IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2030 OF 2016 Between: Pamulapati Seetharami Reddy, S/o. China Bangaru Reddy, aged about 40 years, Hindu, Male, Agricultural Coolie, R/o. Yerrampalli, Chintalapudi Mandal, West Godavari District. ...APPELLANT/PETITIONER AND 1. Thorlapati Raja Rao, S/o. Yesupadam, Male, Christian, age 41 years. Driver of Auto Bearing No. AP 37 W 1411, N.T.R Colony, Chintalapudi Mandal, West Godavari District. 2. Thorlapati Veerebndra, S/o. Raja Rao, Male, Christian, age 25 years; Owner of Auto Bearing No. AP 37 W 1411, N.T.R. Colony, Chintalapudi Mandal, West Godavari District. 3. National Insurnace Company Limited., Rep.by its Divisional Manager^ Eluru, West Godavari District. ...RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, aggrieved by the Decree and Order dated 27.10:2009 passed in OP No.938/2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum V Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court)., West Godavari District at 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 Smt. 1 Maamu Vani for the Respondent No.3, and none appeared for other respondents. -- This Court doth order and decree as follows: 1. That the Appeal be and is hereby Allowed; ^ 2. That the Compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- be and is hereby modified and enhanced to Rs 3,21,000/- with interest @7.5 % p.a; 3. That the respondents be and are hereby jointly and severally are liable to pay the same; 4. That the Claimant be and is,, hereby directed to pay necessary Court Fee for the enhanced part of compensation amount; 5. That the payment of compensation amount awarded and modified herein shall be made, after, deducting the amount already paid or deposited; 6. That the claimants be and is hereby should furnish, his Bank Account particulars of any Nationalised Bank in his name, with an acceptable identification before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal within one month; 7. That the Insurance Company be and is hereby should credit the amount through NEFT/RTGS mode to the said account, and file proof there on before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, within one month of furnishing the Bank account particulars, failing which, the Tribunal shall proceed with recovery in accordance with law. SD/- G.HELA NAIDU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum V Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court): Eluru, West Godavari District. 2. THREE CD COPIES SAM TAG HIGH COURT DATED:21/03/2025 DECREE MACMA.No.2030 of 2016 0 9 APR 2025 Current Section ^ ALLOWING THE M.A.C.M.A IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2030 OF 2016 Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, aggrieved by the Decree and Order dated 27.10.2009 passed in OP No.938/2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum V Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court)., West Godavari-District at Eluru. Between: V; Pamulapati Seetharami Reddy,; S/o. China Bangaru Reddy, aged about Male, Agricultural Coolie, R/o. Yerrampalli, 40 years, Hindu Chintalapudi Mandal, West Godavari District. ...APPELLANT/PETITIONER AND 1. Thorlapati Raja Rao, S/o. Yesupadam, Male, Christian, age 41 years. Driver of Auto Bearing No. AP 37 W 1411, N.T.R Colony, Chintalapudi Mandal, West Godavari District. 2. Thorlapati Veerebndra, S/o..;Raja Rao, Male, Christian, age 25 years. Owner of Auto Bearing No. AP'37 W 1411, N.T.R. Colony, Chintalapudi Mandal, West Godavari District. 3. National Insurnace Company Limited., Rep.by its Divisional Manager, Eluru, West Godavari District. s ...RESPONDENTS » T i. Counsel for the Appellant : SRI B V KRISHNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SMT I MAAMU VANI Counsel for other Respondents N6 1 & 2 : NONE APPEARED The Court made the following JUDGMENT : * THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA M.A.C.M.A.No.2030 of 2016 % 21 .03.2025 # Pamulapati Seetharami Reddy, s/o. China Bangaru Reddy, Agricultural Coolie, R/o. Yerrampalli, Chintalapudi Mandal, West Godavari district Appellant/ Petitioner/Claimant Versus $ Thorlapati Raja Rao , S/o. Yesupadam, Driver of auto bearing no. AP 37 W 1411, N.T.R Colony, Chintalapudi Mandal West Godavari District. And 02 Others. Respondent/s ! Counsel for the Appellants ! Counsel for the Respondents ; Sri B. V. Krishna Reddy, I Maamu Vani TSRayalu < Gist; > Head Note: ? Cases referred: 2025 AIAR (Civil) 1 2020 (04) see 413 20io(io)see34i 2007 (14) see 61 1992(2) sec 567 2011(1) sec 343 2023 (3) sec 439 1995(1) sec 551 (2013) 9 sec 54 (2003) 2 sec 274 2020 (04) see 413 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARl HARANADHA SARMA M A r.M.A.No.2030 of 2016 *THE % 21 .03.2025 # Pamulapati Seetharami Reddy, s/o. China Bangaru Reddy. Agricultural Coolie R/o. Yerrampalli, Chintalapudi Mandal. West Godavari district Appellant/ Petitioner/Claiinant Versus $ Thorlapati Raja Rao , S/o. Yesupadam, Driver of auto bearing no. AP 37 W 1411, N.T.R Colony, Chintalapudi Mandal West Godavari District. And 02 Others. Respondent/s DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED: 21.03.2025 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARl HARANADHA SARMA THE 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the Order? 