APHC010975472018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] THURSDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 3445/2018 Between: 1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD, REP. BY IT'S DIVISIONAL MANAGER, FIRST FLOOR, SRI DEVI COMPLEX, THIRUPATHI ...APPELLANT AND 1. K T PAVANI, D/O.K.V.RAJA SEKHAR, 16 YEARS, MINOR, BEING MINOR REP.BY NATURAL GUARDIAN AND HER FATHER, K.V.RAJA SEKHAR , BUCHINAIDU KANDRIGA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, CHITHOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 2. VIKAS E M SCHOOL, REP.BY IT'S CORRESPONDENT, P.RENUKA, MAJOR, D.N0-1-186C, BUCHINAIDU KANDRIGA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, CHITHOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 3. C CHENCHU RAMAIAH, S/O. SURAIAH, MAJOR, DRIVER, D.NO- 3-100, KANAMANAMBEDU VILLAGE, BUCHINAIDU KANDRIGA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, CHITHOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2 TCDS, J MACMA_3445_ 2018 ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Court May be pleased to set aside the Judgement and Decree, dated 2- 7-2018, in MVOP NO. 336 of 2012 Passed by the Chairman, MACT-X Additional District Judge at Thirupathi IA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 condone delay of 65 days in the above appeal and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2018 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 stay all further proceedings including the execution of the Judgement and decree in MVOP.NO.336/2012 DATED.2-07-2018 passed by the MACT- X Addl.Dist.Judge at Tirupathi pending disposal of the above appeal and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. SRINIVASA RAO VUTLA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GANDHAVALLI MAHESH DEVAN 2. D KODANDARAMI REDDY The Court made the following: 3 TCDS, J MACMA_3445_ 2018 JUDGMENT:- 1. Aggrieved by order dated 02.07.2018 in M.V.O.P No.336 of 2012, on the file of Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-X Additional District Judge, Tirupati, the present appeal is preferred by United India Insurance company limited. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to, as they were referred before the Tribunal. 3. The petitioner filed claim petition under section 166(1) (c) of Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules made there under claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by her in the accident that occurred on 08.03.2012 near Arigela Kandriga Yanadi Centre, B.N.Kandriga Mandal in which the offending school bus bearing registration No.AP-03-W-9878 was involved. It was the further case of the petitioner that she was studying 10th standard in 1st respondent school. On 08.03.2012 she boarded the school bus, when it reached Arigela Kandriga Yanadi center, the driver of the offending bus drove the 4 TCDS, J MACMA_3445_ 2018 same at high speed, in rash and negligent manner, thereby he lost control over the vehicle and it turned upside down. As a result of which the petitioner and other inmates of the bus sustained multiple grievous injuries. The petitioner was taken to Area Hospital, Srikalahasti and later she was shifted to Manipal Hospital, Bangalore, where she was treated as inpatient from 09.03.2012 to 22.03.2012. Thereafter, she has also taken follow up treatment in the said hospital. It was further case of the petitioner that, she was distributing milk packets and earning Rs.5,000/- per month and the same was contributed to her family. In view of the injuries received by her, she approached the Tribunal by filing the above claim petition. 4. The respondent Nos.1 and 3 remained ex parte. 5. The 2nd respondent resisted the claim by filing counter affidavit. 6. The 2nd respondent denied the averments made in the claim petition and stated that the claim of the petitioner was excessive. It was further contended that the insurance 5 TCDS, J MACMA_3445_ 2018 company will indemnify the insured subject to confirmation of the policy, provided the vehicle had RC and other relevant documents. It was inter alia contended that the petitioner was not earning member of the family and the injuries sustained by her were simple in nature and there was no permanent disability. 7. In order to prove the case of the petitioner PWs 1 to 4 were examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A32. Copy of Ex.X1 was marked through PW4. 8. On the other hand, the respondent examined RWs 1 and 2 and got marked Ex.B1, copy of the insurance policy and Exs.X2 to X4 through its witnesses. 9. The Tribunal after hearing the parties, allowed the claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs.9,73,807/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, fastening the liability on the respondents. 10. Questioning the same, the present appeal is filed. 6 TCDS, J MACMA_3445_ 2018 11. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Lakshmi Harish representing, Sri D.Kodandarami Reddy appearing for 1st respondent and Sri Gandhavalli Mahesh Devan appearing for 2nd respondent. Despite service of notice there is no appearance for 3rd respondent. 12. Though several grounds were raised in the present appeal, during the course of hearing the counsel for appellant confined his arguments as against the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. He would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive in as much as the petitioner was student and she was not earning member of the family. He would further submit that nothing is placed on record to show that she was earning Rs.5,000/- per month by distributing the milk packets. 13. In order to substantiate the said contention, the insurance company examined RWs 1 and 2. A perusal of the evidence of RWs 1 and 2 would show that they have deposed in relation to the manner in which accident occurred and with regard to the insurance policy issued as against the 7 TCDS, J MACMA_3445_ 2018 offending vehicle. Therefore, the evidence of RWs 1 and 2 will not help the insurance company in as much as already noted supra, the counsel for appellant has given up all other grounds except the quantum of compensation awarded in favour of the petitioner. 14. On the other hand, the petitioner examined PWs 1 to 4. A perusal of the evidence of PWs.1 & 4, it is clear that the petitioner was contributing Rs.5,000/- per month by distributing milk packets in the village. 15. Though a suggestion was put to him in this regard that the petitioner was not earning member, the same was denied by PWs.1 & 4 and the same was also mentioned in the claim petition. It is not uncommon in rural areas where, the school going children would engage in some activity or other in order to support their families, especially the financial condition was weak. Further, it was specifically pleaded in the claim petition that, the petitioner was contributing some amount and PWs 1 & 4 also deposed in similar lines and their evidence remained un-shattered. 