MACMA No.999 of 2017 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA M.A.C.M.A.No.999 of 2017 JUDGMENT: 1. Heard both sides. 2. Respondent No.2 in M.V.O.P.No.410 of 2013 on file of V Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nellore (for short “the MACT”), feeling aggrieved by the decree and orders dated 29.02.2016 passed by the learned MACT, is before this Court in this MACMA invoking Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 3. Respondent No.1 herein is the claimant before the learned MACT and Respondent No.2 is the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident and the appellant is the insurer. Claim for awarding compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- made was partly allowed granting a compensation of Rs.1,85,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. The appellant is disputing both quantum and liability. 4. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to, as and how they are arrayed before the learned MACT. MACMA No.999 of 2017 2 Case of claimant in brief: 5. Claimant is engaged in business, aged about 60 years earning Rs.250/- per day. On 26.06.2013 when she was proceeding from her house situated at 7th cross road, ZP colony, Nellore to get eggs at about 12:20 hours, the driver of water supply van bearing No.AP 26 TA 6384 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”), while reversing the van in a rash and negligent manner from the behind of the claimant dashed her whereby the claimant fell down on the road and the back tyre of the van ran over her waist and caused fractures and other severe injuries. After the accident, the driver of the offending vehicle got down and ran away. The claimant was shifted to Bollineni Super Specialty Hospital, Nellore for treatment. She was treated as inpatient in the said hospital from 26.06.2013 to 05.07.2013. Operation was conducted to her right wrist joint and left wrist joint and steel plates were also inserted. She had spent Rs.1,50,000/- towards medical expenses. In view of the grievous injuries and fractures, she is unable to attend her normal duties and she cannot stand for long time due to fracture of right hip. She is unable to lift weights with hands. 6. A case in crime No.237 of 2013 was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle and he was subsequently charged MACMA No.999 of 2017 3 sheeted. Respondent No.1 being the owner and Respondent No.2 being the insurer both are liable to pay the compensation. Case of the Respondents: 7. Respondent No.1 filed counter disputing the negligence while admitting the ownership of the vehicle and insuring the same with Respondent No.2. 8. Respondent No.2 / Insurance Company also filed counter disputing the liability alleging absence of information as required from the owner of vehicle viz. the insured and also put both the insured and claimant to strict proof of all the allegations and compliance of the conditions of policy. 9. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in one voice denied and disputed the age, occupation and income of the claimant and put her to strict proof of nature and effect of injuries, medical expenditure incurred, loss of income due to disability etc. and also justification for the quantum of compensation claimed. 10. On the strength of pleadings following issues were settled for trial by the learned MACT are: (i). Whether the accident took place on 26.06.2013 at about 12.20 hours at 7th street, ZP Colony, Nellore was due to rash MACMA No.999 of 2017 4 and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. van bearing No.AP 26 TA 6384? (ii) Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation as prayed for, If so to what amount? (iii) To what relief? 11. In I.A.No.96 of 2015, Respondent No.2 Insurance Company was permitted to avail the defences in terms of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Findings of the learned MACT: 12(i). Evidence of claimant as P.W.1 as to occurrence of accident and negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, the claimant sustaining injuries due to the accident are fit to accepted in view of Ex.A1 and A3. (ii). The negligence attributed to the claimant cannot be given any weight. (iii). The injuries mentioned in the wound certificate spoken by the doctor, the evidence of the claimant as to medical expenditure incurred supported by prescriptions, medical bills etc. and need for future medical treatment as to removal of plates, screws merits consideration. MACMA No.999 of 2017 5 (iv) The claimant is entitled under the head of medical expenditure at Rs.1,50,000/- and under the head of pain and suffering Rs.25,000/-, attendant charges Rs.10,000/- as compensation. (v) With regard to want of