APHC010384382007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] FRIDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 749/2007 Between: GATTU SUSHMA, D/O. THAMMANNA, STUDENT, D.NO. 41- 3-47/1, RICE SHOP STREET, NEAR CHITRAKUTA ASHRAMAM, KRISHNALANKA. ...APPELLANT AND 1. YEKKATE VISWESWARA RAO AND 3 OTHERS, S/O. SATYANARAYANA, OWNER OF AMBASSADOR CAR NO. AP 16 AF 3394 D.NO. 5-43, EDUPUGALLU, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, M.G.ROAD, VIJAYAWADA -10. 3. SMT CH VIJAYA LAKSHMI, W/O. APPALLA NARASIMHA RAJU, OWNER OF LORRY NO. AP 09 V 1156 D.NO. 1-3- 10-43, THULLURUVARI STREET, VIDYADHARAPURAM, 4. M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, GOVERNORPET, VIJAYAWADA. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Court IA NO: 1 OF 2007(MACMAMP 1751 OF 2007 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 to fix an early date of the hearing of the appeal Counsel for the Appellant: B G UMA DEVI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. RAMA MOHAN RAO KOTHA 2. P HARINATH GUPTA 3. A JAYANTHI The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: 1. The present appeal arises out of the award dated 08.02.20071 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge at Vijayawada2,in M.V.O.P. No.630 of 20053. 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 1hereinafter called as „Impugned award‟ 2 hereinafter called as „the Tribunal‟ 3 hereinafter called as „Claim petition‟ 3 owner and insurer of the car bearing No.AP 16 AF 33944respectively. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are the owner and insurer of the Lorry bearing No.AP 09 V 11565 respectively. Proceedings before the Tribunal 3. The brief facts pleaded by the claimant in the claim petition before the Tribunal are as follows: a. On 18.11.2003, at about 7:15 p.m., while the claimant was proceeding on foot along the National Highway near Satyam Gari Hotel, Krishnalanka, Vijayawada, the driver of the offending car drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against her. As a result of the impact, the claimant fell onto the road. Immediately thereafter, the offending lorry, which was also being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, ran over the claimant and dragged her for some distance, causing multiple grievous injuries and fractures all over her body.Thereafter, the claimant was shifted to Global Medical Centre, Governorpet, Vijayawada, where she underwent medical treatment for the injuries sustained in the accident. b. It is further pleaded that, on account of the grievous injuries sustained in the accident, the claimant suffered severe physical pain, mental agony, and permanent disruption to her educational pursuits. At the relevant time, she was attending coaching classes for the Engineering, Agriculture and Medical Common Entrance Test (EAMCET). Owing to the injuries and prolonged treatment, she was unable to continue her studies and 4hereinafter referred to as “crime car” 5hereinafter referred to as “crime lorry” 4 consequently lost valuable educational opportunities, adversely affecting her future prospects and career. Claiming that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending car and lorry, the claimant filed the present claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- against Respondent Nos.1 to 4. 4. Respondent No.2, the insurer of the offending car, filed a written statement denying the material averments made in the claim petition. The substance of defence set up by Respondent No.2 is as follows: a. It is contended that the driver of the offending car was not responsible for the accident and that the allegations of rash and negligent driving levelled against him are false and untenable. It is further contended that the compensation claimed by the claimant is highly excessive, arbitrary, and devoid of any factual basis. On the aforesaid grounds, Respondent No.2 prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 5. Respondent No.4, the insurer of the offending lorry, also filed a written statement denying the material averments made in the claim petition. The defence taken by Respondent No.4 is summarized as follows: a. It is contended that there was no rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of the offending lorry and that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending car. It is further stated that Respondent No.4 has no personal knowledge of the manner in which the accident occurred 5 and, therefore, does not admit the allegations made in the claim petition. It is also contended that the compensation claimed by the claimant is excessive, exaggerated, and without any legal or factual basis. Accordingly, Respondent No.4 prayed for dismissal of the claim petition against it. 6. During the course of the enquiry before the Tribunal, on behalf of claimant, she examined herself as P.W.1 and also examined the treating doctor as P.W.2, got marked Exs.A.1 to A.16, X.1 to X.3 in support of her claim. On behalf of the respondent Nos.2 and 4, no oral evidence was adduced; however, Exs.B-1 and B.2 respective policy copies are marked by consent. 