\ IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B. S. BHANUMATHI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2 OF 2022 Between: Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Manager, Upstairs C/o. Gopal Auto Stores, Maruthi Nagar, Near RTC Bus stand, Kadapa City and District Policy No. 10008/31/15/05025 3, valid from 25.02.2015 to to 24.02.2016. ...Appellant/ Respondent No.2 AND V. Pratap Reddy, S/o. V. Gangi Reddy, Aged 39 years, Hindu, Contractor works. Agriculture, running petrol and diesel bunk. Resident of Pedda Rangapuram Village, Pullivendia Mandal, Kadapa District 1. ...Respondent/Claim Petitioner 2. B.Sada Siva Reddy, , S/o Chenna Reddy, Aged about 45 years, Hindu, owner of motor cycle bearing No. AP04-AS-9371, Resident of D.No.1- 45, Palur Village and post, Thondur Mandal, Kadapa District. R. Ashok Reddy, S/o. Ramanjaneya Reddy, Aged about 25 years, Hindu, Rider of the motor Cycle bearing No.AP-04-AS-9371, resident of 3. / G.Appayapalli Village, C. Rajupalem post, Kamalapuram Mandal, Kadapa District. ...Respondents / Respondent Nos.1 & 3 Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Order and Decree dated 28.09.2021 passed in MVOP No 368 of 2017 on .the ffie of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa and dismiss the MVOP No.368 of 2017 filed by the Respondent No.1/ Claim Petitioner against the Appellant herein/ Respondent No.2 in the trial court. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court and the material in the Suit and upon hearing the arguments of M/s. A JAYANTHI Advocate on behalf of the Appellant and Sri. D kodandarami Reddy for Respondent. papers This Court Doth Order and Decree as follows:- 1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and is hereby Allowed. 2. That the amount of medical expenses awarded is based on evidence and the amount of compensation granted under the other heads are also reasonable, therefore the claimant be and is hereby entitled to Rs.6,73,473/- which can be rounded of to Rs.6,73,500/. 3. That the amount of compensation be and is hereby reduced from Rs. 13,37,473/- to Rs.6,73,500/- and the rest of the award is intact. 4. That the rate of interest awarded is 6 % p.a, and is not at high. ■I .y . K 5. That there will be no order as to costs. Sd/- G. HELA NAIDU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa. 2. Three CD Copies PR Cnr 4- HIGH COURT DATED:09/05/2025 DECREE MACMA.No.2 of 2022 ALLOWING THE APPEAL t IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT A ‘‘ me THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B. S. BHANUMATHI 5/ •t/! MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2 OF 2022 Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Order and Decree dated 28.09.2021 passed in MVOP No 368 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa and dismiss the MVOP No.368 of 2017 filed by the Respondent No.1/ Claim Petitioner against the Appellant herein/ Respondent No.2 in the trial court. Between: Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Manager, Upstairs C/o. Gopal Auto Stores, Maruthi Nagar, Near RTC Bus stand, Kadapa City and District Policy No. 10008/31/15/050253, valid from 25.02.2015 to to 24.02.2016. ...Appellant / Respondent No.2 AND 1. V. Pratap Reddy, S/o. V. Gangi Reddy, Aged 39 years, Hindu, Contractor works. Agriculture, running petrol and diesel bunk. Resident of Pedda Rangapuram Village, Pullivendia Mandal, Kadapa District ...Respondent / Claim Petitioner «P; 2. B.Sada Siva Reddy, , S/o Chenna Reddy, Aged about 45 years, Hindu, owner of motor cycle bearing No. AP04-AS-9371, Resident of D.No.1- 45, Palur Village and post, Thondur Mandal, Kadapa District. 3. R. Ashok Reddy, S/o. Ramanjaneya Reddy, Aged about 25 years, bearing No.AP-04-AS-9371, resident of ^ CB.Appayapalli Village, C. Rajupalem post, Kamalapuram Mandal, Kadapa District. ...Respondents / Respondent Nos.1 & 3 lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings dated 28.09.2021 passed MVOP No. No.368 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -Cum- IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa. Counsel for the Appellant: M/s. A JAYANTHI in Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI D. KODANDARAMI REDDY The Court made the following: APHC010481632021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3311] (Special Original Jurisdiction) Friday, the Ninth Day of May Two Thousand and Twenty Five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No: 2 of 2022 Between: ...Appellant Shriram General Insurance Company Limited and ...Respondents V.Pratap Reddy and others Counsel for the appellant: I.A.Jayanthi Counsel for the respondents: I.D.Kodandarami Reddy The Court made the following: 2 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.2 of 2022 ‘ Judgment: This appeal is filed by the insurance company, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in short ‘the M.V. Act’ against the award and the decree dated 28.09.