mm * ‘ mu% IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1956 AND 1331 OF 2016 MACMA.N0.1956 OF 2016 APHC010230572016 Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1973, aggrieved by the decree and order dated .29.12.2015 passed in OP.No.440 of 2009 on the file of MACT cum Special Judge for Trial of Cases Under SCs & Sts (POA) Act-cum-VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari District Eluru. Between: Karuturi Cyril Babu, S/o.Narasim Rao, Hindu, Male, 25 years, B.Tech Student and Books Seller, R/o. Door No. 10-1-14, Ward No. 17, Bhimavaram Bye Pass Road,Tadepalligudem Post and Mandal, West Godavari District. ... APPELLANT AND 4. Th'ota Venkata Satyanarayana, S/o. Nageswara Rao, Hindu, Male, 28 Driver of Lorry No.AP 31 T 7164, Arugolanu Post, Tadepalligudem Mandal, West Godavari District. 2. Addagarla Suryanarayana, S/o. Venkatarao, Hindu, Male, 38 years. years, owner of Lorry No.AP 31 T 7164, Arugolanu Post, Tadepalligudem Mandal, West Godavari District. 3. United India Insurance Company Limited Manager, Divisional Office, Eluru, West Godavari District. 4. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Rep., by the Branch Manager, Branch Office, Vijayawada, Krishna District. rep., by the Divisional ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI. B.V. KRISHNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SRI. S.V.R. SUBRAHMANYAM Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : SRI. GUDI SRINIVASU MACMA.NO: 1331 OF 2016 APHC010644142016 SMB ■ Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1973, aggrieved by the Decree and Order dated 29-12-2015 passed in MVOP No.439 of 2009 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Special Judge for Trial of Cases Under SCs & STs (POA) Act Cum VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru. BETWEEN: Kantipudi Aravind Kumar, S/o. Venugopal Srinivasa Rao, Hindu, Male, 27 years, R/o.Door No.10-1-14,Ward No.17, Bhimavaram Bye Pass Road,Tadepalligudem Post and Mandal, West Godavari District. ... APPELLANT AND 1. Thota Venkata Satyanarayana, S/o. Nageswara Rao, Hindu, Male, 34 Driver of Lorry No. AP 31 T 7164, Arugolanu Post, Tadepalligudem Mandal, West Godavari District. 2. Addagarla Suryanarayana, S/o. Venkatarao, Hindu, Male, 44 years years, owner of Lorry No. AP 31 T 7164, Arugolanu Post, Tadepalligudem Mandal, West Godavari District. 3. United India Insurance Company Limited, rep. by the Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Eluru, West Godavari District. 4. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by the Branch Manager, Branch Office, Vijayawada, Krishna District. ... RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI. B.V. KRISHNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SRI. N. RAMA KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : SRI GUDI SRINIVASU The Court made the following COMMON JUDGMENT : 1 APHC010230572016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3520] FRIDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1956/2016 Between: 1.KARUTURI CYRIL BABU, S/O.NARASIM RAO, HINDU, MALE, 25 YEARS N0.1 0-1-14, WARD NO.17 ROAD,TADEPALLIGUDEM GODAVARI DISTRICT. B.TECH STUDENT AND BOOKS SELLER, R/0. DOOR BHIMAVARAM 8YE PASS POST AND MANDAL, WEST ...APPELLANT AND 3 OTHERS, S/0. NAGESWARA RAO, HINDU, MALE, 28 YERS, DRIVER OF LORRY NO. AP 31 T 7164, ARUGOLANU POST, TADEPALLIGUDEM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2 ADDAGARLA SURYANARAYANA, S/0. VENKATARAO, HINDU, 38 YEARS, OWNER OF LORRY NO. AP 31 T 7164, POST, TADEPALLIGUDEM MANDAL, GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REP. BY THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, ELURU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 1 .THOTA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA MALE, ARUGOLANU WEST 4.RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REP. BY BRANCH MANAGER, BRANCH OFFICE, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. THE ...RESPONDENT(S); 2 Counsel for the Appellant: 1.BV KRISHNA REDDY Counsel for the Responclent(S): 1. RAMACHANDRAREDDY gadi 2.S V R SUBRAHMANYAM 3.GUDI SRINIVASU jMOTOR ACCtPENT CIVIL Misrpi. Between: appeal NO: 1331/7nifi NO. 17, POST AND -APPELLANT AND 1.THOTA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA NAGESWARA RAO, HINDU, MALE, . MANDAL, west GODAVARI DISTOCT.