APHC010114782022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3367] THURSDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 108/2022 Between: 1. CHILLA VIJAYA KUMARI, W/O CHILLA SIVA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, LABOURER IN PR MINERALS, RESIDENT OF SESHAKKAGARIPALLI, H/O B.KAMMAPALLI, OBULAVARIPALLI MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1. MUTHUSWAMY PERUMAL, S/O NAYAKKAR MUTHUSWAMY, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, DRIVER OF 'LORRY AP21 TB 5644, RESIDING AT D.NO.18/ 51, ARASAKULAM VILLAGE, VIJAYAPATHI, RADHAPURAM, TURUNELVELI, TAMILNADU -STATE 627104. 2. ARUNACHALA LOGISTIS PRIVATE LIMITED, CORPORATE OFFICE, 8-2-1/1/3, AVATAR NIVAS, SRINAGAR COLONY, MAIN ROAD, PANJAGUTTA, HYDERABAD 500 082. 3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NEAR 7 ROADS. JUNCTION, OPP. STATE BANK OF INDIA, KADAPA - 500- 001. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying that the High Court may be pleased to Appellant begs to present this Memorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal to this Honourable Court against the order and decree made in M.V.O.P.No.253/2019 on the file of the .Principal District Judge- cum. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kadapa, Dt. 30.10.2021 2 Counsel for the Appellant: M S P KAMARAJU Counsel for the Respondent(S): AMANCHARLA SATISH BABU The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge at Kadapa (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.258 of 2019 dated 30.10.2021. 2. The appellant is the claimant before the Tribunal. The respondent No.1 to 3 are the driver, owner and insurer of the Eicher Lorry bearing No.AP 21 TB 5644 (hereinafter referred to as “crime lorry”) respectively. 3. The case of the claimant, in the petition before the Tribunal is that: i). On 07.05.2019 at about 12.00 noon, while the claimant was proceeding in an auto, when they reached near Bommavaram Cross Road at NH.716 main road, Railway Kodur Mandal, the crime lorry 3 driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner at high speed dashed against the said auto in opposite direction, resulted the inmates of the auto sustained injuries all over the body. Then the claimant was shifted to Government Hospital, Railway Kodur, in-turn shifted to Sankalpa Hospital at Tirupati for better treatment. . ii). He claimed compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- against the driver, owner and insurer of the crime lorry respectively. 4. The respondent No.2/owner filed counter denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the respondent No.1 is having valid driving license to drive the crime lorry; that the crime lorry duly insured with the 3rd respondent insurance company; that the incident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto, but not 1st respondent; that the compensation claimed by the claimant is excessive, thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition. 4 5. The respondent No.3/insurer filed counter denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the respondent No.1 is not having valid driving license to drive the crime lorry; that the injuries sustained by the claimant are simple in nature; that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties; that the crime vehicle is not having valid and effective fitness certificate; that the compensation claimed by the claimant is excessive, thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material: “1.Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 07.05.2019 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Lorry bearing No.AP 21 TB 5644? 2.Whether the Petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? and 3.To what relief?” 7. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.8, C.1 and C.2 were exhibited. 5 On behalf of the respondent Nos.2 and 3, none were examined and no documents were marked. 8. On the material, the Tribunal, having concluded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime lorry by the 1st respondent, held that claimant is entitled for the compensation of Rs.18,05,292/-, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondent Nos.1 to 3, for the injuries sustained by the claimant. 9. It is against the said order; the present appeal was preferred by the claimant. 10. Heard Sri P.Siva Prasad, learned counsel representing Sri M.S.P.Kamaraju, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and Sri A.Satish Babu, learned counsel for the respondent No.3/insurer. 11. Sri P.Siva Prasad, learned counsel representing Sri M.S.P.Kamaraju, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that the Tribunal erred in calculating the quantum of compensation entitled by the claimant; that the Tribunal failed 6 to appreciate the material on record in proper perspective in awarding less quantum of compensation to the claimant without granting 40% future prospects, thereby, the claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation as claimed before the Tribunal and thereby, prays to consider the appeal preferred by the claimant. 12. On the other hand, Sri A.Satish Babu, learned counsel for the respondent No.3/insurer submits that the Tribunal, after appreciating the material on record, rightly calculated the compensation entitled by the claimant, which requires no interference, thereby, the present appeal has no merits and is liable for dismissal. 