driving licence to the driver of the crime vehicle, the learned MACT found that the Insurance Company has to pay the compensation to the claimants and then can recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. Arguments in the appeal:- For Appellant Insurance Company: 13(i). The compensation awarded by the learned MACT is excessive. (ii). Throwing entire negligence on the offending vehicle is incorrect. For Claimant(s): (iii). Learned counsel for the Respondent / claimant while supporting the judgment of learned MACT submitted that the learned MACT is ought to have granted more compensation than what claimed and that there are no grounds to interfere except enhancement of compensation and appeal is fit to be dismissed. MACMA No.999 of 2017 6 14. In the light of the factual matrix narrated above and grounds canvassed during the hearing of appeal, the points that arise for determination are: (1) Whether the findings of the learned MACT as to occurrence of accident due to negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and entitlement of claimant for compensation as well as quantification thereof are sustainable in law on facts or whether any interference is necessary, if so, on what grounds and to which extent.? (2) What is the result of the appeal? Point No.1: 15. Answering and determination of the point framed revolves around the following aspects: (i) Accident and negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. (ii) Liability of owner of offending vehicle and Insurance Company. (iii) Entitlement and quantification of compensation. (i) Accident and negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle thereof: a) Ex.A1 is reflecting that a case in Crime No.237 of 2013 is registered for the offences under Section 338 IPC. MACMA No.999 of 2017 7 b) Ex.A3 charge sheet is disclosing that driver of the offending vehicle was charge sheeted on the strength of evidence collected by the investigation agency. c) P.W.1 is an eye witness to the accident. The evidence of P.W.1 coupled with the recitals in Ex.A1 and A3 are sufficient to consider that the preliminary burden is discharged by the claimant. To discharge the onus shifted no efforts were put in by the appellant insurance company like summoning of the driver of the offending vehicle or any other witnesses to the accident to prove its contention that there was negligence on the part of the injured claimant and absence of negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. Therefore, without any hesitation, occurrence of accident, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle as pleaded by the claimant and believed by the learned MACT are fit to be accepted. (ii) Liability of owner of the offending vehicle & Insurance Company: 16. The Insurance Company disputed the liability on the ground of want of driving licence contending that the driver B. Praveen Kumar was holding driving licence to drive light motor vehicle and motor cycle with gear and to goods carriage. Therefore, badge etc. are MACMA No.999 of 2017 8 necessary as it is categorized as Light Motor Vehicle Transport vehicle. 17. R.W.1 / Administrative Officer, R.T.O. office, Nellore stated driving licence / Ex.B2 issued to the driver and the vehicle was with regard to goods carriage. The driving licence was issued to the driver to drive lighter motor vehicle and motor cycle with gear. The objection of insurance company before the learned MACT is that driver should have possessed the categorical driving licence to drive the goods carriage. 18. Ex.B3 is pertaining to the details of driving vehicle. The unladen weight of the vehicle is shown as 950 Kgs against column No.21. Whereas column No.22 vide G.V.W.(C)-weight at 1800 Kgs. 19. The legal position as to a person holding of non-transport category driving licence of „Light Motor Vehicle‟ transport vehicle etc., has been addressed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited1 [Mukund Dewangan(2016)] and Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited2 [Mukund Dewangan(2017)]. 1 (2016) 4 SCC 298 2 (2019) 12 SCC 816 MACMA No.999 of 2017 9 20. Further, reference made on the point that “a person holding a licence for a „Light Motor Vehicle class, can drive a „Transport Vehicle‟ without a specific endorsement, provided the „Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW)‟ of the vehicle does not exceed 7,500 Kgs?” is answered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited vs. Rambha Devi and Others3 at length and the observation are made under the caption of conclusion vide para Nos.125 to 131 which are as follows: 125. The licensing regime under the MV Act and the MV Rules, when read as a whole, does not provide for a separate endorsement for operating a „Transport Vehicle‟, if a driver already holds a LMV license. We must however clarify that the exceptions carved out by the legislature for special vehicles like e-carts and e-rickshaws74, or vehicles carrying hazardous goods75, will remain unaffected by the decision of this Court. 