APHC010215502005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Thursday, the Tenth day of April Two Thousand and Twenty Five Present The Honourable Ms Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No: 3556 of 2005 Between: K. Suseela, ...Appellant and K Shouse Mohiddin and others ...Respondents Counsel for the appellant: 1. P.Narahari Babu Counsel for the respondents: 1. Mutevi Muralikrishna The Court made the following: 2 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3556 of 2005 Judgment: 1. This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement of compensation challenging the award and decree dated 17.05.2005 in O.P No.25 of 2004 on the file of Motor Accidents and Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Hindupur, for granting compensation of Rs.40,000/- with interest at the rate of 6 % p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization with joint and several liability of the respondents No.1 and 2. 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows: On 01.09.2003, while the petitioner, along with her sister, was travelling in van bearing No.KA 12 2340 belong to the respondent No.1, as a labourer to fetch water for the newly constructed house of the respondent No.1, the driver of the van drove it in rash and negligent manner and caused the van to turn turtle on left side of the road. As a result, the petitioner and her sister sustained fracture injuries. They were taken to Hospital in Kadiri and later shifted to the Government Hospital, Anantapur. The respondent No.2 is insurer of the crime vehicle. 3. The respondent No.1 remained ex parte. The respondent No.2 filed counter denying the liability, mainly contending that the petitioner was an unauthorized passenger and so the insurance company cannot be held liable. 4. The petitioner herself got examined as PW1 and Dr.Balaji, medical officer was examined as PW2 and Ex.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no one was examined and no exhibits were marked. 5. The respondent No.2 did not lead any evidence. 6. After hearing both parties, the Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligence of the driver of the vehicle of which respondent No.1 was the owner. Further, basing on the evidence that the petitioner suffered facture of superior and inferior pubicrami on the left side 3 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3556 of 2005 with dislocation of right sacroiliac joint with degenerative changes with shortening by one inch in the lower part of the limb and there is a certified disability of 25%, the petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs.40,000/-. 7. Aggrieved by the award this appeal was preferred. 8. Sri.P.Narahari Babu, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.B.Kiran Kumar, representing the learned counsel for the respondent, are present. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that in the appeal M.A.C.M.A No.3655 of 2005 filed by the sister of the appellant here, on 08.08.2018, this Court enhanced the amount of compensation from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.50,000/- (Rs.20,000/- towards injuries; Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs.10,000/- towards disability; Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of earnings, transportation and extranourishment) considering disability of 10% and shortening of half inch of right lower limb, whereas in the present case, the petitioner suffered 25% of disability and shortening of lower limb by one inch. Therefore, he submitted that the appellant may also be granted similar benefit by enhancing the amount of compensation. 10. Inspite of service of notice, the respondent No.1, no appearance has been made. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that the impugned award does not require interference as the quantum of compensation is adequate. 11. Though no copy of policy of insurance was filed by the respondent No.2 before the Tribunal, no defence was taken by the insurance company denying the existence of policy of insurance. 12. In the present case, the medical expenses proved are Rs.4,347/- as per Ex.A4. In the light of the previous order in the connected case of appeal arising out of the same accident, the M.A.C.M.A is allowed by enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.40,000/- to Rs.70,000/- (Rs.30,000/- towards 4 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3556 of 2005 injuries; Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs.20,000/- towards disability; Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of earnings, transportation and extranourishment). There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI Date : 10.04.2025 RSD 5 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3556 of 2005 20 The Honourable Ms Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No: 3556 of 2005 Date: 10.04.2025 RSD