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
REP. BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, R.M. OFFICE, A.P.S.R.T.C.
BUS STAND, KADAPA CITY, KADAPA DISTRICT
...APPELLANT
AND
1. SUDHA RAMA LAKSHUMMA, W/O. RAMA LINGA REDDY, HINDU,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, AGRICULTURE/MILK SELLING,
NALLACHERUVUPALLI VILLAGE AND POST, VEMULA MANDAL,
KADAPA DISTRICT. PRESENTLY R/AT. NEAR ITI CIRCLE
CHEMMUMIYAPETA, KADAPA CITY AND DISTRICT.
2. SHAIK MAHABOOB BASHA, S/O. SHAIK REDDY, SAHEB, AGED
ABOUT 53 YEARS, RTC DRIVER, R/O. D. NO- 28/140-A, ALIMABAD
STREET, RAYACHOTY TOWN, KADAPA DISTRICT. (R-2 NOT
NECESSARY IN THIS MACMA)
...RESPONDENTS
Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying that the High Court may be
pleased to set aside the order and decree dated 13.11.2017 in M.V.O.P.
No.656/2016 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -
Cum-Principal District Judge, Kadapa.
2
GTK, J
MACMA_925_2018
IA NO: 1 OF 2018
Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased to condone delay of 27 days in filing the MACMA and pass.
IA NO: 2 OF 2018
Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased to stay of all further proceedings including the execution proceedings
in MVOP.No.656/2016 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Kadapa District.
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC)
Counsel for the Respondent(s):
1. D KODANDARAMI REDDY
The Court made the following:
3
GTK, J
MACMA_925_2018
JUDGMENT:
Being dissatisfied with the Order and Decree passed by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Kadapa, (hereinafter referred to as „the Tribunal‟) in M.V.O.P.No.656 of 2016, dated 13.11.2017, whereby, compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum was awarded to the claimant for the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident, the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) is filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation.
2. The parties are arrayed as mentioned before the Tribunal, for the sake of convenience.
The fasciculus matrix leading to filing of the present appeal is as follows:
3. On 28.02.2016, the claimant, aged about 35 years, was travelling along with her husband in APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP-04-Z-0045 from Pulivendula to Kadapa. While the bus was crossing a speed breaker, near Yogi Vemana University, the driver drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner without observing the speed breaker, as a result of which the bus gave a heavy jolt. The claimant, who was seated on a three-seater behind the driver, fell down inside the bus and sustained grievous head injuries.
4. She was initially taken to Dr.Jagadeeshwar Reddy, Neuro Surgeon at Kadapa and thereafter shifted to SVIMS Hospital, Tirupati, where she underwent right fronto-temporal decompressive craniotomy, tracheostomy and prolonged treatment. A criminal case was registered against the driver of the APSRTC bus, alleging that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver and that she suffered permanent disability. The claimant, subsequently, filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-.
4GTK, J MACMA_925_2018
5. The contention of the claimant was that she was an Agriculturist, hale and healthy, and earning her livelihood by selling milk and was earning around Rs.10,000/- per month prior to the accident. The claimant used to attend agricultural operations in her family-owned land measuring Acs.5.00 cents, apart from attending coolie works. Further, it was contended that she used to earn Rs.250/- per day as agricultural labourer, besides working in her own field. Due to the accident, she has been suffering from serious neurological problems, such as inability to speak or walk and loss of bladder sensation. Hence, filed the claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-.
6. The A.P.S.R.T.C., respondent No.1/appellant herein, filed the written statement before the Tribunal, debunking the averments, stating that the claimant was sleeping in a negligent manner and fell down from the seat and that there was no rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver. It was further contended that the compensation claimed was highly excessive, exorbitant and exaggerated and therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.
7. Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined herself as PW-1, the treating Neuro Surgeon as PW-2, and the Billing Superintendent of SVIMS Hospital as PW-3, and marked Exs.A-1 to A-19 and X-1 to X-4. The APSRTC, though filed a written statement, denying negligence, did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence.
8. The Tribunal framed the following issues:
1) Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 28.2.2016 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C Bus bearing No. AP-04-Z- 0045?
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?5
GTK, J MACMA_925_2018
3) To what relief?
9. The Tribunal, while answering Issue No.1, basing its finding on Ex.A-3, Charge Sheet, held that the accident in dispute occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus and respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimant.
10. With regard to Issue No.2, in view of the statement made by PW.2, Dr.B.C.M.Prasad, Neuro Surgeon, who treated the claimant, that she sustained grievous injuries resulting in 80% permanent disability and after considering the age, injuries sustained, treatment undergone, and loss of amenities, compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the issue was answered in favour of the claimant.
11. The Tribunal awarded compensation under various heads, including loss of income, pain and suffering, medical expenses, future medical expenses, transportation and convenience, extra-nourishment, special diet, attendant charges and loss of amenities.
12. Heard Mr. Gopinadh, learned counsel, representing Mr. Aravala Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC and Mr. Harish, learned counsel, representing Mr. D.Kodandarami Reddy, learned counsel for the claimant. Perused the entire material available on record.
13. Mr. Gopinadh, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the Tribunal erred in fixing negligence on the bus driver and also the income and disability assessed are excessive and unsupported by any documentary proof. He further contended that the compensation awarded under various heads is exorbitant and requires interference of this Court.
14. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant supported the Award and contended that the Tribunal rightly appreciated the evidence and awarded 6 GTK, J MACMA_925_2018 "Just compensation" considering the nature of injuries and permanent disability.
15. It is evident from the record that the accident occurred inside the APSRTC bus due to a sudden and violent jerk while crossing a speed breaker. The charge sheet was filed against the bus driver. The APSRTC failed to examine the driver or any other witness to rebut the claimant‟s version. In the absence of rebuttal evidence, the Tribunal was justified in accepting the evidence of P.W.1, corroborated by documentary evidence. Therefore, the finding on driver‟s negligence does not warrant interference.
16. P.W.2, the Neuro Surgeon, who treated the claimant, categorically deposed regarding the nature of head injuries, surgeries undergone and assessed the permanent disability at 80%. The evidence of P.W.2 inspires confidence and remained unshaken in cross-examination. The claimant suffered serious neurological deficits affecting her normal life. In such circumstances, the Tribunal rightly accepted the disability at 80% for granting the compensation.
17. While awarding compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-, the Tribunal rightly relied upon the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court and this Court in Smt. Sarla Verma & ors. v. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr1, A. Chalapathi v. Satyanarayana N.Nuwal and others2, Sanjay Kumar v. Ashok Kumar and another3 and G.M. Kerala S.R.T.C., Trivendram v. Susamma Thomas4.
18. Tribunal also rightly relied upon Sr. D.M. New India Assurance Co. Ltd, Hyderabad v. Surya Pratap Singh and others 5 and K. Raghu Babu v. C. Veerasekhar6, for awarding just and reasonable compensation.
12009 (2) SCC (CRI) 1002 2 2010(5)ALT 543 3 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 896 OF 2014 4 (1994) 2 SCC 176 5 2010(6) ALD 586 7 GTK, J MACMA_925_2018
19. In view of the settled principles of law, this Court is convinced that there is no error apparent nor any infraction of law committed by the Tribunal and the said amount was assessed only after considering the factual aspects and the evidence adduced by the claimants.
20. In fine, the Order and Decree, dated 13.11.2017, in M.V.O.P. No.656 of 2016 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Kadapa, is confirmed and the present Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed.
As a sequel, all pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________ TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA, J Date: 06.02.2026 SSN/Tsy 6 2011 (2) ALD 763