^°^ TADEPALLIGUDEM 3 OTHERS, S/0 34 YERS, DRIVER OF LORRY 2.ADDAGARLA SURYANARAYANA MALE, 44 YEARS, OWNER ARUGOLANU POST, GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE divisional manager GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE the branch manager, KRISHNA DISTRICT. S/0. VENKATARAO, HINDU OF LORRY NO. AP MANDAL 31 T 7164, WEST TADEPALLIGUDEM COMPANY LIMITED, REP. BY THF divisional office. eluru, west COMPANY LIMITED, REP BY branch office VIJAYAWADA ...RESPONDENT(S): 3 Counsel for the Appellant: 1.BV KRISHNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.N RAMA KRISHNA 2. RAMACHANDRAREDDY GADI 3.GUDI SRINIVASU 4. The Court made the following: 4 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA M.A.C.M.A.Nos.1956and 1331 of 2016 COMMON JUDGMENT: Introductory: 1. [i] One Kantipudi Aravind Kumar (Victim / injured No.1) and Karuturi Cyril Babu (Victim / injured No.2) met with a motor vehicle accident while they were travelling in a motorcycle bearing N0.API6 BH 859 when lorry bearing No.AP 31T 7164 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) coming in opposite direction dashed them. Victim / injured No.1 filed M.V.O.P.No.439 of 2009 and Victim / injured No.2 filed M.V.O.P.No.440 of 2009 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru [for short “MACT”]. Both claims were disposed by the learned MACT on 29.12.2015 under the award and decree impugned under the appeals now under consideration. [iii] Feeling aggrieved by the quantum of compensation of Rs. 10,000/- granted against the claim made for Rs.5,00,000/-, victim / injured No.1, (Kantipudi Aravind Kumar) filed M.A.C.M.A.No.1331 of 2016. Likewise, feeling aggrieved by the quantum of compensation of Rs.11,175/- awarded as against the claim made for Rs.1,50,000/-, victim / injured No.2 filed M.A.C.M.A.No.1956 of 2016. 5 Both claims are arising out of the same accident. Respondent [iv] Nos.1 and 2 before the learned MACT and herein are the driver and owner of the lorry / the offending vehicle. Respondent No.3 is the Insurance Company of the lorry / the offending vehicle. Respondent No.4 is the insurance company of the motorcycle on which the injured were travelling. The learned MACT found that Respondent No.3 is liable to pay the 2. compensation. There are no appeals or cross objections filed by the Insurance Negligence, liability and entitlement of the claimants for compensation are not in dispute. What is the just and reasonable quantum of compensation to which the respective claimants (Victim / injured Nos.1 and 2) are entitled alone requires consideration and determination in the 3. Company. facts and circumstances of the respective cases. For the sake of convenience parties will be hereinafter referred to as 4. the claimant No.1 (claimant in M.V.O.P.No.439 of 2009 / appellant in M.A.C.M.A.No.1331 of 2016) and the claimant No.2 (claimant in M.V.O.P.No.440 of 2009 / appellant in M.A.C.M.A.No.1956 of 2016). Sequence of events and facts as per the Claimants: 5(i). On 16.01.2009 claimant Nos.1 and 2 started from Tadepalligudemto Tanuku on their motorcycle. Claimant No.2 (petitioner in M.V.O.P.No.440 of 2009) was riding the motorcycle and claimant No.1 was pillion driver. When they reached near Petrol Bunk on NH 5 road after crossing Allampuram 6 within the limits of Pentapadu Police Station, the offending vehicle came in an opposite direction and dashed the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner, whereby, both the claimants fell down and sustained injuries. They were shifted to Sanjeevini Emergency Hospital, Tanuku. For treatment. From there claimant Nos.1 and 2 was shifted to Ramakrishna Orthopedic Physiotherapy Centre, Tanuku on 17.01.2009. Claimant No.1 discharged was on 26.01.2009 and claimant No.2 was discharged on 21.01.2009. 