2. Whether the copies of Order may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals? 3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No 9 1 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA IVI.A.C.M.A.No.2030 of 2016 / JUDGMENT; / / The One Pamulapati Seetharami Reddy, claimant in O.P.No.938 of 2005 on the file of learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Eluru (for short “MACT”), dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded to him as against a claim made for Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a Motor Vehicles Accident, filed this appeal, questioning the just and adequate nature of compensation awarded under the impugned Decree and Award 27.10.2009. This is a claimant’s appeal, 1®^ and 2"'^ respondents are driver and owner of the auto bearing No.AP 37 W 1411 (hereinafter referred to as They remained ex-parte before the 2. “offending vehicle”) respectively, learned MACT. Respondent No.3 is the Insurance Company, with which the vehicle was insured. Heard learned counsel on both sides. 3. For the sake of convenience, parties will be hereinafter referred to as claimant and respondents, as and how they are arrayed in the impugned 4. order. 2 Case of the claimant in brief: 5. On the fateful day i.e., on 20.09.2004, at about 09.30 a.m., while the petitioner along with his brother cheruvu, in Polavaram outskirts,.the offending vehicle negligent manner and dashed the scooter proceeding near Lakshmi Sagaram \ came in a rash and on which the claimant was travelling, causing the accident, resulting multiple injuries to the claimant. The claimant was taken to Vijaya Krishna Orthopaedic Hospital, at Vijayawada, where operation was conducted to his right leg, for the fracture injuries sustained. The claimant had incurred Rs.60,000/- for medical He is unable to move without assistance, he was earning an agricultural coolie but due to accident became expenses. Rs.3000/- per month as disabled. [ii] A case in Crime No.87 of 2004 driver of the auto and he was registered against the was charge sheeted. The offending vehicle is nd owned by 2 respondent, insured with the 3'^'^ respondent since the claimants suffered injuries and disability, entitled for compensation against the respondents. Case of the respondents: 6. The and 2"*^ respondents remained exparte. 7. The 3 respondent-insurance Company ground that the claimant shall prove the pleaded accident, driver of the offending vehicle. Further, the resisted the claim on the negligence of the contention of the insurance 3 .1^ Company is that age, occupation and income, nature of injuries leading to disability, loss of income to the claimant and justification for the quantum of compensation claimed shall be strictly proved. Evidence before the learned MACT:- / / / For the Respondents For the Claimant Description Exhibit Description Exhibit No. No. Copy of Insurance Policy Ex.B1 Attested copy of F.I.R. in Cr.No.87 of 2004 of Chatrai Police Station EX.A1 Copy of wound Certificate EX.A2 Copy of M.V.I. report EX.A3 Copy of Charge Sheet in Cr.No.87 of 2004 of Chatrai Police Station Copy of driving license o? T respondent Copy of Insurance Policy Ex.A4 sT Ex.A5 EX.A6 Bunch of Medical Bills (4 Nos.) worth Rs. 1,829/- Medical Dr.N.Ramesh, Vijayawada Orignal recod issued by Apollo Diagnostics, Vijayawada Photorgraph with negatie EX.A7 of prescription EX.A8 EX.A9 EX.A10 X-ray (2 Nos.) EX.A11 Disability certificate of the petitioner EX.A12 tnesses examined None W Witnesses examined Pamulapati Seetharami Reddy PW.1 Dr.M.V.G.Tilak PW.2 Dr.N.Ramesh PW.3 Issues settled by the learned MACT: The learned MACT formulated the following issues for determination: 8. T . 1. Whether the accident in which, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries, had occurred on 20.09.2004 at about 10.00 a.m. near Lakshmi Sagar Tank, on account of the rash and negligence of the respondent, who was the driver of auto bearing No.AP which dashed against the scooter bearing No.AP petitioner, as ciaimed by the petitioner 37 14/ 1411, 16 AC 3816 of the or whether there is any contributory negiigence on the part of the petitioner for the accident, as claimed by the S'" respondent/insurance Company? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation from all the respondents and if so, for how much amount? \ said 3. To what reiief? Findings of the learned MAnr-. 