13. Now, the point that arises for determination is “whether the compensation awarded to the claimant is just compensation? 14. POINT: It is not in dispute about the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant in the incident as well disability sustained by the him due to the said injuries. It is also not in dispute that 7 there is no appeal preferred by the owner and insurer of the crime lorry against the findings of the Tribunal. 15. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the claimant is that the Tribunal failed to grant future prospects on account of disability sustained by the claimant. 16. As per the testimony of P.W.3 coupled with Ex.A.6 disability certificate, the claimant sustained 50% of permanent disability, which is not in dispute. When there is a permanent disability and for such disability, future prospects were not given by the Tribunal. 17. Now, it is relevant to refer a pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant in Sidram v. The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited1, which is followed in a recent pronouncement of Apex Court in Sanjay Rajpoot v. Ram Singh2, wherein it was categorically held that: “It is now a well settled position of law that even in case of permanent disablement incurred as a result of a motor-accident, the claimant 1 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 968 2 2025 INSC 188 (Civil Appeal No.2321 of 2025 decided on 11.02.2025) 8 can seek, apart from compensation for future loss of income, amounts for future prospects as well. We have come across many orders of different tribunals and unfortunately affirmed by different High Courts, taking the view that the claimant is not entitled to compensation for future prospects in accident cases involving serious injuries resulting in permanent disablement. That is not a correct position of law. There is no justification to exclude the possibility of compensation for future prospects in accident cases involving serious injuries resulting in permanent disablement. Such a narrow reading is illogical because it denies altogether the possibility of the living victim progressing further in life in accident cases – and admits such possibility of future prospects, in case of the victim’s death.” 18. In view of the above settled legal position by the Apex Court, the claimant is obviously entitled for future prospects at 40% in addition to the monthly income @ Rs.7,500/- (Rs.90,000/- per annum), which was rightly decided by the Tribunal by appreciating the material on record. After adding 40% to the income of the deceased towards future prospects her 9 income is determined at Rs.1,26,000/-(Rs.90,000/- + Rs.36,000/-). By considering the functional disability sustained by the claimant at 50%, it comes to Rs.63,000/-. 19. The appropriate multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased i.e., 31 to 35 years is 16. The total loss of dependency is determined at Rs.10,08,000/- (Rs.63,000/- x 16). 20. It is needless to say that under the remaining heads, the Tribunal after appreciating the entire material on record in right perspective awarded compensation, which is not in dispute. 21. A brief exposition of the calculation made to arrive at the compensation is set out infra: S.No. Heads Calculation 1 Income of the claimant Rs.90,000/- per annum (Rs.7,500/- per month) 1(a) After addition 40% future prospects to the income of the claimant Rs.1,26,000/- (Rs.90,000/- + Rs.36,000/-) 1(b) Functional Disability of the claimant at 50% Rs.63,000/- (Rs.1,26,000/2) 10 1(c) For permanent disability by applying multiplier at 16 Rs.10,08,000/- (Rs.63,000/- X 16) 2 Pain and suffering Rs.1,00,000/- 3 Transportation charges Rs.50,000/- 4 Medical expenses Rs.7,35,292/- 5 Attendant charges Rs.50,000/- 6 Extra nourishment and special dies Rs.50,000/- 7 Future medical expenses Rs.1,00,000/- Total compensation awarded (Rows 1(c)+2+3+4+5+6+7) Rs.20,93,292/- 22. Therefore, in view of the forgoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the award passed by the Tribunal warrants interference by enhancing the compensation from Rs.18,05,292/- to Rs.20,93,292/-. Thus, this point is answered accordingly. 11 23. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed in part, with proportionate costs, to enhance the compensation from Rs.18,05,292/- to Rs.20,93,292/- with interest at 7.5% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization against respondent Nos.1 and 2. The respondent No.3/insurer shall deposit the compensation amount within two months from the date of this judgment before the Tribunal. On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the enhanced compensation amount along with costs and interest accrued thereon. The rest of the conditions made in the order of the Tribunal shall remained intact. The Tribunal shall proceed to pay the amount in the aforesaid terms, adjusting the amount, if any, already paid. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS Date: 19.06.2025 Krs 12 341 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS M.A.C.M.A.No.108 of 2022 ( J U D G M E N T ) DATE: 19.06.2025 Krs