7. Upon a careful appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of both the offending car and the offending lorry. The Tribunal held that the drivers of both the vehicles contributed equally to the occurrence of the accident and, consequently, fixed equal liability upon them for the injuries sustained by the claimant.The Tribunal further recorded a finding that Exs.B.1 and B.2, being the insurance policies issued in respect of the offending car and the offending lorry respectively, were valid and subsisting as on the date of the accident. Accordingly, the Tribunal held Respondent Nos.1 to 4 liable to satisfy the award.Upon assessing the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, the treatment undergone by her, and the material placed on record, the Tribunal awarded a 6 total compensation of Rs.87,036/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until the date of realization. The said compensation was awarded for the bodily injuries, pain and suffering, and other consequential losses sustained by the claimant as a result of the accident. 8. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation so awarded, the claimant has preferred the present appeal. Arguments Advanced at the Bar 9. Heard Smt.B.G.Uma Devi, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant,Sri Kotha Rama Mohan, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/insurer of the crime car and Smt.A.Jayanthi, learned counsel for the respondent No.4/insurer of the crime lorry. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contends that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is grossly inadequate and does not constitute just compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is submitted that, as evident from the testimony of P.W.2, the doctor who treated the claimant, she had sustained grievous fractures in the accident and underwent a surgical procedure on 29.11.2003 for fixation of the fractures. The doctor further deposed that an additional surgical procedure would be required for removal of the implants/nails inserted during the course of treatment, for which an expenditure of approximately Rs.20,000/- would be incurred. However, despite the said evidence, the Tribunal awarded only a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards future medical expenses, which, according 7 to the learned counsel, is wholly inadequate and requires substantial enhancement. 11. Learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal failed to properly appreciate Ex.A.15 and the medical bills produced by the claimant in support of the expenditure incurred towards treatment. It is argued that the claimant is entitled to reimbursement of the entire medical expenses supported by documentary evidence and that the Tribunal erred in not awarding the same in full.It is also contended that the Tribunal awarded only Rs.25,000/- towards the fractures and grievous injuries sustained by the claimant, despite the evidence on record demonstrating the severity of the injuries, prolonged treatment, and physical suffering undergone by her. According to the learned counsel, the amount awarded under the said head is meagre and deserves enhancement to at least Rs.50,000/-. 12. Learned counsel further submits that, at the time of the accident, the claimant was pursuing EAMCET coaching with the objective of securing admission into a professional course. Owing to the grievous injuries sustained in the accident and the prolonged period of treatment and recuperation, she was unable to continue her studies and consequently suffered a serious setback in her educational career. It is also contended that the injuries adversely affected her future prospects, including her marriage prospects, causing her immense mental agony and emotional distress.It is finally submitted that the Tribunal failed to award compensation towards attendant charges, transportation 8 expenses, special diet, and other incidental expenses necessarily incurred during the course of treatment. Therefore, having regard to the nature of injuries, the treatment undergone, and the consequential losses suffered by the claimant, learned counsel prays for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads. 13. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.2 and 4/Insurance Companies contends that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just, reasonable, and based on a proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record. It is submitted that the Tribunal meticulously examined the evidence adduced by both parties, including the medical evidence and documentary exhibits, before determining the compensation payable to the claimant.Learned counsel further argues that the claimant has failed to place any cogent material before this Court demonstrating that the assessment made by the Tribunal is either erroneous or inadequate. According to the learned counsel, the amounts awarded under the various heads are commensurate with the injuries sustained and the evidence produced in support thereof. It is therefore contended that no grounds have been made out warranting interference with the well-reasoned award passed by the Tribunal.Accordingly, learned counsel submits that the present appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. Point for Determination 14. Now, the only point that arises for determination is: 9 Whether the claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation, if so, to what amount? Determination by this Court 15. There is no dispute with regard to the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of both the offending car and the offending lorry by their respective drivers. The Tribunal, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, rightly held that the drivers of both vehicles contributed equally to the occurrence of the accident and consequently fixed equal liability upon them. The said finding has attained finality, as neither of the parties has seriously challenged the same before this Court.It is also an undisputed fact that Exs.B.1 and B.2, the insurance policies issued in respect of the offending car and the offending lorry respectively, were valid and subsisting as on the date of the accident. Therefore, the liability to satisfy the award stands duly covered under the respective insurance policies.Further, there is no controversy regarding the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident. The medical evidence available on record establishes that the claimant suffered the following injuries:(i) Soft tissue injury with nucleus of both legs with abrasions; and(ii) Segmental fracture of the left fibula, which was certified to be grievous in nature. 