9. [i] In view of the evidence of claimant negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, claimant as PW.1, the accident and sustaining fracture injuries etc., stands proved and the ownership of the crime vehicle, insuring the same with the Insurance company are not in dispute; violation of no evidence to believe the contributory the claimant is entitled are jointly and severally liable, the respondent-insurance conditions are not shown, there is negligence on the part of the scootersist, therefore for compensation and all the respondents particularly in the absence of any evidence from Company. [ii] With regard to quantification of quantum, learned that the claimant is aged about 36 years is Rs.3,000/- per month, but acceptable @Rs.1500 corroborating evidence for his stand. For MACT found , as per his evidence, income stated per month as there is no pain and suffering Rs. 30,000/- is 5 the entitlement, disability Certificate/Ex.A12 is indicating 40% disability, there is no shortening of right leg, hence, the disability is acceptable @20%. Then annual income comes to Rs.18,000/-; multiplier applicable is 16. 20% of the loss of income comes to [Rs.3600/-p.a. x ‘16’] Rs.57,600/-. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for Rs.58,000/- under the head permanent disability. Towards medical expenditure although Rs. 16,000/- is claimed, medical bills are standing for Rs.1,829/-. PW.3 stated that the claimant incurred Rs. 10,000/- towards / / [iii] medical expenditure but there is no such evidence, hence, the entitlement Towards future medical for medical expenditure etc., is at Rs.2000/-. needs, claimant is entitled for Rs.10,000/- for removal of implants etc.. therefore, in all the claimant is entitled for Rs.1,00,000/-. Scope of Appeal : Appeal is filed by the claimant questioning the just and adequate Cross objections etc., are not filed by the • Therefore, accident, negligence, contributory 10. nature of compensation. Insurance Company, negligence if any from the rider of the scooter, entitlement of the claimant for compensation, liability of the respondent-insurance Company are all out of dispute. Only point remains for determination is just and adequate nature of compensation to which the claimant is entitled to? Perused the evidence on record, grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal and the observations made in the impugned judgment. 11. 6 12. Thoughtful consideration ai both sides. Now the that - given to the arguments advanced points that arise for determination i by the in this appeal are 1) What is the just and adequate the appellants/claimants 2) Whether the Rs. 1,00,000/- \ nature of compensation to \ which are entitled for? compensation awarded by the learned MACT at with interest @7.5% p.a. and other incidental enems are sustainable in law and on tacts, or whether requires anyinferenceo so, on what grounds and to which extent? 3) What is the result of the appeal? Point Nos.1 anH 9 ^quments advanced in the anppai- Arguments for the claimanf- Leaned counsel for the 13. [i] appellant would submit that the ■n taking the income @Rs.1500/- when Rs.3,000/- is claimed learned MACT erred i by the claimant, which is a very minimum The calculation of expenditure is not rational and the are not tenable and deserve interference. Claimant i one. compensation under the medical of the learned MACT entitled for more findings IS compensation than what claimed awarding for more compensafion than and there is no bar for what claimed. If the income is taken rationally and the appreciated, the entitlement beyond what is claimed. Hence, the other evidence of the claimant will be on record is certainly same may be awarded. 7 [iii] Learned counsel for the respondent-insurance Company submitted that the compensation awarded by the learned MACT itself is on high side and the leaned MACT ought to have reduced the compensation arrived taking note of contribution of negligence by the rider of the scooter. Analysis of the evidence:- Claimant as PW.1 stated about the injuries suffered and referred to wound certificate etc., documents vide Ex.A2-wound certificate; Ex.A7- medical bills; Ex.A8-prescripetions; Ex.A9-medical record issued by the Apollo Diagnostics Vijayawada; Exs.AIO and A11- X-ray reports; Ex.A12- disability certificate. He has stated about his income at Rs.3000/- p.m., and claimed that due to accident, he became disabled and not earning anything. 14. He suffered two fractures on right leg. PW.2, Doctor, who treated the claimant, stated that he is Orthopedic surgeon; he has examined the claimant and issued Ex.A12-Disabjli ity certificate, there is deformity, fracture right tibia, restricted right leg movements with altered knee joint. He has assessed the disability @ 40%. During his cross-examination, it is elicited that fracture is completely united. He has denied the suggestion that disability is assessed excessively to help 15. the claimant. PW.3, Orthopaedic surgeon, Vijayawada, stated about the injuries: swelling and deformity of Right Knee, x-ray shows bicondlar fracture upper end of Tibia. He has issued Ex.A2-wound certificate, injuries are grievous 16. T 8 'n nature. The claimant fixation is done. approximately Rs.50,000/- removal of implants was operated with T He has stated Buttress plates fT^ight have - towards his treatment and screw that the claimant spent to Rs.60,000/ and for necessary. Nothing Rs.15,000/- important is elicited during the figures are \ expenditure is cross examination \ except stating that the excessive. 