APHC010975502018 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: 3439/2018 Between: 1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD, REP. BY IT'S DIVISIONAL MANAGER, FIRST FLOOR, SRI DEVI COMPLEX, THIRUPATHI ...APPELLANT AND 1. Y SAI TEJA AND 2 OTHERS, S/O. Y.SURESH, 16 YEARS, MINOR, BEING MINOR REP.BY NATURAL GUARDIAN AND HIS FATHER, Y.SURESH, JANDAMANU STREET, BUCHINAIDU KANDRIGA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, CHITHOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 2. VIKAS E M SCHOOL, REP.BY IT'S CORRESPONDENT, P.RENUKA, MAJOR,D.NO.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_3439_ 2018 ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying that the High court may be pleased to set aside the Judgment and Decree, dated 2-7-2018, in MVOP NO- 328 of 2012 Passed by the Chairman, MACT-X Additional District Judge at Tirupathi and allow the appeal in the interest of justice. 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 the delay of 64 days in preferring the above appeal before this Hon'ble court in the interest of justice 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 of all further proceedings including the execution of the judgment and decree in MVOP.No.328 of 201 dt.2-7-2018 passed by the MACT-X ADJ at Tirupathi, pending the above appeal before this Hon'ble court in the interest of justice 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_3439_ 2018 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR M.A.C.M.A.No.3439 of 2018 JUDGMENT:- 1. Aggrieved by order dated 02.07.2018 in M.V.O.P No.328 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 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 him 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 case of the petitioner that he was prosecuting 10th 4 TCDS, J MACMA_3439_ 2018 standard in 1st respondent school. On 08.03.2012 he boarded the bus, when it reached Arigela Kandriga Yanadi center, the driver of the offending bus drove the same at high speed, in rash and negligent manner, thereby he lost control over the vehicle and it turned turtle. 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 he was shifted to Miot hospital, Chennai. Where he undertook treatment as inpatient from 08.03.2012 to 26.03.2012. He has also taken follow up treatment in the said hospital. It was further case of the petitioner that, he was distributing milk packets and earning Rs.5,000/- per month and the same was contributed to his family. In view of the injuries received by him, he 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. 5 TCDS, J MACMA_3439_ 2018 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 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 him 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 A11. Copy of Ex.X1 was marked through PW4. 8. On the other hand, the respondent examined RWs 1 and 2 and got marked Exs.B1 & B2 and Exs.X2 to X4. 9. The Tribunal after hearing the parties, allowed the claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, fastening the liability on the respondents. 6 TCDS, J MACMA_3439_ 2018 10. Questioning the same, the present appeal is filed. 11. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Lakshmi Harish representing, Sri D.Kodandarami Reddy appearing for 1st respondent and Sri Gandhavara Mahesh 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 he was not earning member of the family. He would further submit that nothing is placed on record to show that he 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 7 TCDS, J MACMA_3439_ 2018 deposed in relation to the manner in which accident occurred and with regard to the insurance policy issued as against the 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 questioning 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 PW1, would show 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 PW1. The petitioner also reiterated the same in the claim petition. It is not uncommon in rural areas where, the school going children often engage in income generating activities to support their household, especially to strengthen financial situation. Further, it was specifically pleaded in the claim petition that, the petitioner was contributing some 8 TCDS, J MACMA_3439_ 2018 amount and PWs 1 & 3 also deposed in similar lines and their evidence remained un-shattered. 16. Except 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 he was getting Rs.5,000/- per month by distributing milk packets, it is difficult to accept the same, nevertheless there cannot be any dispute with regard to the contribution made by the petitioner to his 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.10,00,000/-. The said amount was awarded under two heads (i) Rs.6,00,000/- towards medical expenses, medicines and extra nourishment (ii) Rs.4,00,000/- towards 1 2013 ACJ 2445 (SC) 9 TCDS, J MACMA_3439_ 2018 pain and suffering already undergone and to be suffered in future, mental and physical shock, hardship, inconvenience and discomfort etc., and loss of amenities of life on account of permanent disability. 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 him was also not taken into account. He would further submit that the petitioner had filed disability certificate dated 16.06.2014 issued by PW4. 19. It is contended that the petitioner suffered disability of 35% and in view of the same the petitioner is unable to move his left hand freely and it is difficult for him to attend day to day activities. By virtue of the said injury, the 22009 ACJ 1298 10 TCDS, J MACMA_3439_ 2018 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 35% 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 suffered crush injury and he cannot move the same freely as he 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 he 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 he not met with the 11 TCDS, J MACMA_3439_ 2018 accident, he could have secured a better employment, he 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 3 would go to show that he was also contributing his earnings to the family. Though the Tribunal had allowed the claim petition by awarding compensation as claimed by the petitioner, as can be seen from the evidence of PW4, Dr.P.V.A. Mohandas who deposed that the petitioner sustained major crush injury to left upper limb. He had bronchial artery injury and soft tissue lost triple nerve injury with compound fracture and dislocation of the elbow. He was admitted in hospital on 26.09.2012 and discharged on 01.10.2012. Further he 3 (2014) 11 SCC 178 12 TCDS, J MACMA_3439_ 2018 deposed that the petitioner was clinically examined and observed clawing of fingers of the left hand and he has no hand function. He also had scarsing of the entire left upper limb and it was assessed as permanent partial disability of 35% and a certificate was issued to that effect which was marked as Ex.A4. During the cross-examination he deposed that the disability was assessed by following WHO norms. Though he 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 appreciating the oral and documentary evidence placed, this Court is of the considered opinion that the claimant is entitled to receive over and above compensation claimed by him. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Ramla v. National Insurance Company Ltd.,= 4had held that the Courts are duty bound to award just compensation to the victim/claimant if he is 4(2019) 2 SCC 192 13 TCDS, J MACMA_3439_ 2018 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 35% 6 Loss of future income Rs.15,000 x 12 x 18 x 35% = Rs.11,34,000/- 7 Medical Expenses (Treatment) Rs.6,00,000/- Total Rs.17,34,000/- 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 14 TCDS, J MACMA_3439_ 2018 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_3439_ 2018 178 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR M.A.C.M.A.No: 3439 of 2018 Date: 09.04.2026 U PBS/DR