126. As discussed earlier in this judgment, the definition of LMV under Section 2(21) of the MV Act explicitly provides what a „Transport Vehicle‟ „means‟. This Court must ensure that neither provision i.e. the definition under Section 2(21) or the second part of Section 3(1) which concerns the necessity for a driving license for a „Transport Vehicle‟ is reduced to a dead letter of law. Therefore, the 3 2024 SCC Online SC 3183 MACMA No.999 of 2017 10 emphasis on „Transport Vehicle‟ in the licensing scheme has to be understood only in the context of the „medium‟ and „heavy‟ vehicles. This harmonious reading also aligns with the objective of the 1994 amendment in Section 10(2) to simplify the licensing procedure. 127. The above interpretation also does not defeat the broader twin objectives of the MV Act i.e. road safety and ensuring timely compensation and relief for victims of road accidents. The aspect of road safety is earlier discussed at length. An authoritative pronouncement by this Court would prevent insurance companies from taking a technical plea to defeat a legitimate claim for compensation involving an insured vehicle weighing below 7,500 kgs driven by a person holding a driving license of a „Light Motor Vehicle‟ class. 128. In an era where autonomous or driver-less vehicles are no longer tales of science fiction and app-based passenger platforms are a modern reality, the licensing regime cannot remain static. The amendments that have been carried out by the Indian legislature may not have dealt with all possible concerns. As we were informed by the Learned Attorney General that a legislative exercise is underway, we hope that a comprehensive amendment to address the statutory lacunae will be made with necessary corrective measures. 129. Just to flag one concern, the legislature through the 1994 amendment in Section 10(2)(e) in order to introduce MACMA No.999 of 2017 11 „transport vehicle‟ as a separate class could not have intended to merge light motor vehicle (which continued as a distinct class) along with medium, and heavy vehicles into a single class. Else, it would give rise to a situation in which Sri (our hypothetical character), wanting to participate in the cycling sport, is put through the rigorous training relevant only for a multisport like Triathlon, which requires a much higher degree of endurance and athleticism. The effort therefore should be to ensure that the statute remains practical and workable. 130. Now harking back to the primary issue and noticing that the core driving skills (as enunciated in the earlier paragraphs), expected to be mastered by all drivers are universal - regardless of whether the vehicle falls into “Transport” or “Non-Transport” category, it is the considered opinion of this Court that if the gross vehicle weight is within 7,500 kg - the quintessential common man's driver Sri, with LMV license, can also drive a “Transport Vehicle”. We are able to reach such a conclusion as none of the parties in this case has produced any empirical data to demonstrate that the LMV driving licence holder, driving a „Transport Vehicle‟, is a significant cause for road accidents in India. The additional eligibility criteria as specified in MV Act and MV Rules as discussed in this judgment will apply only to such vehicle („medium goods vehicle‟, „medium passenger vehicle‟, „heavy goods vehicle‟ and „heavy passenger vehicle‟), MACMA No.999 of 2017 12 whose gross weight exceeds 7,500 Kg. Our present interpretation on how the licensing regime is to operate for drivers under the statutory scheme is unlikely to compromise the road safety concerns. This will also effectively address the livelihood issues for drivers operating Transport Vehicles (who clock maximum hours behind the wheels), in legally operating “Transport vehicles” (below 7,500 Kg), with their LMV driving license. Perforce Sri must drive responsibly and should have no occasion to be called either a maniac or an idiot (as mentioned in the first paragraph), while he is behind the wheels. Such harmonious interpretation will substantially address the vexed question of law before this Court. 