16. A careful examination of the evidence of P.W.2, the treating doctor, reveals that the claimant underwent surgical 10 intervention on 29.11.2003 for management of the fracture sustained in the accident. The fact that a surgical procedure became necessary itself indicates the seriousness of the fracture and the extent of the physical trauma endured by the claimant. 17. The record further discloses that the claimant incurred medical expenditure towards treatment and produced documentary evidence in support thereof. Ex.A.15 series of medical bills reflect that she spent a total sum of Rs.27,817/- towards hospitalization, medicines, diagnostic tests, and other treatment-related expenses. However, the Tribunal awarded only a sum of Rs.25,036/- towards medical expenses. While assessing the adequacy of compensation, the documentary evidence relating to the actual expenditure incurred by the claimant assumes significance and requires due consideration. 18. It is also evident from Ex.A.8, being the receipt relating to EAMCET coaching fees, and Ex.A.9, being the Hall Ticket for EAMCET-2004, that the claimant was pursuing coaching for the Engineering, Agriculture and Medical Common Entrance Test (EAMCET) and was preparing to appear for the said examination at the time of the accident. The said documents establish that the claimant was a student with academic aspirations and was actively pursuing higher educational opportunities. 19. It is well settled by now,vide catena of decisions that the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial welfare legislation intended to provide future stability rather than just reinstating a claimant to 11 their original position. In Mohinder Kaur (D) v. Brij Lal Arora6 , it was observed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court that the objective of awarding compensation in motor accident claims is to ensure “just and reasonable compensation” to the victim or the aggrieved dependents of the deceased, not merely with a view to restoring the Claimant, so far as practicable, to the position existing prior to the accident, but also to afford meaningful succor for the pain, suffering, and loss occasioned by the injuries sustained or the death of a loved one. The amount of compensation should be “just”, i.e., implying that the determination is fair, reasonable and equitable by accepted legal standards and is not a bonanza. Though “just” compensation can never be prefect compensation, since loss of human life can never be compensated by money the principle of awarding “just” compensation and assessing the extent of dependency would depend on examination of the unique situation of each individual case. 20. In V. Pathmavathi v. Bharathi AXA General Insurance Co. Ltd.7,it was observed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court that law must remain responsive to lived human realities. In Kajal v. Jagdish Chand,8it has been observed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court as follows; “5. The principles with regard to determination of just compensation contemplated under the Act are well settled. The injuries cause deprivation to the body which entitles the claimant to claim damages. 62026 INSC 477 72026 INSC 131 8(2020) 4 SCC 413 12 The damages may vary according to the gravity of the injuries sustained by the claimant in an accident. On account of the injuries, the claimant may suffer consequential losses such as: (i) loss of earning; (ii) expenses on treatment which may include medical expenses, transportation, special diet, attendant charges, etc., (iii) loss or diminution to the pleasures of life by loss of a particular part of the body, and (iv) loss of future earning capacity. Damages can be pecuniary as well as non- pecuniary, but all have to be assessed in rupees and paise. 6. It is impossible to equate human suffering and personal deprivation with money. However, this is what the Act enjoins upon the courts to do. The court has to make a judicious attempt to award damages, so as to compensate the claimant for the loss suffered by the victim. On the one hand, the compensation should not be assessed very conservatively, but on the other hand, the compensation should also not be assessed in so liberal a fashion so as to make it a bounty to the claimant. The court while assessing the compensation should have regard to the degree of deprivation and the loss caused by such deprivation. Such compensation is what is termed as just compensation. The compensation or damages assessed for personal injuries should be substantial to compensate the injured for the deprivation suffered by the injured throughout his/her life. They should not be just token damages. (emphasis supplied) 13 21. In the case on hand, the evidence on record establishes that the claimant sustained grievous injuries in the accident, including a segmental fracture of the left fibula, which necessitated surgical intervention. The claimant underwent an operation on 29.11.2003 and thereafter remained under medical treatment for a considerable period. The nature of the injuries, the surgery undergone, and the consequent period of recuperation undoubtedly caused considerable physical pain, mental agony, and inconvenience to the claimant. 