1 APHC010147972019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 396 of 2019 Bench Sr.No:-25 [3505] Jandrapeta Anand Kumar ...Appellant Vs. Ramachetty Siva Kumar and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** CORAM : SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR DATE : 11th August 2026 Present : Advocate for Appellant: D KODANDARAMI REDDY Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): M R K CHAKRAVARTHY 2 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR MACMA No.396 OF 2019 JUDGMENT:- 1. The present appeal is preferred by the claimant aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in MVOP No.400 of 2017, dt.11.10.2018, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Kadapa. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were referred in the claim petition. 3. The petitioner filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 r/w. Rules there under before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident that occurred on 24.08.2013 in which the offending car bearing Registration No.AP03Q 2999 was involved. 4. The case of the petitioner was that, he was aged 23 years as on the date of accident and was working as Manager in Kavya Fast Food Centre, Rajampet and was earning an amount of Rs.12,000/- per month. The said amount 3 was being contributed to the welfare of his family. It was further stated that on 24.08.2013 at about 08:30 pm, while he was returning on his motorcycle bearing registration No.AP03AW 0957 after attending counseling for admission into M.Tech., course in Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupati when he reached near S.V.Nagar, the offending car driven by its driver came in opposite direction at high speed, in rash and negligence manner and dashed the petitioner motorcycle. As a result of which, the petitioner fell down and received injuries on right thigh and the bones were exposed. One Sri K.Vamsi Krishna, who was proceeding on the same road came to rescue the petitioner and he was shifted to Ramadevi Hospital, Tirupati in an ambulance. 5. Further, it was stated that the said K. Vamsi Krishna reported the accident to the police and a case in Crime No.226 of 2013 was registered under Sections 338 & 279 IPC against the driver/1st respondent of the offending car. It was further contended that the petitioner was treated for two months as inpatient in the above said hospital and he underwent surgeries for which he spent about Rs.4,00,000/-. 4 6. It was further averred in the claim petition that in view of the injuries sustained by him, he became permanently disabled and unable to work as he was before. As the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent and the offending vehicle was insured with the 3rd respondent company, he filed the claim petition against respondent Nos.1 to 3 i.e., driver, owner and the insurance company. 7. The 2nd respondent/owner of the vehicle remained ex-parte. The 1st respondent filed counter affidavit denying the averments made in the claim petition. It was further stated that the 1st respondent has got valid driving license and he did not violate the terms and conditions of the policy. It was further contended that if at all any compensation was to be paid, it is by the 2nd respondent/owner of the offending car. Inter alia it was contended that the claim of the petitioner was excessive and prayed to dismiss the petition as against the 1st respondent. 8. A separate counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent contending that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligence driving of the 1st respondent. It was further averred that the injuries sustained by the petitioner were 5 simple in nature and there was no permanent disability as claimed by the petitioner. It was further contended that the accident was occurred due to head on collusion, the owner and the insurer of motorcycle are necessary parties to the claim petition and for non-joinder of necessary parties the claim petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. In order to prove the case of the petitioner, he was examined as PW-1 and one Sri P.Reddappa Naidu, Proprietor of Kavya Fast Food Centre under whom the petitioner was working was examined as PW-2, Doctors, who treated the petitioner were examined as PWs 3 & 4. The petitioner also marked documents in Ex.A1 to A11. Ex.X1 and X2 were marked through witnesses on behalf of the petitioner. 10. On the other hand, the respondents have neither adduced any oral evidence nor marked any documentary evidence. Considering the oral and documentary evidence put- forth by the parties, the Tribunal by order under challenge partly allowed the claim petition by awarding an amount of Rs.5,47,000/- together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit by fastening the liability on the respondents jointly and severally. Not satisfying with the 6 quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants preferred this appeal. 11. Heard Sri V.Lakshmi Harish, counsel for the appellant/claimant and Sri M.R.K. Chakarvarthi appearing for the respondent No.3. As respondent No.2 remained ex-parte before the Tribunal, this Court proceeded with hearing of the appeal. 12. Perused the material available on record. 