131. Our conclusions following the above discussion are as under:— (I) A driver holding a license for Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) class, under Section 10(2)(d) for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight under 7,500 kg, is permitted to operate a „Transport Vehicle‟ without needing additional authorization under Section 10(2)(e) of the MV Act specifically for the „Transport Vehicle‟ class. For licensing purposes, LMVs and Transport Vehicles are not entirely separate classes. An overlap exists between the two. The special eligibility requirements will however continue to apply for, inter alia, e-carts, e-rickshaws, and vehicles carrying hazardous goods. MACMA No.999 of 2017 13 (II) The second part of Section 3(1), which emphasizes the necessity of a specific requirement to drive a „Transport Vehicle,‟ does not supersede the definition of LMV provided in Section 2(21) of the MV Act. (III) The additional eligibility criteria specified in the MV Act and MV Rules generally for driving „transport vehicles‟ would apply only to those intending to operate vehicles with gross vehicle weight exceeding 7,500 kg i.e. „medium goods vehicle‟, „medium passenger vehicle‟, „heavy goods vehicle‟ and „heavy passenger vehicle‟. (IV) The decision in Mukund Dewangan (2017) is upheld but for reasons as explained by us in this judgment. In the absence of any obtrusive omission, the decision is not per incuriam, even if certain provisions of the MV Act and MV Rules were not considered in the said judgment. 21. In the light of the observations of the Hon‟ble Apex Court and in view of the evidence before this Court as to weight of the vehicle, this Court finds that the insurance company cannot deny the liability and the defence in that regard found not fit for any consideration. 22. The other defences of the insurance company as to the absence of negligence and contribution of the negligence by the injured are found fit to be ignored and untenable in the facts & circumstances of the case. MACMA No.999 of 2017 14 23. The other aspects remains for determination are entitlement & quantification of compensation. (iii). Entitlement and quantification of compensation: Entitlement: 24. Claimant sustained injuries due to the pleaded accident. Therefore, she is entitled for compensation. The legal position as to powers of the Appellate Court particularly while dealing with an appeal in terms of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, where the award passed by the learned MACT under challenge at the instance of the Insurance Company (Respondents) and bar or prohibition if any to enhance the quantum of compensation and awarding just and reasonable compensation, even in the absence of any appeal or cross objections was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in a case between National Insurance Company Limited vs. E. Suseelamma and others4 in M.A.C.M.A. No.945 of 2013, while answering point No.3 framed therein vide, para 50 of the judgment, which reads as follows: 50.In our considered view, the claimant/respondents are entitled for just compensation and if on the face of the award or even in the light of the evidence on record, and keeping in view the settled legal position regarding the claimants being entitled to just compensation and it also being the statutory 4 2023 SCC Online AP 1725 MACMA No.999 of 2017 15 duty of the Court/Tribunal to award just compensation, this Court in the exercise of the appellate powers can enhance the amount of compensation even in the absence of appeal or cross-objection by the claimants. Quantum: Precedential guidance as to quantum of compensation: 25. 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.5, arising out of SLP(c).No.10996 of 2018 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.6, referred to various heads under which, compensation can be awarded, in injuries cases vide paragraph No.52, the heads are as follows:- S. No. Head Amount (In ₹) 1. Medicines and Medical Treatment xxxxx 2. Loss of Earning Capacity due to xxxxx Disability 3. Pain and Suffering xxxxx 4. Future Treatment xxxxx 5. Attendant Charges xxxxx 6. Loss of Amenities of Life xxxxx 7. Loss of Future Prospect xxxxx 8. Special Education Expenditure xxxxx 52025 AIAR (Civil) 1 62020 (04) SCC 413 MACMA No.999 of 2017 16 9. Conveyance and Special Diet xxxxx 10. Loss of Marriage Prospects xxxxxx _________ Total Rs. …xxxxxx _________ Analysis of Evidence: s 26. The following aspects are clear from the evidence: (i).Nature of injuries sustained by the claimant(s): (a) Ex.A2 wound certificate is disclosing as follows: Patient is conscious and coherent. 1) Pain & tenderness in right wrist joint (X-ray) fractures of right distal radius. 2) Pain & tenderness right elbow joint (X-ray) supracondylar fracture of right humerus. 