APHC010525042022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENTS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.14 of 2023 Between: 1. TIPPINENI SRINIVASA RAO, S/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGED 55 YEARS, R/O. NAGANNAPALEM VILLAGE, MADDIPADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1. M VENKATESWARLU, S/O.HANUMANTHA RAO, AGED 47 YEARS, DRIVER OF TIPPER, R/O.D.No.22-2-5/23, IS RAO NAGAR, KANDUKUR, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT-523105. 2. SRI VINAYAKA EARTH MOVERS, REP. BY KUNCHALA SURESH, OWNER OF TIPPER, R/O.D.NO.3-84/A, VADDEPALEM, ANNANGI VILLAGE, MADDIPADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT-523211. 3. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, TRUNK ROAD, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant: 1. MADHAVA RAO NALLURI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. M CHALAPATHI 2. MANOJ KUMAR BETHAPUDI The Court made the following: 2 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.14 of 2023 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENTS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.14 of 2023 J U D G M E N T: The present appeal arises out of the order and decree dated 09.06.2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.118 of 2020 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge’s Court, Prakasam District at Ongole. The aforesaid M.V.O.P. was preferred by the appellant herein seeking compensation of Rs.13,00,000/-, for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident. By the impugned order, the Tribunal, having determined the just compensation to be Rs.16,49,146/-, restricted the same to the claimed amount of Rs.13,00,000/- and, accordingly, awarded compensation of Rs.13,00,000/- to the appellant/claimant, along with costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. Aggrieved by such restriction, the claimant preferred the present appeal. 2. Parties will be referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: (i) On 20.06.2020, the claimant, while proceeding to Gundlapalli village on his moped, was hit by tipper lorry bearing 3 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.14 of 2023 registration No.AP 39/TB 2251, which was proceeding from Maddipadu towards Medarametla and was being driven by 1st respondent at high speed and in rash and negligent manner, as a result of which the claimant sustained multiple injuries all over his body. The claimant was shifted to KIMS Hospital, Ongole, where he underwent treatment. A case in Crime No.147 of 2020 was registered on the file of Maddipadu Police Station for offence under Section 338 I.P.C. against the driver of tipper lorry and upon completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against him. The claimant suffered permanent disability of 80% due to amputation of his left leg above knee. He was stated to be engaged in agriculture as well as in the business of real estate and sale of seeds, thereby earning about Rs. 20,000/- per month. Therefore, he laid claim under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.13,00,000/-. (ii) Respondent Nos.1 and 2, driver and owner of crime vehicle respectively, remained ex parte and respondent No.3/insurer filed written statement denying the manner in which the accident occurred and that the driver of tipper was negligent in causing the accident. It also denied the percentage of disability claimed and contended that the compensation claimed was highly excessive. 4 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.14 of 2023 (iii) In order to prove the claim, the claimant got himself examined as P.W.1, besides examining the doctor who treated him as P.W.2, the owner of prosthetics centre from where he purchased artificial limb as P.W.3, and the doctor who issued Ex.A5-disability certificate as P.W.4, and got marked Exs.A1 to A8. None were examined on behalf of the insurer, however, Ex.B1-Insurance policy was marked. (iv) Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues: “1. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of Tipper bearing No.AP 39 TB 2251? 2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent and against whom? 3. To what relief?” (v) On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal decided the first issue in favour of the claimant, holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of tipper. While answering the second issue, the Tribunal, having considered the loss of earnings suffered by the claimant on account of permanent disability, expenditure incurred for treatment and for purchase of artificial limb as well as amounts 5 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.14 of 2023 payable under other relevant heads, determined that the claimant was entitled to a total compensation of Rs.16,49,146/-. However, since the claimant had made claim only for Rs.13,00,000/-, the Tribunal restricted the award to that amount and, accordingly, granted Rs.13,00,000/- towards compensation, along with costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till realization. (vi) Assailing the said order to the extent of restricting the compensation amount, the appellant/claimant preferred the present appeal. 4. Heard Sri Madhava Rao Nalluri, learned counsel for appellant, Sri Bhanu Raja, learned counsel representing Sri M. Chalapathi, learned counsel for 2nd respondent and Sri G. Raghavendra Pavan, learned counsel representing Sri Manoj Kumar Bethapudi, learned Standing Counsel for 3rd respondent-Insurance Company. 5. Learned counsel for appellant contended that the Tribunal, having determined that the claimant is entitled to a just and reasonable compensation of Rs.16,49,146/-, ought to have awarded the said amount, rather than restricting it to the amount claimed i.e., Rs.13,00,000/-. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Nagappa v. Gurudayal 6 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.14 of 2023 Singh1 and the Division Bench of this Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Suseelamma and others2. 