5(ii). Case in Crime No.20 of 2009 was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle for the offences under Section 337 and 338 I.P.C. and he was subsequently charge sheeted. Claiming that both the claimants suffered severe injuries and incurred expenses for treatment, suffering disability, filed their respective claims for the compensation mentioned above. Respondent Nos.1 and 2, the driver and the owner of the lorry/ the 6. offending vehicle remained ex-parte. Case of Respondent No.3-lnsurance Company with which the offending vehicle insured: Respective claimants have to prove the nature of accident, the 7. negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and the age and occupation of the respective claimants; nature of injuries suffered, expenditure incurred for treatment, effect of the injuries and the entitlement of the respective claimants for the compensation claimed. 7 Respondent No.4 claimed that the case is registered against the 8. driver of the offending vehicle and that the respondent No.4 is not a proper and necessary party, and no liability can be fastened on Respondent No.4 Insurance Company. The learned MACT framed issued touching upon the negligence and 9. entitlement of the claimants for compensation as well as other legal and factual objections like valid driving licence, non-joinder and misjoinder of necessary parties and held all the issues in favour of the claimants. Findings of the learned MACT:- On quantum of compensation in respect of Claimant No.1: 10(i). Claimant No.1 was aged about 21 years, B. Pharmacy student. He has sustained five injuries. Out of which three are abrasion injuries, one is lacerated injury and the other is swelling injury. Ex.A2 - Wound Certificate indicating the injuries suffered by the claimant No.1. P.W.2 / the doctor stated that the claimant sustained as many as 12 injuries, out of which, four are grievous in nature and the remaining are simple in nature. 12 injuries mentioned in P.W.2 are with reference to the tests and X-rays reports given by the Radiologist. 10(ii). Ex.AS medical bills are standing for Rs.5,000/- claimant was in hospital for ‘four’ days. He was advised bed rest for two months. Claimant 8 is entitled for Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenditure, in all the entitlement of claimant is Rs. 10,000/-. On quantum of compensation in respect of Claimant No,2: 11 (i). Claimant was aged about 26 years, B.Tech (IT) student. Ex.A2 is the wound certificate issued by the Sanjeevini Emergency Hospital, Tanuku. P.W.2 / doctor stated from Sri Ramakrishna Orthopedic Physiotherapy Centre, Tanuku deposed to prove the treatment taken by the claimant No.2. 11 (ii). Ex.A2-wound certificate shows that the three injuries suffered by the claimant, out of which, two are abrasion injuries and another one is a wound. 11(iii).P.W.2 stated that injuries suffered by claimant No. 2 are simple in Ex.A8 are bunch of medical bills standing for Rs. 12,175.74/-. nature. Claimant No.2 paid advance of Rs.5,000/- and at the time of discharge, he paid Rs.4,900/-. 11(iv).lt appears that the claimant claimed both advance amount and bills. Therefore, Rs.5,000/- is to be deducted and towards treatment claimant is entitled for Rs.7,175.74/- and Rs.3,000/- towards pain and suffering. In all. the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs. 11,175/-. Arguments in the appeals:- For the Claimants: The learned MACT failed in properly appreciating the evidence of 12. doctor, nature and effect of injuries suffered by the respective claimants 9 medical expenditure incurred, period of hospitalization etc., the quantum of compensation awarded is very low and the claimants are entitled for just and reasonable compensation which shall be more than what is claimed by them and that there is no bar for awarding more compensation than what claimed. For the Respondents: Compensation awarded under the impugned award itself is excessive and there are no grounds to enhance the compensation. Heard both sides. Perused the record. The points that arise for determination in these appeals (i). What is the just and reasonable compensation to which the claimant No.1 viz. the claimant in M.V.O.P.No.439 of 2009 is entitled and whether the compensation of Rs. 10,000/- awarded by the learned MACT is reasonable or require any interference, if so to what extent? 