APHC010458682006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1698/2006 Between: KALAVATHI, W/O.M. MUNIKRISHNA REDDY BUSINESS R/O.D.NO.17-175, KUMMARA STREET,CHIITOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1. YAMUNA NAGENDRAN ANR, D/O. ADIKESAVULU OWNER OF CAR NO.TN-09-8-9969, R/O.NO.33, UMAPATHI STREET, WEST MAMBALAM, CHENNAI. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY, LIMITED, CHENNAI. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Court Counsel for the Appellant: S V MUNI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): S A V RATNAM The Court made the following: 2 JUDGMENT: 1. The present appeal arises out of the award dated 21.06.20061 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Chittoor2, in M.V.O.P. No.186 of 20023. 2. The appellant herein is the claimant before the Tribunal. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded under the impugned award, she has preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement thereof. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the owner and insurer, respectively, of the offending carbearing No.TN 09/S 99694 involved in the accident. 3. The brief facts pleaded by the claimant in the claim petition before the Tribunal are as under; a. On 02.09.2001, at about 11.30 a.m., the claimant, along with her husband and daughter, was proceeding from Chittoor to Ardhagiri on motorcycle. When they reached near Thavanampalle High School, the driver of the offending car drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed 1hereinafter called as „Impugned award‟ 2 hereinafter called as „the Tribunal‟ 3 hereinafter called as „Claim petition‟ 4hereinafter referred to as “crime car” 3 against the motorcycle. As a result of the accident, claimant and her husband sustained multiple injuries.Consequently, claimant filed the claimpetition seeking compensation of ₹50,000/- against the owner and insurer of the offending car. 4. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed a written statement denying the material averments made in claim petition, contending as follows; a. The accident did not occur due to any rash or negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending car. It was further contended that the husband of the claimant, who was riding the motorcycle at the time of the accident, did not possess a valid and effective driving licence. Respondent No.2 also disputed the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimant as being excessive and, therefore, prayed for dismissal of claim petition. 5. During the course of the enquiry before the Tribunal, the claim petition herein was tried jointly along with M.V.O.P. Nos., 187 and 188 of 2002, which were filed by the other injured persons, namely husband and daughter of the claimant herein, arising out of the same accident. 4 6. On behalf of claimant, she examined herself as P.W.1 and also examined the treating doctor as P.W.4. Further, Exs. A-1 to A-3, A-9, A-11, A-12, A-14 and A-16 were marked in support of her claim. On behalf of the 2ndrespondent, no oral evidence was adduced, however, Ex.B-1, being the copy of the insurance policy, was marked by consent. 7. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending car by its driver. The Tribunal further found that Ex.B-1, the insurance policy covering the offending vehicle, was valid and in force as on the date of the accident. Accordingly, a sum of ₹9,000/- was awarded as compensation to the claimant, together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization, payable by Respondent Nos.,1 and 2, for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident.Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant has preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement thereof. 5 8. Heard SriS.V.Muni Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and Ms.S.A.V.Ratnam, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/insurer. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contends that the claimant sustained injuries in the accident and had preferred a claim seeking compensation of ₹50,000/-. However, Tribunal awarded only a sum of ₹9,000/- towards compensation. It is submitted that the claimant had produced medical bills evidencing that she underwent treatment at Apollo Hospital and had also examined the treating doctor in support of her claim. The doctor deposed that the claimant suffered swelling on the left side of the upper lip and an abrasion over the left upper jaw. Despite the said evidence, the Tribunal failed to award any compensation under the head of pain and suffering. Learned counsel therefore submits that, having regard to the nature of the injuries sustained and the treatment undergone by the claimant, the Tribunal ought to have awarded at least a sum of ₹10,000/- towards pain and suffering. 10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2/Insurance Company argued that the compensation awarded 6 by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. However, it is fairly submitted that, if this Court is inclined to enhance compensation considering the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant, an additional sum of ₹5,000/- under the head of pain and suffering may be awarded. 11. Now, the only point that arises for determination isWhether the claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation under the head of pain and suffering, if so, to what amount? 12. There is no dispute with regard to the finding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending car. It is also undisputed that Ex.B-1, the insurance policy covering the offending vehicle, was valid and in force as on the date of the accident.Further, it is not in controversy that the claimant sustained two simple injuries in the said accident. 13. It is well settled that assessment of compensation cannot be done with mathematical precision, but courts should not adopt a stereotypical or myopic approach, but instead, view the matter taking into account the realities of life, both in the assessment of 7 the extent of disabilitiesand compensation under various heads.In the instant case, the Tribunal awarded a sum of ₹4,000/- towards medical and incidental expenses and a further sum of ₹5,000/- towards transportation charges, extra nourishment and other miscellaneous expenses, aggregating to ₹9,000/-. 14. 14. It is also settled that compensation under the head of pain and suffering falls within the category of non-pecuniary damages, which are incapable of precise monetary computation. Nevertheless, the Court is under an obligation to award a reasonable amount under the said head, as physical pain, mental agony and trauma suffered by an injured claimant are real consequences of an accident. The absence of permanent disability or grievous injuries does not by itself disentitle a claimant from receiving compensation for pain and suffering when the evidence on record establishes that injuries were sustained and treatment was undertaken.In the present case, the evidence of P.W.4-doctor and the medical records placed on record establish that the claimant sustained injuries in the accident and underwent treatment at Apollo Hospital. The doctor specifically noticed swelling on the left side of the upper lip and abrasion over 8 the left upper jaw. Though the injuries were simple in nature, it cannot be ignored that the claimant would have suffered pain, discomfort and inconvenience during the period of treatment and recovery. The Tribunal, while awarding compensation under other heads, omitted to award any amount towards pain and suffering. Such omission has resulted in the claimant not being awarded just compensation. 15. Having regard to the nature of the injuries sustained, the treatment undergone, the period of recovery involved and the principles governing award of non-pecuniary damages, this Court is of the considered opinion that an additional sum of ₹5,000/- would be reasonable and appropriate towards pain and suffering. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from ₹9,000/- to ₹14,000/-. Thus, the point is answered in favour of the claimant. 16. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that the award passed by the Tribunal warrants interference only to the extent of the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimant. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the appellant/claimant 9 deserves to be allowed in part by enhancing the compensation as determined hereinabove 17. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from ₹9,000/- to ₹14,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Thousand only), together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization, with proportionate costs, payable by Respondent Nos.,1 and 2 jointly and severally. The Respondent No.2/Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced compensation amount, together with accrued interest and proportionate costs, before the Tribunal within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Upon such deposit, the claimant shall be entitled to withdraw the entire compensation amount along with accrued interest, after due adjustment of any amount already received. The Tribunal shall take necessary steps for disbursement of the amount in accordance with law. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. 10 Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 15.06.2026 Krs 11 165 THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA M.A.C.M.A.No.1698 of 2006 DATE: 15.06.2026 Krs