8 TCDS, J MACMA_3445_ 2018 16. Excepting denying the evidence placed by the petitioner, the respondent has miserably failed to disprove the same. Though, it is the case of the petitioner that she was getting Rs.5,000/- per month by distributing milk packets, it is very difficult to accept that she was paid such an amount, nevertheless there cannot be any dispute with regard to contribution made by the petitioner to her family. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for appellant in this regard cannot be countenanced, and accordingly the same is rejected. 17. The Tribunal by following the Judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited and another” 1 had awarded compensation of Rs.9,73,807/-. The said amount was awarded under various heads (i) Rs.3,00,000/- towards pain and suffering already undergone and to be suffered in future, mental and physical shock, hardship, inconvenience and discomfort etc., and loss 1 2013 ACJ 2445 (SC) 9 TCDS, J MACMA_3445_ 2018 of amenities of life on account of permanent disability (ii) Rs.6,19,807/- towards medical expenses, medicines and extra nourishment and (iii) Rs.54,000/- towards transport charges. 18. The counsel for the respondent/claimant would submit that while awarding compensation the Tribunal had not followed the ratio laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in the case of “Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation=2. He would further submit that the Tribunal did not appreciate the case of the petitioner in its proper prospective and the disability suffered by her was also not taken into account. He would further submit that the petitioner had filed disability certificate dated 12.07.2014 issued by PW-2. 19. It is contended that the petitioner suffered 30% to the upper limb component disability and in view of the same the petitioner could not move her left hand freely and it is difficult for her to attend day to day activities. By virtue of the 22009 ACJ 1298 10 TCDS, J MACMA_3445_ 2018 said injury, the petitioner also lost future prospects and the prospects of marriage etc. He would further submit that though the compensation was restricted to Rs.10,00,000/- by the claimant, if all these factors are considered the petitioner would be entitled to much more than the claim and requested this Court to enhance the compensation accordingly. 20. It is not in dispute that the petitioner suffered disability of 30% to upper limb i.e., left hand. A perusal of the photographs shown across the bar, it is clear that the left hand of the petitioner was suffered crush injury and she cannot move the same freely as she was before. In such circumstances the amount of compensation payable for the injuries suffered by the petitioner has to compensate such injury inasmuch as the petitioner has become handicapped person and she has to suffer the same throughout the life. 21. By taking into consideration of the fact that the petitioner was studying 10th standard as on the date of accident and keeping in mind that had she not met with the 11 TCDS, J MACMA_3445_ 2018 accident, she could have secured a better employment and therefore she shall be compensated accordingly. Further, a perusal of the order of the Tribunal, it is apparent that the compensation was not awarded under the head of future prospects. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of <Mekala Vs. M.Malathi and others=3 had held that the Courts are duty bound to award just and reasonable compensation under the head of loss of future prospects. 22. A perusal of the evidence of PWs 1 and 4 would go to show that she was also contributing her earnings to the family. Though the Tribunal had partly allowed the claim petition, as can be seen from the evidence of PW-2, Dr.Srikanth, who deposed that the petitioner sustained degloving injury to left hand and scalp. He further deposed that the degloving injury extended from shoulder joint to hand. The petitioner also sustained hand injury to the scalp abdomen wall and lower limp. It was deposed that on 09.03.2012, the petitioner underwent wound debridement 3 (2014) 11 SCC 178 12 TCDS, J MACMA_3445_ 2018 and stapling of the scalp wound. Further skin grafting for right thie, left shoulder, arm, fore arm and wound debridement + groin flap covered for dorsum of left first metacarpal. It was further deposed that the petitioner was regularly treated as outpatient till 27.06.2013. Further, she underwent left hand tendon transfer (extensor) + issue expendor insertion to left arm and forearm was conducted on 28.06.2013. It was further deposed that she was again admitted on 14.11.2013 for limb reconstruction. The disability of the petitioner was assessed as 30% and a certificate was issued to that effect which was marked as Ex.X1. During the cross-examination he deposed that the disability was assessed by following WHO norms. Though she was cross- examined at length nothing was elicited to disprove his evidence or the disability certificate issued. 23. Having considered the submissions made by the counsel for the claimant and upon perusal of the oral and documentary evidence placed, this Court is of the considered opinion that the claimant is entitled to receive over and 13 TCDS, J MACMA_3445_ 2018 above compensation claimed by her. However, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Ramla v. National Insurance Company Ltd.,= 4 had held that the Courts are duty bound to award just compensation to the victim/claimant if she is entitled to receive more compensation than what has been claimed. For the reasons recorded supra, the income of the petitioner is fixed as Rs.10,000/- per month and accordingly the compensation is computed as under: S.No. Head Compensation Awarded 1 Net monthly Income Rs.10,000/- 2 Future Prospects (50%) Rs.5,000/- 3 Total Income (Net monthly) Rs.15,000/- 4 Multiplier 18 5 Disability 30% 6 Loss of future income Rs.15,000 x 12 x 18 x 30% = Rs.9,72,000/- 7 Medical Expenses (Treatment) Rs. 6,19,807/- Total Rs.15,91,807/- 4(2019) 2 SCC 192 14 TCDS, J MACMA_3445_ 2018 24. In view of the above, there are no merits in the present appeal and accordingly the same is dismissed. Further the insurance company directed to pay the enhanced compensation together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization. It is needless to mention that the appellant is directed to pay the said amount within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. _____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR 09.04.2026 PBS/DR 15 TCDS, J MACMA_3445_ 2018 178 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR M.A.C.M.A.No: 3445 of 2018 Date: 09.04.2026 U PBS/DR