6. Opposing the aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent-insurer, on the other hand, contended that since the claimant had laid claim for compensation of Rs.13,00,000/-, he cannot now seek compensation in excess of the said amount and, therefore, the Tribunal was justified in awarding the amount claimed before it. 7. Perused the record and considered rival submissions of learned counsels for parties. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the only point that falls for consideration in the present appeal is: “Whether the Tribunal, having determined the compensation of Rs.16,49,146/- to be just and reasonable, could have restricted the award to Rs.13,00,000/- as claimed in the claim petition and whether such restriction suffers from perversity, thereby warranting interference by this Court?” POINT: 9. The accident and injuries sustained by the claimant are not in dispute. The claimant was assessed to have sustained 80% permanent disability due to amputation of leg. The Tribunal, having 1 (2003) 2 SCC 274 2 2023 SCC OnLine AP 1725 7 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.14 of 2023 considered the nature of injuries sustained and Ex.A5-disability certificate, accepted the permanent disability at 80%, assessed the income of the claimant at Rs.8,000/- per month, and accordingly, by applying the relevant multiplier of ‘11’, determined the loss of earnings on account of permanent physical disability as Rs.8,44,800/-. Further, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,73,631/- towards treatment and medical expenditure, Rs.4,70,715/- towards cost of artificial limb, Rs.1,00,000/- for the discomfort caused on account of amputation, Rs.30,000/- for injuries, Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment, Rs.5,000/- towards attendant charges, and Rs.5,000/- towards transportation. In total, the compensation under all heads was assessed at Rs.16,49,146/-. However, merely because the claim petition was preferred for Rs.13,00,000/-, the Tribunal restricted the compensation to the said amount and awarded the same. 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh (1 supra), having regard to the scheme of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the nature of the same being beneficial legislation, observed as follows at paragraph 21: “21. For the reasons discussed above, in our view, under the MV Act, there is no restriction that the Tribunal/court cannot award compensation amount exceeding the claimed amount. The function of the Tribunal/court is to award “just” 8 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.14 of 2023 compensation which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record. Further, in such cases there is no question of claim becoming time-barred or it cannot be contended that by enhancing the claim there would be change of cause of action. It is also to be stated that as provided under sub-section (4) to Section 166, even the report submitted to the Claims Tribunal under sub-section (6) of Section 158 can be treated as an application for compensation under the MV Act. If required, in appropriate cases, the court may permit amendment to the claim petition.” 11. Further, in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Suseelamma and others (2 supra), a Division Bench of this Court, while dealing with an appeal preferred by insurer challenging the quantum of compensation, taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the provisions of Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act and having regard to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Nagappa, has enhanced the compensation beyond the amount claimed, even though no appeal had been preferred by the claimants. Paragraph 67 of the said judgment, which is relevant, reads as follows: “67. We are therefore of the considered view that for doing justice and to award just compensation, the provisions of Order 41 Rule 33 are to be invoked which are being invoked accordingly, as we find that there is no legal interdict or a prohibition under law, rather the mandate of law is to award just compensation. There is also no prejudice being 9 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.14 of 2023 caused to a person not a party before the Court. The appellant has been heard on the point of just compensation.” 12. In the light of the aforesaid judgments, this Court is of the considered opinion that when the Tribunal, after analyzing the evidence on record, has determined the just compensation to be Rs.16,49,146/-, it ought to have awarded the same in entirety without restricting it to the claimed amount. The impugned order, therefore, requires modification with respect to the quantum of compensation, by awarding the entire compensation of Rs.16,49,146/-, as determined by the Tribunal. 13. Accordingly, the impugned order is modified insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, by awarding compensation of Rs.16,49,146/- to the appellant/claimant, as determined by the Tribunal, together with costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The enhanced compensation shall be deposited, after deducting the amount, if any, already deposited, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit being made, the appellant is entitled to withdraw the same. It is needless to observe that the appellant shall pay the differential court fee before withdrawing the compensation. 10 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.14 of 2023 14. The Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands allowed in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date: 21.08.2025 IBL 11 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.14 of 2023 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN M.A.C.M.A.No.14 of 2023 Dt: 21.08.2025 IBL