13. 14. 15. are: (ii). What is the result of the appeal in M.A.C.M.A.No. 1331 of 2016? (iii) What is the just and reasonable compensation to which the claimant No.2 viz. the claimant in M.V.O.P.No.440 of 2009 is entitled and whether the compensation of Rs. 11,175/- awarded by the learned MACT is reasonable or require any interference, if so to what extent? (iv) What is the result of the appeal in M.A.C.M.A.No. 1956 of 2016? 10 Precedential Guidance: A reference to parameters, for quantifying the compensation under 16. various heads, addressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court is found necessary, to have standard base in the process of quantifying the compensation, to which the claimant is entitled. With regard to awarding just and reasonable quantum of compensation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Baby Sakshi Greola vs. Manzoor Ahmad Simon and Anr.^, arising out of SLP(c).No.10996 of 2018 (i) on 11.12.2024, considered the scope and powers of the Tribunal in awarding just and compensation within the meaning of Act, after marshaling entire case law, more particularly with reference to the earlier observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court made in Kajal V. Jagadish Chand and Ors.^ referred to various heads under which, compensation can be awarded, in injuries cases vide paragraph No.52, the heads are as follows:- Amount (In ?) S. No. Head Medicines and Medical Treatment Loss of Earning Capacity due to Disability Pain and Suffering Future Treatment Attendant Charges Loss of Amenities of Life Loss of Future Prospect Special Education Expenditure Conveyance and Special Diet Loss of Marriage Prospects 1. xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Total Rs. ...xxxxxx ^2025 AIAR (Civil) 1 ^2020 (04) see 413 11 Hon’ble Apex Court in Yadava Kumar Vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited and Anr.,^ vide para No. 10, by referring to Sunil Kumar Vs. Ram Singh Gauct*,as to application of multiplier method in case of injuries while calculating loss of future earnings, in para 16 referring to Hardeo Kaur Vs. Rajasthan State Transport Corporation^, as to fixing of quantum of compensation with liberal approach, valuing the life and limb of individual in generous scale, in para 17 observed that (ii). “The High Court and the Tribunal must realize that there Is a distinction between compensation and damage. The expression compensation may include a claim for damage but compensation is more comprehensive. Normally damages are given for an injury which is suffered, whereas compensation stands on a slightly higher footing. It is given for the atonement of injury caused and the intention behind grant of compensation is to put back the injured party as far as possible in the same position, as if the injury has not taken place, by way of grant of pecuniary relief Thus, in the matter of computation of compensation, the approach will be slightly more broad based than what Is done in the matter of assessment of damages. At the same time it is true that there cannot be any rigid or mathematical precision in the matter of determination of compensation." In Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another^, the Hon’ble Apex Court summarized principles to be followed in the process of quantifying the compensation after referring to socio economic and practical aspects from which, the claimants come and the practical difficulties, the parties may face in the process of getting disability assessed and getting all certificates from (iii). ^2010(10)SCC 341 2007 (14) see 61 ^ 1992(2) see 567 ® 2011 (1)see 343 12 either the Doctors, who treated, or from the medical boards etc. In para 19 it is observed as follows: 19. We may now summarise the principles discussed above: (i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity, (ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that the percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as the percentage of permanent disability). (Hi) The doctor who treated an injured claimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only In regard to the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety, (iv) The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors. (iv) In Sidram vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and AnrJ vide para No.40, the Hon’ble Apex Court referred to the general principles relating to compensation in injury cases and assessment of future loss of earning due to permanent disability by referring to Rajkumar’s case. ^ 2023 (3) see 439 13 and also various heads under which compensation can be awarded to a victim of a motor vehicle accident. (V) In Sidram’s case, reference is made to a case in R.D. Hattangadi V. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd.\ From the observations made therein, it can be understood that while fixing amount of compensation in cases of accident, it involves some guess work, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of the disability caused. But, all these elements have to be viewed with objective standards. In assessing damages, the Court must exclude all considerations of matter which rest in awarding speculation or fancy, though conjecture to some extent is inevitahiR Point Nos.1 and 2: 17. Since the point Nos.1 and 2 are interlinked, they are being discussed and answered together. The evidence relevant placed by the claimant is Ex.A2-copy of wound Ex.A5 medical bills standing for Rs.5,000/- .Ex.A6 and Ex.A7 are discharge summaries issued by the Sanjeevani Hospital Ramakrishna Orthopedic Physiotherapy Centre. 18. certificate. and Ex.XI is the Medical Certificate, Ex.X2 is the X-rays three in number, Ex.X3 is the C.T. Scan report, Ex.X4 is the X-ray report and Ex.XS is the Lab report. Disability certificate is not placed. 1995 (1) see 551 14 19. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the claimant is suffering with disability and deformity. Learned counsel for the appellant cited certain judgments, wherein with reference to the facts of the case and evidence therein particularly proof relating to income, age and disability, certain quantification of compensation was done. They are found not applicable to the present case as the evidence on record is very clear and referred by the learned MACT in clear terms. However, on certain aspects like number of injuries and compensation awarded under the heads like pain and suffering etc. required to be reconsidered along with the other heads like pain and suffering, medical expenditure, attendant charges , extra nourishment / special diet etc. The evidence referred by the learned MACT is indicating that: (i) The petitioner was a student, (ii) Petitioner suffered injuries mentioned in Ex.A2 wound certificate, (iii) PW.3 stated that there are 12 injuries, out of which four injuries are grievous in nature and the remaining are simple in nature, (iv) Ex.A2 wound certificate is reflected only five injuries, (v) The Doctor referred to X-ray reports and radiologist reports referring ‘12’ injuries, (vi) Ex.A5-medical bills are standing for Rs.5,000/-. (vii) Hospitalization from 17.01.2009 to 26.01.2009. compensation and 20. 15 . « Upon considering the nature of injuries, age, as well as evidence available on record, the entitlement of claimant No.1 for compensation is 21. found as follows: Fixed by this Appellate Court Granted by the learned MACT SI. Head No. Rs.1,00,000/- pain and suffering Rs.5,000/- 1. Rs.15,000/- for each grievous injury; Rs.5,000/- for each simple injury. (Rs.15,000/-x4 &Rs.5,000/-x8) and 2. Medical expenditure Rs.5,000/- Rs.10,000/- 3. Loss of income (if any during the period of treatment etc. for two -Nil- Rs.10,000/- months) 4. Attendant charges -Nil- Rs.10,000/- Extra Nourishment -Nil- Rs.20,000/- 5. Nervous shock and loss of amenities etc. 6. -Nil- Rs.10,000/- 7. Transportation -Nil- Rs.10,000/- Rs. 10,000/- Total: Rs.1,70,000/- 22. In view of the discussion made above, the point Nos.