13. The counsel for the appellant would submit that the Tribunal while partly allowing the claim petition did not award just compensation that was to be received by the petitioner. He would further submit that as on the date of the accident, the petitioner was 21 years old and had completed his graduation in B.Tech., He would further submit that the accident was occurred, while the petitioner was returning after attending the counseling so as to join in M.Tech., course. Apart from the same, he further submits that despite filing of Ex.A9, salary certificate issued by PW-2 stating that the petitioner was paid an amount of Rs.12,000/- per month as salary, the Tribunal for the reasons best known to it brushed aside the same without recording any evidence as to why the same is not believed. 7 14. On the other hand, the counsel for the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company would submit that the documentary evidence which was marked in Ex.A9 was rightly not considered by the Tribunal inasmuch as, the Hotel/Fast Food Centre allegedly run by PW-2 did not obtain any permission from the local body. Further the counsel for the respondent would contend that PW-2 failed to furnish attendance register and acquaintance register. Further during the cross-examination of PW-2, he had admitted that no amount was deduced towards provident fund from the salary of the petitioner. Based on the admissions made by the PW-2, during the cross-examination, the Tribunal did not consider Ex.A9 furnished by the petitioner and by treating him as daily wage worker, the income was fixed as Rs.4,500/- per month and accordingly awarded an amount of Rs.5,47,000/- towards compensation. 15. A perusal of the order under challenge would show that the employer of the petitioner was examined as PW-2 and salary certificate issued by him was marked as Ex.A9, however the same was disbelieved on the ground that the employer did not obtain license/permission from the Municipality and PW-2 8 did not maintain attendance register and was not deducting any amount towards Provident Fund. On over al consideration of the record, it is apparent that, though the Tribunal gave a finding that, there is no record to show that, PW-2 was running hotel, but it is to be noted that, it is common practice that the Fast Food Centres, which run alongside the road, do not obtain permission as contemplated under law. In the case on hand, it is apparent from the record that the petitioner had filed ample evidence by examining his employer to show that he was getting an amount of Rs.12,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal rejected the same as aforesaid. In this context, it is pertinent to note that, Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Parminder Singh v. New India Assurance Co., Ltd. And Others”1, it was held that, if evidence is placed on record, so as to prove the income of the petitioner, the same cannot be rejected. In this case, admittedly, the employer of the petitioner was examined, was deposed that, he used to pay an amount of Rs.12,000/- per month to the petitioner. The Tribunal ought to have taken this evidence into consideration inasmuch as, now a days fast food centres are established alongside the road 1 2019 (7) SCC 217 9 without obtaining permission from the local authorities. In the circumstances, this Court after analyzing the evidence of PW-2, fix the income of the petitioner as Rs.7,500/- per month. 16. Be that as it may, it is admitted fact that he petitioner was 23 years old as on the date of accident and the fact that he was working at the PW-2, Fast Food Centre was not denied by the respondents. In such circumstances, merely because the Fast Food Centre was not holding license as per law cannot be a ground for denying just compensation to the poor victim in the case on hand. 17. Therefore, insofar as the finding in fixing the income of the petitioner is Rs.4,500/- per month is not reasonable and the same required interference by this Court. Considering the averments made in the claim petition, coupled with evidence of PW-2 and by taking into consideration of Ex.A9 the income of the petitioner would not be less than Rs.7,500/- per month and accordingly the income of the petitioner is fixed as such, accordingly the compensation is computed hereunder: 10 Description of the Head Amount entitled in Rupees Monthly Income Rs.7,500/- Multiplier 18 Disability 50% Loss of future earnings Rs.8,10,000/- (Rs.7,500 x 12 x 18 x 50%) Transport charges Rs.15,000/- Medical expenses Rs.16,000/- Pain and sufferings Rs.30,000/- Total amount Rs.8,71,000/- 18. In view of the findings recorded above, the petitioner shall be paid compensation of Rs.8,71,000/- together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Accordingly, the present appeal allowed by enhancing the compensation from Rs.5,47,000/- to Rs.8,71,000/- together with interest @ 9% per annum and the respondents are directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with interest within a period of two (02) months from date of receipt of copy of the order. 19. The claimants are directed to pay the Court fee for the enhanced part of the compensation before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal concerned. 11 There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR 11.08.2026 DR 12 118 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MACMA No.396 of 2019 Date: 11.08.2026 U DR