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.368 of 2017 on the file of the Court of Motor Accidents Claims tribunal - cum - IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa, granting compensation of Rs. 13,37,473/- with interest of 6% p.a from the date of petition till the date of realization, jointly and severally by the respondents No.1 to 3 to the claimant. The appellant challenged the quantum of . compensation as excessive. 1. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows: 2. On 02.11.2015, the petitioner and his friend Rakesh Reddy while going to Pulivendula on a motor cycle bearing No.AP 04 AL 9386, on the left side of the road, when they reached Government Hospital, Pulivendula at about 12.00 noon, the motor cycle bearing No.AP 04 AS 9371 belonging to the respondent No.3 was driven by him in a rash and negligent manner with high speed on the wrong side and dashed the motor cycle of Rakesh Reddy, due to which, the petitioner and Rakesh Reddy fell on the road divider and the petitioner sustained a compound communited fracture to his right leg below knee, whereas Rakesh Reddy died in the Government Hospital, Pulivendula. ■ On a complaint given by an eye witness in the Pulendula Urban Police Station, a case in Cr.No.219 of 2015 was registered against the respondent No.3. As the condition of the petitioner was serious, he was shifted to Himalaya Multi Specialty Hospital, Kadapa, where a doctor noticed type-ill compound fracture of both bones of right leg below knee, along with fractures of 2, 3, 4 and 5 metatarsals of right foot. The petitioner was treated as in patient from 02.11.2015 to 17.11.2015. The petitioner was given external fixations. Internal plating also was done. Inspite of several fixations, the compound fracture of right lower leg was not united and the wound was infected, due to which the petitioner got treated in SPARSH Super Specialty a. 3 BSB, J M.A.C.IVI.A.No.2of 2022 Hospital, Bangalore on 23.04.2016. He was treated there as in-patient till 11.11.2016. The petitioner went to hospital on several occasions for treatment, such as skin grafting, bone grafting, removal of bone from the left ankle, removal of rods, wound debridement. The petitioner was again admitted on 11.11.2016, but the bones were not cured and the wound were not healed. The petitioner was confined to bed and petitioner’s life was paralyzed. The petitioner incurred Rs.4,00,000/- towards treatment under Himalaya Hospital. Kadapa and SPARSH Hospital, Bangalore and Rs.75,000/- towards transport expenses. The petitioner also incurred Rs.25,000/- towards attendant and Rs.30,000/- for extra-nourishm ent. He needs Rs.50,000/- for future medical expenses. The petitioner is a Mechanical Engineering Graduate. The petitioner's father is a Civil Contractor. The petitioner was assisting his father. The petitioner was allotted petrol out let by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited which is located at V.N. Palli and the petitioner is running the said petrol bunk from 2012. The petitioner is an income tax assessee earning Rs.4,00,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/-. The petitioner purchased various properties and invested his earnings in contract work and petrol bunk. For the last 1 year, the petitioner is unable to execute the work due to the accident. The motor cycle belongs to respondent No.1 which is insured by the respondent No.2. b. 3. a. The respondents No.1 and 3, failed to appear in spite of service of notice and were set ex parte. The respondent No.2 filed written statement contending that the petitioner is put to strict proof of the manner and mode of the accident, income, and occupation; that the motor cycle of the respondent No.1 was insured with the company: that there was contributory negligence on the part of the Rakesh Reddy who was riding the motor cycle whereas there was no negligence of the respondent No.3; that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as the owner of the motor cycle and insurance company b. 4 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.2 of 2022 which insured the motor cycle driven by Rakesh Reddy were not added as parties; that the petitioner is not suffering from any permanent disability which has to be proved by filing disability certificate issued by the District Medical Board; and that the respondent No.3 did not have a valid driving license and prayed to dismiss the petition. 