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the appellant / claimant concluding that the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,70,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum and the order and decree dated 29.12.2015 passed by the learned MACT in M.V.O.P.No.439 of 2009 require modification accordingly. 16 Point Nos.3 and 4: Since the point Nos.3 and 4 are interlinked, they are being discussed 23. and answered together. The evidence and material placed by the claimant for answeringthe 24. issue in Ex.A2 wound certificate, Ex.A5-original receipt issued by the Ex.A6 is the Ramakrishna Orthopedic Physio Therapy Centre and discharge summary. Evidence and material relevant for answer the issue: The petitioner claimed that he has suffered the following injuries: 25. (i) Multiple abrasion over left leg +swelling (ii) injury chest abrasion, contusion over the middle of the chest 10 x 5x (Hi) Injury over epispastics region 6x3x1^ cm wound is fresh and (iv) X-ray perils of both lips AP views normal, (v) X-ray left leg lat view: No fracture in Visalia covers, (vi) X-ray left foot A/0 view: No fracture in visualized bones, (vii) Other bleeding injuries all over the body. Vi cm. bleeding. Ex.A2-wound certificate is reflecting the following injuries; (i) Multiple aberration over left leg + swelling, (ii). Injury chest aberration T confusion over the middle of the chest 10x5x72 cm. (Hi). Injury over epispastics region 6x3x7 cm wound is fresh and bleeding, (iv). X-Ray Perils of both lips AP Views normal (v). X-Ray left leg lat view: No fracture in Visalia covers (vi). X-Ray left foot A/0 View: No fracture in visualized bones. Ex.A6-discharge summary is indicating that the petitioner was 26. 27. admitted on 17.01.2009 and discharge on 21.01.2009. Bunch of medical bills covered by Ex.A8 are standing for Rs.12,175/-. 17 28. The evidence of P.W.2 / Dr. Nimmagadda Atchyutha Ramaiah, who treated the petitioner is as follows: I am working an Orthopedic Surgeon by Running Hospital by name Sri Rama Krishna Physiotheraphy Centre at Tanaku since 1985. 17.01.2009, one Cyril Babu was admitted in my Hospital as inpatient with injuries. I found the following injuries. 1. Multiple aberration over Left Leg with swelling. 2. An aberration over the Cheat 10 x 3 c.m. 3. Injury over epispastics region 6x3 1/2 C.m. Wound is bleeding. The patient i/i'as admitted as inpatient on 17.01.2009 and he was discharged on 21.01.2009, with discharged him with an advise supported walking and taking Antibiotics and Analyses. On examination he stated that he sustained injuries in R.T.A. the patient was referred Sanjeevani Emergency Hospital at Tanuku. The above injuries are simple in nature. The Ex.A-6 discharge summary issued by me. The Ex.A-7 Medical prescriptions and Ex A-5 Medical Bill were issued by me. /As per Ex A-2 wound certificate all the injuries stated above was simple in nature. The petitioner attend before me. I identified. On 29. The learned MACT has found that the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs. 11,175/- viz. Rs.7,175/- for treatment and Rs.3,000/- for pain and suffering. 30. The quantification of compensation done by the learned MACT is irrational and empathetic concerns are missing in the judgment, important oral and documentary evidence is not taken into count. The evidence of Doctors is not properly appreciated and the appellant is entitled for just compensation. 18 rf^ 31. Upon considering the number and nature of injuries and the period of treatment undergone, the entitlement of claimant No.2 for compensation is found as follows: SI. Head Granted by the learned MACT Fixed by this Appellate Court No. 1. pain and suffering Rs.3,000/- Rs.30,000/- 2. Medical expenditure Rs.7,175/- Rs. 15,000/- 3. Loss of income during the period of treatment etc. -Nil- Rs.10,000/- 4. Attendant charges -Nil- Rs. 10,000/- 5. Extra Nourishment -Nil- Rs.20,000/- 6. Nervous shock -Nil- Rs.10,000/- 7. Transportation -Nil- Rs.10,000/- Total: Rs.10,175/- (But, the learned MACT awarded Rs.11,175/-) Rs.1,05,000/- 32. In view of the discussion made above, the point Nos.3 and 4 are answered in favour of the appellant / claimant concluding that the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,05,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum and the order and decree dated 29.12.2015 passed by the learned MACT in M.V.O.P.No.440 of 2009 require modification accordingly. 