17. Ex.A12-disability Certificate i it is mentioned that 's indicating disability @40% issued on clinical certificate is meant for such • In EX.A12, the Certificate examination. However, i, is argued that the welfare benefits but convincing. and radiological social not for legal purposes, argument found not Pl§cedentia]_Guidanc^ For quantifying the certain precedential guidelines, (i) With 18. compensation, this Court finds i't proper to refer to regard to compensation, the Hon’ble Manzoor Ahmad Simon awarding just and Supreme Court i reasonable quantum of in Baby Sakshi Greoia andAnr.', arising out of SLP(c).No.10996 scope and V/'S. of 2018 powers of the Tribunal in on 11.12.2024, awarding just and entire case law, of the Hon'ble Supreme considered the compensation within the particularly with reference Court made in fCaya/ l/. meaning of Act, after marshaling more to the earlier observations C/7a/7(/ a/7c/ ^2025 AIAR (Civil) l 9 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 ?) / / / / Head S. No. / / 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 xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Rs. ...xxxxxx Total the compensation under A reference to parameters, for quantifying (ii). 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. Hon’ble Apex Court in Yadava Kumar Vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited and Anr./vide para No.10, by (iii). referring to Sunil Kumar Vs. Ram Singh Gaud'*,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 to fixing of quantum of compensation with liberal Corporation ^, as approach, valuing the life and limb of individual in generous scale, in para 17 observed that ^2020(04) see 413 ^2oio(io)see 341 “ 2007 (14) see 61 ^ 1992(2) see 567 (T 10 The High Court and the Tribunal compensation and damage. The for damage but compensation is more comprehensive. Normatty damages gjen for an injury .hioh is suffered, whereas compensation stands on a stightty ivgher foobng. tt ,s given for the atonement of injury caused and the intention behind grant of compensation is to put back the injured party the same position, must realize that there is a distinction between expression compensation may include a claim are as far as possible in as if the injury has npt taken place, by way of grant of pecuniary retief Thus, in the matter of computation of approach will be slightly more broad based than compensation, the what is done in the matter of same time it is true that there cannot be or mathematical precision In the matter of determination of compensation. assessment of damages. At the any rigid (iv). In Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another^ vide para No. 19, the Hon’ble Apex Court summarized principles to be followed in the process of quantifying the compensation after referring to socio economic and practical come and the practical difficulties, the aspects from which, the claimants parties may face in the process of getting disability assessed and getting certificates from either the Doctors, who treated, all or from the medical boards etc., it is observed that ... H/e may now summarise the principles discussed above (i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities art of earning capacity. arising from injuries), do not result in loss 00 The percentage ofpermanent disability with reference to the whote body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To pul it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage ofpennanent disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal basis of evidence, concludes that percentage of loss as percentage of permanent disability), (iil) The doctor who treated an injured.ctalmant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent on the of earning capacity is the same of his permanent disability can give evidence only ® 2011 (1) see 343 7 11 in regard the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that wilt have to be assessed by the Tribunat with reference to the evidence m entirety, (iv) The same earning capacity in occupation or job, age, education and other factors..." United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr. permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of different persons, depending upon the nature of profession. / In Sidram vs (V) Hon’ble Apex Court referred to the general principles and assessment of future loss of disability by referring to Rajkumar’s case, and be awarded to a victim vide para No.40, the relating to compensation in injury cases earning due to permanent also various heads under which compensation can of a motor vehicle accident, (vi) In Sidram’s case Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd. reference is made to a case in R.D. Hattangadi V. From the observations made therein, it can amount of compensation in cases of 8 be understood that while fixinQ_ annirirrnt if invntvBf: some quraas work, some hypothetical consideration mrmnafhv Knkhd with the nature of the disabilitY caused winw.pd with obiective stendards.