4. a. On behalf of the petitioner / claimant, the appellant was examined as P.W.1, Dr.M.Goutham was examined as P.W.2, Dr.Darshan Subash was examined as P.W.3, T.S Prarameswaraiah was examined as P.W.4, Dr.J.Nagesh was examined as P.W.5, and Dr.Jahangeer Basha was examined as P.W.6 and Exs. A1 to A24 i.e, Ex.A1 (Attested copy of FIR in Cr.No.219 of 2015 of Pulivendula Police Station), Ex.A2 (Attested copy of wound certificate), Ex.A3 (Attested copy of charge sheet), Ex.A4 (Discharge summary issue by Himalaya Hospital, Kadapa), Ex.A5 (Discharge summary issue by Himalaya Hospital, Kadapa), Ex.A6 (Discharge summary issue by SPARSH Hospital, Bangalore), Ex.A7 (Original inpatient bill for Rs.2,35,700/- issued by SPARSH Hospital, Bangalore, darted 12.05.2015), Ex.AS (Original inpatient bill for Rs.40,000/- issued by SPARSH Hospital, Bangalore, dated 16.11.2016) Ex.A.9 (Medical bills for Rs.56,976/- issued by SPARSH hospital. Bangalore), Ex.A.10 (Medical bills for Rs.4,797/- issued by SPARSH Hospital, Bangalore), Ex.A.11 (Bunch of prescription issued by SPARSH Hospital, Bangalore), Ex.A.12 (Three medical bills issued by New Veera Bramhendra Medical and Fancy, Kadapa), Ex.A.13 (Income tax returns for the assessment year 2014-2015), Ex.A14 (Four colour photos showing injuries and treatment), Ex.A.15 (Three out-patient treatment slips issued by Himalaya Hospital, Kadapa), Ex.A.16 (Physical disability certificate), Ex.A.17 (Fee receipt for Rs. 1,000/- for disability certificate issued by RIMS Hospital, Kadapa), Ex.A.18 (Notary attested of SSC marks certificate), Ex.A.19 (Notary attested copy of Intermediate marks certificate). Ex.A.20 (Notary attested copy of decree of Bachelor of Engineering in Mechanical Engineering certificate) Ex.A.21 (License for purchase, sell or store for sale of IOC., Ltd., Petroleum Products 5 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.Zof 2022 in the name and style of M/s Pranay KSK Proprietor of V. Pratap Reddy), Ex.A.22 (Copy of agreements total 5 in number execution of Civil Government works in the name of V. Gangi Reddy ie., father of petitioner) Ex.A.23 (Contract order 12 in number execution of Civil Government works in the ■ name of V. Gangi Reddy ie., father of petitioner) and Ex.A.24 (Statement of accounts from 01.01.2013 to 30.03.2016 from SBI, Yerraguntia in the name of Pranay KSK, Proprietor V. Pratap Reddy). On behalf of the respondents R.W.1 was examined and Ex.BI (Attested copy of insurance policy), Ex.X.1 (Case sheet records) and Ex.X.2 (Discharge summary with O.P.No. 10722 and I.P.No.2990 of SPARSH hospital. Bangalore) were marked. b. On behalf of respondents, A.Rajasekhar Reddy was examined as R.W.1 and Ex.B.1 (Attested copy of insurance policy) was marked. After hearing both sides, and considering the evidence. Tribunal allowed the petition and granted compensation of Rs. 13,37,473/- to the claimant under the following heads: 5. : Rs.8,64,000/- ; Rs.3,38,473/- ; Rs.50,000/- ; Rs.25,000/- : Rs.50,000/- : Rs. 10,000/- a. Loss of earning b. Medical bills c. Transportation charges d. Attendant charges e. Pain and suffering f. Extra nourishment : Rs. 13,37,473/- Total Aggrieved by the award, this appeal was filed by the insurance company contending that the quantum of compensation granted is excessive; that the Tribunal erred in assessing high amount as the income of the injured i.e., Rs.12,000/-; that the Tribunal failed to see Ex.A13 (income tax returns for the assessment year 2014 -2015) is not admissible in evidence as it does not contain the seal or signature of the income tax department and further the 6. 6 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.2 of 2022 account statement is neither signed nor certified under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act and further the chartered accountant was also not examined to prove the said documents. In spite of service of notices on the respondents No.2 and 3, they did not appear before this Court. They remained ex parte before the Tribunal as well, as noted above. 7. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal mainly erred in granting huge amount of compensation for loss of future earning by adopting multiplier method without finding that permanent disability, if any, suffered by the petitioner resulted in loss of future earnings. He referred to the decision of the supreme Court in Raj Kumar Vs. AJay Kumar and Ors\ He further submitted that without evidence, huge amounts were granted under different heads and further reiterated the grounds of appeal. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 / claimant that the Tribunal rightly awarded the amount of compensation and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 9. 10. In so far as the income is concerned, though the claimant filed his income tax return for the assessment year 2014-15 showing the gross incme of Rs.4,25,008/- in relation to which Rs.22,740/- was paid as tax, it was not considered by the Tribunal as it was not proved as required under Section 65 B of the Evidence Act by filing necessary certificate and the statement of account was not signed and also as the chartered accountant who prepared the statement was not examined. But, the appellant erroneously stated in the grounds of appeal as though the Tribunal considered it in evidence. However, basing on the decision of the case of N.Surendra Rao and others Vs. B.Swamy and another^. The Tribunal assessed the notional income of the claimant at Rs. 12,000/- p.m as he was a graduate in engineering and not ' (2011) 1 see 343 ^2014 AeJ 2613 7 BSB, J IVI.A.C.M.A.No.2of 2022 based on his business. Since the claimant did not challenge the assessment, it need not be examined whether it is low. What is to be seen is whether it is high as claimed by the appellant. The fact that the claimant was doing business and was graduated in engineering are not disputed. Though education may not always have impact the ability to run the business, but its impact cannot be ruled out in all cases also. Either as an engineering graduate or as a business man running petrol bunk, not on loss, the Tribunal rightly assessed monthly income of the claimant at Rs. 12,000/- as the accident happened in the year 2015. 