33. For the aforesaid reasons and in view of the conclusions drawn under point Nos.1 to 4, in the result, both the appeals i.e.M.A.C.M.A. No.1956 of 2016 and M.A.C.M.A.No.1331 of 2016 are allowed-in-part as follows; 19 M.A.C.M.A.No.1331 of 2016: (i) M.A.C.M.A.No.1331 of 2016 is allowed-in-part. compensation awarded by the learned MACT in M.V.O.P.No.439 of 2009 at Rs. 10,000 /- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum is modified and enhanced to Rs.1,70,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are jointly and severally liable. But, Respondent No.3 is liable in view of the Insurance Policy, (iv) Time for deposit of balance compensation amount is two months, (v) The claimant is entitled to withdraw the amount at once on deposit. (ii) The (iii) M.A.C.M.A.No.1956 of 2016: M.A.C.M.A.No.1956 of 2016 is allowed-in-part. The compensation awarded by the learned MACT in M.V.O.P.No.440 of 2009 at Rs.11,175/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum is modified and enhanced to Rs.1,05,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are jointly and severally liable. But, Respondent No.3 is liable in view of the Insurance Policy. (i) (ii) (iii) 20 (iv) Time for deposit of balance compensation amount is two months. (V) The claimant is entitled to withdraw the amount at once on deposit. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeals shall stand closed. SD/- N.NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Chairman, MACT cum Special Judge for Trial of Cases Under SCs & Sts (POA) Act-cum-VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari District Eluru. (with records if any) '' ■ ■ ■ \ 2. One GQ W^Rlr B V KRISHNA REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] ^ One CC to SRI. S V R SUBRAHMANYAM, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRI. GUDI SRINIVASU, Advocate [OPUC] 5. The Section Officer V.R. Section, High Court of Andhra Prasesh, at Amaravathi. 6. TwO^B. les. TAC * \ HIGH COURT ,DATED:01/08/2025 COMMON JUDGMENT + DECREE MA.CMA.N0.1956 AND 13310F 2016 .1 J/^ ^ U0IW8S m o mi)B% Si * \ oy X n SEP 2825 a ,‘2.^ Current Section MAGMA NOS ARE ALLOWED-IN-PART. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA jyiOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1331 OF 2016 APHC010644142016 SMS m BETWEEN: Kantipudi Aravind Kumar, S/o. Venugopal Srinivasa Rao, Hindu 27 years. , Male, R/o.Door No.10-1-14,Ward No.17, Bhimavaram Bye Pass Road,Tadepalligudem Post and Mandal, West Godavari District. ... APPELLANT AND 1. Thota Venkata Satyanarayana, S/o. Nageswara Rao, Hindu, Male, 34 years. Driver of Lorry No. AP 31 T 7164 Tadepalligudem Mandal, West Godavari District. 2. Addagarla Suryanarayana, S/o. Venkatarao Arugolanu Post Hindu, Male, 44 years, owner of Lorry No. AP 31 T 7164, Arugolanu Post, Tadepalligudem Mandal, West Godavari District. 3. United India Insurance Company Limited Manager, Divisional Office, Eluru, West Godavari District. rep. by the Divisional 4. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Manager, Branch Office, Vijayawada, Krishna District. Rep. by the Branch ... RESPONDENTS 1973, aggrieved passed in MVOP No.439 of 2009 6n the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Special Judge for Trial of Cases Under SCs & STs (POA) Act Cum VIII Additional Judge, West Godavari, Eluru. Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, ‘ the Decree and Order dated 29-12-2015 / ' District and Sessions Appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the Memorandum of of the lower Court and the material upon hearing the arguments of Sri. B.V. Krishna and Sri N. Rama Krishna for the and Sri Gudi Srinivasu for the Appeal, the Judgment and Decree evidence on record and Reddy, Advocate for the Appellant Respondent No.3 and for the Appellant Respondent No.4. This Court doth order and decree as follows: 1. That the MACMA.N0.1331 of2016beand is hereby Allowed in part. 2. That the compensation awarded by the MACT in M.V.OP.NO. 439 of 2009 at Rs. 10,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum be and is hereby modified and enhanced to Rs.1,70,000/- with interest at the rate of 9 % per annum from the date of petition till the date 3. That the Respondent Nos.2 of realization, and 3 be and are hereby jointly and severally liable. But, Respondent No.3 is liable in view of the Insurance Policy. 4. That the time for deposit of balance 5. That the claimant be and is herebyb entitled to withdraw the amount at once on deposit. compensation amount is two months. 6- That there be no order as to costs in this appeal. ACOIO-P^^" ^ NAGAMIVIA ASSISTANT registrar //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, I ;! T The Chairman, MACT SpecialJudge for Trial Sts (POA) Act-cum-VIII Additional District Godavari District Eluru. of Cases Under SCs and Sessions Judge, West (with records if any) :i 2- Two C.D Copies. TAC q ip ii, HIGH COURT DATED:01/08/2025 DECREE MA.CMA.N0.1331 OF 2016 i J5 SEP 2025 ^ ^ Currsnt Sapuon * ^ m 93 MAGMA NOS ARE ALLOWED-iN-PART. 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1956 OF 2016 APHC010230572016 Between: Karuturi Cyril Babu, S/o.Narasim Rao, Hindu, Male, 25 years Student and Books Seller, R/o. Door No.1 0-1-14, Ward No. 17, Bhimavaram Bye Pass Road,Tadepalligudem Post and Mandal, West Godavari District. B.Tech ... APPELLANT AND 1. Thota Venkata Satyanarayana, S/o. Nageswara Rao, Hindu, Male, 28 years, Driver of Lorry No.AP 31 T 7164, Arugolanu Post, Tadepalligudem Mandal, West Godavari District. 2. Addagarla Suryanarayana. S/o. Venkatarao, Hindu, Male, 38 years, owner of Lorry No.AP 31 T 7164, Arugolanu Post, Tadepalligudem Mandal, West Godavari District. I 3. United India Insurance Company Limited, rep., by the Divisional - Manager, Divisional Office, Eluru, West Godavari District. 4. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Rep., by the Branch Manager, Branch Office, Vijayawada, Krishna District. ...RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1973, aggrieved by the decree and order dated.29.12.2015 passed in OP.No.440 of 2009 on the file of MACT cum Special Judge for Trial of Cases Under SCs & Sts (POA) Act-cum-VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari District Eluru. Appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the Memorandum of Appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the lower Court and the material evidence on record and upon hearing the arguments of Sri. B.V. Krishna Reddy, Advocate for the Appellant and Sri S.V.R. Subrahmanyam for the Respondent No.3 and for the Appellant and Sri Gudi Srinivasu for the Respondent No.4. This Court doth order and decree as follows: 1. That the Appeal be and is hereby Allowed-in-part; 2. That the compensation awarded by the MACT in M.V.OP.NO. 440 of 2009 at Rs.11175/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum be and is hereby modified and enhanced to Rs.1,05,000/- with interest at the rate of 9 % per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 3. That the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 be and are hereby jointly and severally liable. But, Respondent No.3 is liable in view of the Insurance Policy. 4. That the time for deposit of balance compensation amount is two months. 5. That the claimant be and is hereby entitled to withdraw the amount at once on deposit. --y / i - / " i 6. That there be no order as to costs in this appeal. SD/- N.NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Chairman, MACT cum Special Judge for Trial of Cases Under SCs & Sts (POA) Act-cum-VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari District Eluru. (with records if any) 2. Two C.D Copies. ssl ; [ ^ ; ! i - HIGH COURT DATED:01/08/2025 * J DECREE MA.CMA.N0.1956 OF 2016 r'. I 15 SEP 2025 |\ MACMA Nos ARE ALLOWED-IN-PART.