3) Pain & tenderness right hip bone (X-ray) posterior dislocation of right hip. 4) 4x4 cm swelling on right eye brow. 5) Pain & tenderness left waist joint (X-ray) fracture of left distal Radius. It is further opined that injury Nos.1,2,3 and 5 are grievous. Injury No.4 is simple. (b) From Evidence of Ex.P.W.2 doctor following inferences can be drawn: (i) He is working as Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon, in Bolineni Hospital, Nellore since, 2004. (ii) The following injuries were found on patient: 1) Fracture right radios 2) Fracture left radios MACMA No.999 of 2017 17 3) Fracture right humorous 4) Dislocation of left hip (iii) On same date admit the patient and given treatment by (a) O.R.I.F. right radios (b) O.R.I.F. left radios (c) O.R.I.F. humorous (d) MRF left hip. (iv) Discharged the patient on 05.07.2013 and advised her regular follow-up and physiotherapy. (v) Ex. A2. Wound Certificate in relating to claimant issued by Bollineni Hospital, Nellore. (vi) Ex.A5 prescription and bunch of bills are issued by the hospital authority, except few bills (7 bills of physiotherapy). Total bills are stands for sum of Rs.1,60,000/-. (vii) All injuries are grievous in nature, claimants needs in future removed of plates and screws for this she needs approximately sum of Rs.30,000/- to Rs.40,000/- as per evidence. (viii) There is restriction of right elbow movement remaining all the fractures are united. (ix) Patient can do her normal activities. (x) There is 5% disability of right elbow. (xi) P.W.2 deposed basing on case sheet issued by the Bolineni Hospital, Nellore. (xii) Ex.C1 is the Case Sheet issued by Bolineni Hospital, Nellore (KIMS). MACMA No.999 of 2017 18 (c).Claimant as P.W.1: (i) Claimant as P.W.1 stated about the treatment and injuries, that she took treatment as in patient from 26.06.2013 to 05.07.2013. Operation was conducted to her right wrist joint and left wrist joint and steel plates are inserted. Another operation was conducted set right the fracture sustained to right hip. Effect of injuries: (ii) The claimant was aged about 60 years, though it is mentioned that she is doing business, no proof is filed to show her involvement in business and income thereof. The injuries are grievous in nature. Hence, she shall be sufficiently compensated under the head of pain and suffering. The specific disability and its contribution for loss of income are not clear from the record. Therefore, awarding of any compensation under the head of permanent disability is not possible. Notional income of claimant can be accepted at Rs.5,000/- per month and under the head of loss of income during the period of treatment etc. Rs.10,000/- can be awarded for two months. Medical expenses is spoken by P.W.2 for a sum of Rs.1,60,000/-. During his evidence, he has stated about future medical treatment costing about Rs.30,000/- to Rs.40,000/-. He denied the suggestion that the medical expenses may be around MACMA No.999 of 2017 19 Rs.60,000/- only. He has also stated that the claimant is not having any disability. 27. In view of the evidence on record the entitlement of claimant for compensation is found at following quantum mentioned in below comparative table: S.No. Head Granted by MACT Fixed by this Appellate Court 1. a)Pain and suffering b) Fractures &grievous injuries Rs.25,000/- Rs.50,000/- 2. Simple injuries Nil Nil 3. Medical Expenditure Rs.1,50,000/- Rs.1,50,000/- 4. Future medical expenditure Nil Rs.20,000/- 5. a)Extra Nourishment Nil Rs.10,000/- b)Attendant Charges Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/- c)Transportation charges and Special diet Rs.5,000/- 6. Loss of earnings during treatment etc. Nil Rs.10,000/- 7. Permanent disability Nil Nil 8. Loss of amenities Nil Nil 9. Loss of expectation of life. Nil Nil Total: Rs.1,85,000/- Rs.2,55,000/- MACMA No.999 of 2017 20 28. In view of the reasons stated and discussion made above, the findings of the learned MACT as to occurrence of accident due to negligent driving of the offending vehicle and entitlement of claimant for compensation are confirmed and concurred. With regard to quantum of compensation the same are modified. Concluding that the claimant is entitled for Rs.2,55,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. Point No.1 is answered accordingly. 29. Point No.2: (i) In the result, the appeal is dismissed. (ii) However, the compensation awarded at the rate of Rs.1,85,000/- by the learned MACT is modified and enhanced to Rs.2,55,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5%. (iii) The claimant is entitled to withdraw the same on deposit at once. (iv) No costs in the appeal. As Sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed. ____________________________ A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J 7th March, 2025 Knr MACMA No.999 of 2017 21 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA M.A.C.M.A No.999 of 2017 7th March, 2025 Knr