22. It has also come on record that, at the time of the accident, the claimant was pursuing EAMCET coaching and was preparing to appear for the EAMCET-2004 examination. Ex.A.8, being the receipt for payment of coaching fees, and Ex.A.9, the Hall Ticket for EAMCET-2004, substantiate the said fact. Having regard to the nature of the injuries sustained and the treatment undergone, it is reasonable to infer that the claimant's studies and preparation for the competitive examination were adversely affected. The accident, therefore, not only resulted in physical injuries and medical expenditure but also disrupted her educational pursuits at a crucial stage of her academic career. These circumstances cannot be ignored while determining whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal constitutes "just compensation" within the meaning of the Motor Vehicles Act. The impact of the injuries on the claimant's educational prospects, quality of life, and future opportunities is a relevant 14 consideration while assessing compensation under the non- pecuniary heads. 23. In the instant case, it is the specific case of the claimant that, owing to the injuries sustained in the accident, she suffered a setback in her educational career and that her marriage prospects were adversely affected. Admittedly, the Tribunal did not award any compensation under the heads of loss of amenities, loss of enjoyment of life, or loss of marriage prospects. Considering the age of the claimant, the nature of the injuries sustained, the surgical treatment undergone, the disruption caused to her educational pursuits, and the adverse impact on her personal and social life, this Court is of the considered opinion that it would be just and reasonable to award a sum of Rs.75,000/- towards loss of amenities and loss of marriage prospects.Further, having regard to the fact that the claimant underwent hospitalization, surgery, and post-operative treatment, it is reasonable to presume that she required the assistance of an attendant during the period of treatment and recovery. Therefore, an amount of Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards attendant charges.Likewise, the claimant would have necessarily incurred expenditure towards transportation for attending the hospital, follow-up consultations, and medical treatment. Accordingly, a further sum of Rs.5,000/- is awarded towards transportation charges. 24. As discussed supra, the Tribunal did not award the entire amount covered under the medical bills produced by the 15 claimant and made deductions therefrom without any satisfactory basis. The documentary evidence on record, particularly Ex.A.15 series, discloses that the claimant incurred medical expenses amounting to Rs.27,817/-. In the absence of any valid reason to disallow the said expenditure, this Court is of the opinion that the claimant is entitled to the entire amount of Rs.27,817/- towards medical expenses. Further, having regard to the grievous nature of the fracture sustained by the claimant, the surgical procedure undergone, and the pain and suffering associated therewith, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head relating to pain and suffering requires enhancement. Accordingly, the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering for the injuries sustained in the accident. 25. However, insofar as the claim for compensation on account of permanent disability is concerned, neither the testimony of P.W.2 nor any medical record produced before the Tribunal establishes that the claimant suffered any permanent physical disability or functional disability as a consequence of the injuries sustained in the accident. No disability certificate has been produced, nor has any percentage of disability been assessed by a competent medical authority. In the absence of any cogent oral or documentary evidence proving permanent disability, this Court is unable to award compensation under the said head. Accordingly, the claim made by the claimant towards disability is rejected. 16 26. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the claimant is entitled to compensation under the following heads: Sl. No. Head of Claim Amount 1. Towards grievous fracture of the left fibula Rs.25,000/- 2. Towards injuries sustained to both ankles Rs.10,000/- 3. Towards medical expenses supported by Ex.A.15 series of bills Rs.27,817/- 4. Towards future medical expenses for removal of implants Rs.10,000/- 5. Towards pain and suffering Rs.30,000/- 6. Towards loss of amenities of life and loss of marriage prospects Rs.75,000/- 7. Towards attendant charges during the period of treatment and recovery Rs.10,000/- 8. Towards transportation expenses incurred for medical treatment Rs.5,000/- 9. Towards coaching fee paid under Ex.A.8 Rs.7,000/- Total Rs.1,99,817/- 27. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed.The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from ₹87,036/- to ₹1,99,817/- (Rupees One lakh Ninety-Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Seventeen only), together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition 17 till the date of realization, with proportionate costs, payable by Respondent Nos.1 to 4 jointly and severally.The Respondent Nos.2 and 4/Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced compensation amount equally, 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. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 19.06.2026 Krs 18 293 THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA M.A.C.M.A.No.749 of 2007 ( JUDGMENT ) DATE: 19.06.2026 Krs