—Iji some amount of Rijf. all these elements have to be assessing damages, the ,.,Hinh rn.sf if, awprrtinn speculation nr fnncY. though mnjecture to some Court must exclude all considerations of matter Rxfant is inevitable. TV,, of ^ny of justice i. to pmvide remedies tojhe 19. and to restore- the parties involved in litigation to their originaj victims ' 2023 (3) see 439 ' 1995 (1) see 551 12 ositions to the fivtpnt ossible. Therpfnrp^ focess of redressqi and compensation. The dpupin ■^^ncerns.ofalLstakeh^ers reparation should fnn.Q ment and nultur^ of connected tn fha on providing ad^gnato an its criminal, evolution of Ipgal And victims Tho system from retrihntinn tr, the aim of the law is tn , restoration is clear in thio centu is lost and to undo the wrong, then providin campensation should bg 33 imnnrt;.nt .unishing or reforming thp wrongdoer. With this nhilnsnph ton reonlre o.r.r.., consideration and appreciatinn of law in mind the claims fnr 20. Depending on the context of the under which compensation heads under which the case, the quantum and the heads can be awarded may vary. But, broadly, the compensation is awarded in personal injuries are ; Aj Pecuniary damages (.Special Damag^c) • (i) Expenses relating to treatment hospitalization transportation, nourishing food and miscellaneous Loss of earnings (and other medicines. expenditure, gains) which the injured would (ii) have made had he not been injured . comprising: I^n!! ''^'■'"3 the period of treatment; Loss of future earnings (iii) Future medical expenses. (a) (b) on account of permanent disability. W) Non-penuniarv damages tGeneral damanp») ■ (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequences of the injuries. 7^ 13 (v) Loss of amenities, (vi) Loss of expectation of life. In the present case, the injuries suffered by claimants are grievous in nature. Therefore, entitlement of claimant for compensation under the head of pain and suffering is fixed @Rs.20,000/-, towards medical expenditure fixed at Rs.50,000/- basing on the evidence of PW.3, towards future medical needs Rs. 10,000/-; towards loss of income, during the period of treatment etc., for two months, taking income of the claimant at Rs.2500/- per month, fixed Rs.5000/-. Income is to be taken including future prospects is the settled practice and law. However, taking note of objections of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company as to excessive nature of the income claimed by the claimant. It is pertinent to note even in respect of self- employed and private employment also, the future prospects can be added. Therefore, Rs.3000/- per month including future prospects cannot be considered as excessive when the year of accident i.e., 2004, is taken into / 21. / consideration. 40% of disability is spoken by the claimant, Doctor/PW.2 who examined the claimant. Under Ex.A12- Disability Certificate is also indicating the same. Therefore, 40% of the disability acceptable and hence, accepted. Since claimant is a Coolie, the disability is due to fracture to leg extends to functional disability causing loss of income. Hence, for calculating the loss of income, 40% disability stated is adopted. 40% of 22. r 14 Rs.3000/-, comes to Rs.1200/- per month and the same will come to Rs. 14,400/- per year. For the age group of 36 top 40 the multiplier applicable as per SarlaVerma's case, is '15'. The loss of income under the head of disability come to Rs.14,400/- x 15 = 2,16,000/- hence, the claimant is entitled for the same under the head of loss of \ income due to disability. 23. Learned MACT has taken disability 20% in.stead of 40%, There i.c; evidence of claimant and Doctnr who treated the ninim.n. and also there is dosumentary evidence issued by the competent anthoritv if the ln.Mr.n.. Cpmpany or the Tribunal wants to take a_different view, the claimant should have been referred to further examination by a competent authority fnr assessment of disability, without resorting sunh .exercise, unilateral reduction of the disability, without any basis and in the absence nf evidence, is not acceptable. 24. Learned MACT has failed to consider the entitlement of claimant for compensation under all the heads contemplated by the Apex Court. The entitlement of the claimant for just and adequate compensation, in comparison to what is granted by learned MACT is as follows; SI. Head Granted by MACT Fixed as just by this Appellate Court No 1. a)Pain and suffering b)Fractures and grievous injuries Medical Expenditure Future medical expenditure Rs.30,000/- Rs.20,000/- 2. Rs.2,000/- Rs.50,000/- 3. Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 10,000/- 15 Rs. 5,000/- Nil 4. a)Attendant Charges b)extra Nourishment Rs. 5,000/- Nil / Rs. 2,16,000/- Rs.58,000/- Loss of future income due to 8. disability Rs. 10,000/- Nil Loss of amenities 10. 5000/- Loss of income during the period of treatment [2months] 11. Rs.3,21,000/- Rs .1,00,000/- Total: The claim was made for Rs.2,00,000/- before the learned MACT, now 25. the point for consideration is whether more compensation than what claimed can be awarded to the claimant?. Legal position in this regard is also settled and very clear that learned MACT shall award just and reasonable compensation and there is no bar for awarding more than what is claimed. In Rajesh and others vs. Rajbir Singh and others^, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para Nos.10 and 11 made relevant observations, (i) (ii). they are as follows: 10. Whether the Tribunal is competent to award compensation in excess of what is claimed in the application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is another issue arising for consideration in this case.- At para 10 ofNagappa case [Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh, (2003) 2 see 274 : '2003 SCC (eh) 523 : AIR 2003 SC 674] , it was held as follows: (see p. 280) “10. Thereafter, Section 168 empowers the eialms Tribunal to ‘make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to It to ^(2013) 9 see 54 16 be just. Therefore, the only requirement for determining the compensation is that it must be 'jusf. There is no other iimitation restriction on its power for awardingjust or compensation. The principle was followed in the iater decisions i. Co. Ltd. V. Mohd. Nasir [(2009) 6 SCC 280 : - in Oriental Insurance (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 877 ■ (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 987] and in Ningamma v. United India Insurance Ltd. [(2009) 13 SCC 710 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 1213] Co. 241 : (2010) 1 see (Cri) 11. Underlying principle discussed in the above decisions i to the duty of the court to fix a Just, settled law that the court should not in such matters. Attempt of the IS with regard compensation and it has now become succumb to niceties or technicalities, court should be to equate, as far as possible, the misery on account of the accident with the compensation that the injured/the dependants should so not face the vagaries of life on income earned by the victim. account of the discontinuance of the h (iii) In Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and Others'", at para 21 of the judgment, it is observed that - ..there is no restriction that the Tribunal/Court cannot award compensation The function of the Tribunal/Court is amount exceeding the claimed amount. to award just” compensation, which i, produced on record.” IS reasonable on the basis of evidence (iv) In Kajal V. Jagadish Chand observations are as follows;- “33. We are aware that the 11 and Ors. at para 33 amount awarded by us is more than the amount ciaimed. However, it Is well settled law that in the motor accident claim petitions, the Court must award the just compensation and, in case, the just (2003) 2 see 274 2020 (04) SCC 413 17 compensation is more than the amount claimed, that must be awarded especially where the claimant is a minor." In view of the legal position as stated in Rajesh, Nagappa and Kajal cases (9, 10, 11 cited supra), more amount than what claimed can be (V) awarded. For the reasons aforesaid, this court finds that the claimant is entitled for compensation at Rs.3,21,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum. Respondents are liable to pay the same. Claimant is entitled for enhan,ced part of the compensation under the modified decree, on payment of such Court fee. Point No.1 and 2 are answered accordingly. 26. 27. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Parminder Singh Vs. Honey Goal and Others, (in S.L.P.(c)No.4484 of 2020) Dated 18.03.2025, issued certain guidelines to the Courts as to disbursement of the compensation amount, while mentioning that this is an era of technology, now all transactions can be effected 24x7, either by sitting in the office or at home or even on mobile, while on the move. Our country has done wonders in digital payment transactions. The observations at para 17 to 20 of the judgment found relevant are extracted asunder: 28. "17. The case in hand pertains to the compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act. The general practice followed by the insurance companies, where the compensation is not disputed, is to deposit the same before the Tribunal. Instead of following that process, a 18 direction can always be issued to transfer the n amount into the bank account(s) of the claimant(s) with intimation to the Tribunal. 