APHC010120822006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Thursday, the Ninth day of April Two Thousand and Twenty Six Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S. Bhanumathi Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No:46 of 2006 Between: Kurmadasu Kannayyasetti ...Appellant and K. Rajeswara Rao and another ...Respondents Counsel for the appellant: 1. Jayanti S. C. Sekhar Counsel for the Respondents: 1. Amancharla Satish Babu The Court made the following: 2 M.A.C.M.A.No.46 of 2006 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and the decree dated 03.02.2005 in M.O.P.No.1297 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, seeking enhancement of amount of compensation. 2. The appellant claimed compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for the injuries suffered in an accident occurred on 20.08.2002 while he was going on a TVS Moped along with his friend Manikyam and hit by an auto bearing No.AP 31 U 6184 driven by the respondent No.1 who was its owner as well and the insured with the respondent No.2. 3. Both the respondents contested the claim by filing separate counters, but the respondent No.1 has not produced any evidence, while the respondent No.2 examined R.W.1. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.1 and held both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation for Rs.62,500/- with proportionate costs and interest thereon @9% per annum from the date of the petition i.e., 07.08.2003 till the date of the deposit. 4. The appellant contended that the Tribunal awarded meager amount of compensation under the heads pain and suffering, medical expenses and future loss of income and failed to grant any amount of compensation towards transportation expenses. 5. Though notice was served on the respondent No.1, no appearance has been made. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has not appeared. 3 M.A.C.M.A.No.46 of 2006 6. The claimant was examined as P.W.1 and Dr.M.Venkateswara Rao, was examined as P.W.2, the following documents were marked on behalf of the claimant: Ex.A.1 Attested copy of F.I.R. Ex.A.2 Attested copy of wound certificate. Ex.A.3 Attested copy of charge sheet. Ex.A.4 X-ray films (3). Ex.A.5 Disability certificate. On behalf of the respondents Ch.V.G.Raju was examined as R.W.1. Case sheet was marked as Ex.X.1 and Abstract of driving licence of B.Nookaraju was marked as Ex.X.2. 7. The claimant stated that he was a motor cycle mechanic earning Rs.150/- per day, but as there was no evidence other than his oral evidence, the Tribunal has taken his monthly income as Rs.1,500/-. 8. Since the evidence established that the petitioner suffered multiple fractures and was treated by insertion of implants by conducting surgery and P.O.P. casting was applied to his left leg for an undisputed period of six months, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.9,000/- towards loss of earnings. 9. The Tribunal dismissed the claim for transportation expenses as there was no evidence in support of the claim. 10. The Tribunal is not incapacitated to award reasonable amount of compensation for expenses where the amount can be reasonably quantified even in the absence of the documentary proof when the expenditure is indispensible. As the Tribunal believed that the claimant 4 M.A.C.M.A.No.46 of 2006 was treated in the government hospitals for fracture injuries and bedridden for six months, reasonable amount of compensation ought to have been granted under this head. Therefore, an amount of Rs.10,000/- is granted under this head. 11. Though the claimant stated that he had spent Rs.40,000/- for medical expenses, he had not filed any document in support of the claim. Though he was treated in government hospitals, the Tribunal observed that in view of the treatment received by the claimant by undergoing surgery, he might have spent some amount for medical expenses. The Tribunal relied on a decision of this High Court reported in 1997 (6) ALD 385 [K.Mahender Reddy Vs. V. Shivakumar and others] in support of the observation that even minor injuries require treatment and cannot be supported by any documentary evidence and that reasonable amount can be awarded towards medical expenses. Therefore, the Tribunal awarded Rs.3,000/- for medical expenses. 12. The Tribunal awarded Rs.500/- for expenses towards extra nourishment. The amount of compensation granted under this head is meager. It can be granted up to Rs.5,000/-. 13. The claimant suffered the following injuries: i. Compound communited fracture both bones of the right leg upper 1/3rd; ii. Fracture of inferior pubic ramous on right side; iii. Fracture of proximal phalins of 2nd toe on right side; iv. Proximal distal phalin of 2nd and 3rd toe on right side; v. Compound fracture of right leg treated by external fixation; vi. Right hip joint relocation was done treated by pin traction; 5 M.A.C.M.A.No.46 of 2006 14. Under the head of general damages, an amount of Rs.25,000/- was granted towards pain and suffering, as against amount of Rs.12,000/- claimed by him, keeping in view multiple injuries suffered and treatment taken. In view of the multiple fracture injuries, the nature and period of treatment taken, the amount of compensation under this head can be raised to Rs.40,000/-, since it is settled law that irrespective of the amount claimed, just and reasonable amount of compensation shall be granted by the Tribunal. 15. The Tribunal believed the contention of the claimant that he suffered partial permanent disability @40% as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident, since the evidence is supported by the oral evidence of P.W.2 and documentary evidence of disability certificate issued by P.W.2 marked as Ex.A.5. The evidence further showed that the claimant suffered shortening of limb, limping and had pain while walking for long distance. Therefore, the Tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/- to compensate the physical disability. No amount of compensation was granted for future loss of income as the partial permanent disability suffered by him doesn’t affect his earning capacity as a motor mechanic. 16. Thus, in total, an amount of Rs.62,500/- was granted by the Tribunal, whereas the claimant is entitled to Rs.92,000/- (ninety two thousand Rupees only). 17. Accordingly, the motor accident civil miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed. The amount already paid to the claimant shall be adjusted against the heads under which it was paid, such as the principal amount of compensation, costs and interest. It is made clear that the respondents are liable to pay the enhanced amount of 6 M.A.C.M.A.No.46 of 2006 compensation of Rs.29,500/- (twenty nine thousand five hundred Rupees only) with interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition i.e., 07.08.2003 till the date of payment, with proportionate costs throughout the petition and the appeal. Interim orders granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE B.S. BHANUMATHI Dated: 09.04.2026 Note: Issue C.C. by 15.04.2026 b/o NSM 7 M.A.C.M.A.No.46 of 2006 94 The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No:46 of 2006 Dated: 09.04.2026 Note: Issue C.C. by 15.04.2026 b/o NSM