11. on After assessing the notional monthly income, the Tribunal directly evaluated (future) loss of income by taking 40 % of annual income multiplied by a multiplier 15 relevant to the person of 35 years as per the table of multipliers given in the decision of the supreme Court in Sarla Verma and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Ors^ and arrived at the figure of Rs.8,64,000/-. But in case of permanent disability, the method of awarding compensation is clearly dealt with, by reiterating the earlier view, in Raj Kumar’s case (supra) as follows; “19. We may now summarize 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 12. 13. '2009 ACJ 1298 8 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.2 of 2022 ' percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as percentage of permanent disability). (iii) 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 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.” Since every permanent disability may not result in loss of future income, in every case^ depending on the nature of occupation, it is to be examined whether such disability resulted in future loss of income or not. If only the disability reduced the future earnings, the proportionate loss would be compensated. In such pursuit, there must be a finding to that effect. The claimant could not establish that his earnings got reduced after the accident. Therefore, even if there is any parital permanent disability, it can be compensated by granting conventional lump sum amount for loss of amenities of life; disfigurement, if any; in case of unmarried person, for loss of prospects of marriage depending on the nature of the disability etc,. So, in the present awarding Rs.8,64,000/- for loss of income is incorrect. 40% disability 14. case, certified relates to only physical (orthopedic) element. In this case, the claimant examined P.W.5 to prove his disability. As per his evidence, the claimant suffered from old type-lll fracture mal-united and painful restricted movements of right ankle joint and difficulty in squatting and sitting and also in walking. It does not indicate how this type of disability reduces or reduced the earning capacity or earnings of the claimant. 15. 9 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.2 of 2022 particularly in the nature of his occupation as on the date of the accident. When the evidence does not establish reduction in future earnings or earning capacity in the field of occupation, the claimant is entitled to compensation under the head indicated, but not by adopting multiplier method. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for his permanent disability for amenities and disfigurement. It is not his contention that he was not married. The amount of Rs.8,64,000/- granted by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. . 16. During the period of treatment and till his recovery, he might not be able to attend to his business as he was hospitalized and somebody else must have attended for him. Therefore, a reasonable amount of Rs.1,00,000/- can be granted to compensate him in this regard considering the length of treatment for complete recovery to attend his normal work. 17. The amount of medical expenses awarded is based on evidence. The amount of compensation granted under the other heads are also reasonable. So the claimant is entitled to Rs.6,73,473/- which can be rounded of to Rs.6,73,500/. The rate of interest awarded is 6 % p.a, and is not at high. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed by reducing the amount of compensation from Rs.13,37,473/- to Rs.6,73,500/- and the rest of the award is intact. There shall be no order as to costs. 18. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal shall stand closed. Sd/- G. HELA NAIDU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 1? //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa (with records) 2. OneCCto M/s. A Jayanthi, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri. D Kodandarami Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, V R Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. 5. Three CD Copies PR Cnr HIGH COURT DATED:09/05/2025 JUDGMENT +DECREE MACMA.No.2 of 2022 ALLOWING THE APPEAL