17.1 For that purpose, the Tribunals at the initial stage of pleadings or at the stage of leading evidence to furnish their bank may require the claimant(s) account particulars to the Tribunal requisite proof so that at the stage of passing may direct that the amount of compensation be of the claimant and if there along with the of the award the Tribunal transferred In the account are more than one then in their respective accounts. If there is no bank account, then they should be required to open the bank account either individually or jointly with family members only. It should also be mandated that ii case there is any change In the claimant(s) during the pendency of the oleim petition they should update the same before the Tribunal This should be ensured before passing of the final award. II may be that the bank account should be in the name of the ctaimant(s) and if minor, through guardian(s) and in no case it should be ' With any person, Who i. bank account particulars of the ensured e joint account amount which have been furnished by the claimant(s), as mentioned in the award, shall be treated the award. Intimation of compliance should be furnished IS not a family member. The transfer of the in the bank account, particulars of as satisfaction of to the Tribunal. 18. In some cases, where the minor clalmant(s) or othenwlse, the Tribunal directs compensation is awarded to for keeping a certain percentage of the amount in a fixed deposit. Such a direction be issued in the award Itself to be can always complied with by the concerned bank. When the amount is transferred by the Insurance Company In the responsibility of the bank to account of the claimant(s), it shall be the ensure that specified portion thereof is kept in the fixed deposit Compliance is to be reported by the bank(s) to the Tribunal. 19. It is also a fact that substantial amount of compensation in as the motor accident cases remains deposited in the Tribunal clalmant(s) may not have approached the Tribunal for release therpof for various reasons. Delay for any reason in release of compensation motor accident cases by the Tribunal to in the clalmant(s), where the 19 amount is deposited in Tribunal, as directed, results in loss of interest to the claimant(s). In case the aforesaid process is followed, the gap would be bridged. The real object of the beneficial legislation, namely to compensate for the loss of earning member of the family or for the Injuries suffered by the claimant(s), will be achieved and compensation can be disbursed without any delay. ! I We may add that directions are being issued for bank transfer of the amount of compensation in motor accident cases, but the Courts/Tribunals can always follow this process in any matter, whenever any amount Is to be paid by one party to another, however, ensuring proper compliance. ” 20. 29. Point No.3: In the result, the appeal is allowed, as follows; Compensation awarded by the learned MACT in a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- is modified and enhanced to Rs3,21,000/- with interest @7.5 % p.a. The respondents are jointly and severally are liable to pay the same. Claimant shall pay necessary Court Fee for the enhanced part of compensation amount. The payment of compensation amount awarded and modified herein shall be made, after deducting the amount already paid or deposited. The claimant/s shall furnish, his Bank Account particulars of any Nationalised Bank in his name, with an acceptable identification before MACT within one month and the Insurance Company shall credit the amount through NEFT/RTGS mode to the said account, and file proof there on before the learned MACT, within one month of furnishing the (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) 20 Bank account particulars, failing which, the Tribunal shall proceed with recovery in accordance with law. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal SD/- G.HELA NAIDU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTTON OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Honourable SR! JUSTICE A.HARI HARANADHA SARMA (For his Lordships Kind Perusal) To, 1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum V Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court); Eluru, West Godavari District. 2. One CC to Sri B V Krishna Reddy Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Smt. I Maamu Vani Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri. T S Rayalu Advocate [OPUC] 5. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. 6. Nine (9) LR. Copies. 7. The Under Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi. 8. The Secretary, Andhra Pradesh High Court Advocates’ Association Library, High Court Buildings, Amaravathi. 9. Three CD Copies SAM TAC \ *• HIGH COURT DATED:21/03/2025 \ \ \ \ JUDGMENT + DECREE MACMA.No.2030 of 2016 allowing the M.A.C.M.A