IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2615 OF 2012 Between: Shaik Rasool, S/o.Kamal Saheb, aged about 34 years, Occ; Mason R/o.Dorapalli [V], dhone [M], Kurnool District. ...Appellant(Petitioner) AND 1. A.Ramesh, S/o.Giddaiah, Aged Major R/o.23/73/3, Kondapeta, Dhone Kurnool District. 2. United India Insurance Co Limited, rep by its Divisional Manager O/o. Kurnool ...Respondents(Respondents) Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V Act, against the order and Decree passed in M.V.O.P No. 615 of 2009 dated 31-05-2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Kurnool. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Trial Court and material the Suit and upon hearing arguments of Sri J Janakirami Reddy, Advocate papers in for the Appellant and of Sri Sri Gudi Srinivasu, Advocate for Respondent No.2 This Court doth Order and decree as follows: 1. That the appeal be and is hereby allowed; 2. That the compensation awarded in the impugned award dated 31.05.2012 of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Cum - IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool in MVOP.No.615 of 2009 be and is hereby enhanced from Rs.4,20,000/- to Rs.5,24,000/- with 9% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 3. That the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 be and are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 4. That the Respondent No.2/The United India Insurance Company Limited be and is hereby directed to deposit the amount after giving due credit to amounts, if any, deposited already, within 30 days before the claims tribunal. 5. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. Sd/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurnool, Kurnool District 2. Three CD copies vna high court dated ■•28/02/2025 decree MACWlA.No.2615 of 2012 AND#^^^ 18 MAR 2025 ^ . Current ieciion . allowing the m.a.c.m.a WITHOUT COSTS ANDHRA PRADESH ; ; AMARAVAH IN the high court of the TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY ^ and twenty five «> FRIDAY 3 O "O TWO THOUSAND ■J present * V R K KRUPA SAGAR nri' 20^2 honourable justice dr MISCELLAiiEOySAPPE^ THE motor ACClDENTCiyik Appeal filed Decree passed in Motor Accidents Claims the order and the file of of M.V Act, against dated 31-05-2012 on under Section 173 No. 615 of 2009 Tribunal at Kurnool. M.V.O.P the Occ: Mason Between: Shaik Rasool R/o.Dorapalli [V], dhone aged about 34 years S/o.Kamal Saheb [M], Kurnool District. ...AppeUant(Petitioner) AND ^ Kondapeta, Dhone, Aged Major R/o.23/73/3 1. A.Ramesh, S/o.Giddaiah Kurnool District. 2. United India Insurance 0/o.Kurnool its Divisional Manager Co Limited, rep by ndents(Respondents) ...Respo JANAKIRAMI REDDY ; SRI GUDI SRINIVASU ; SRI. J Couns©! for th© App6ll3ot Counsel for the Court made the following Respondent No.2: ; JUDGMENT The fib APHC010569072012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE [3365] PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUSAPPEAL NO: 2615/2012 Between: Shaik Rasool ...APPELLANT AND A Ramesh Anr and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1.J JANAKIRAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GUDI SRINIVASU 2. The Court made the following: 2 Dr.VRKSJ MACMA.No.2615 of 2012 W THE HON’BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR MAGMA No. 2615 of 2012 JUDGMENT: 1. This appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is filed by the appellant/ claimant impugning the order dated 31.05.2012 of the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Cum - IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool in MVOP.No.615 of 2009. 2. The following facts are required to be noticed: Sri Shaik Rasool aged 32 years was a mason by profession. On 27.01.2009, he was raiding a motor cycle along with a pillion rider and at about 08.30 pm at Banaganapalli to Bethamcherla road, a jeep bearing registration No. AP 04 U 2396 came in the opposite direction at high speed and was driven by its driver rashly or negligently and it dashed the motor cycle and the bike riders fell down and the wheels of the jeep ran over the right leg of Sri Shaik Rasool which led to amputation of right leg up to knee. As against the driver of the offending jeep, Cr.No.11 of 2009 was registered at Banaganapalli Police Station/Ex.AI and after due investigation, a charge sheet was laid in C.C.No.186 of 2009 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of Dr.VRKS,J MACMA.No.2615 of 2012 Ex.A3 and eventually after trial, evidenced by a copy of the suffered other injuries apart treated at Government conducted and 13.04.2009 for nearly of the offending jeep United India Insurance Company First Class, Banaganapalli/ offending driver was convicted as the the Ex.A4. The injured also judgment/ from amputation of his ieg and he was General Hospital, Kurnool where the surgery was he was an inpatient from 28.01.2009 to months. Sri A.Ramesh being owner insured with three got the jeep Limited, Kurnool. Seeking compensation of Rs.5,60,000/- in terms 166 of the Motor Vehioles Act, 1988, the injured laid of 2009 before learned Chairman, of Section his claim in MVOP.No.615 Accidents Claims Tribunal - Judge, Kurnool. R1/owner of contest. R2/ Insurance company filed a _ IV Additional District the offending jeep did not choose to counter denying all the and contended that the cum Motor the claim petition negligent driving of the motor bike by facts narrated in accident was out of rash or the claimant did not have and the driver of the offending jeep and that the claim made was valid and effective driving licence the above rival pleadings the learned claims excessive. On tribunal settled the following issues for trial. Dr.VRKSJ MACMA.No.2615 of 2012 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep bearing No.AP.04.U.2396? 2. Whether the claimant is entitled to the compensation of Rs.5,50,000/- or to what just amount and from whom the same shall be recovered? (after being recast issue No.2) 3. To what relief? In support of the claim, claimant testified as PW.1 and the doctor who treated him testified as PW.2. Exs.M to A6 and Ex.X1 were marked. The insurance company exhibited a copy of the insurance policy as per Ex.B1 and no oral evidence was adduced. After considering the material on record and the submissions made on both sides, a detailed discussion was taken up by the claims tribunal and eventually, it recorded its finding that the accident was out of rash or negligent driving of the driver of the offending jeep. It did not find any fault with the claimant either as the cause of accident or as having contributed to the accident. PW.1 claimed that he was earning Rs.4,000/- per month. Learned claims tribunal on analysis of evidence observed that he was earning Rs.3,000/- per month. His undisputed age was found to be 32 years. It considered Ex.A6/ disability 3. 5 Dr.VRKSJ MACMA.No.2615 of 2012 certificate issued by District Medical Board, Kurnool and the evidence of PW.2/ doctor and the evidence of PW.1 and found that because of amputation of leg from right knee, he suffered 75% of physical disability as well as functional disability. Considering his age, multiplier 17 was applied. It arrived at Rs.4,59,000/- towards loss of earning capacity. It then deducted Rs. 1,00,000/- stating that despite amputation of right leg below knee, he could still work and earn. Thus, Rs.3,59,000/- was awarded towards loss of earning capacity. It further granted Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.30,000/- towards loss of amenities and Rs.11,000/- towards actual medical and attendant charges. Thus, total compensation of Rs.4,20,000/- was granted. It further held that as per Ex.BI/ insurance policy, the policy was in force as on the date of accident and directed the owner and the insurer to be jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 4. It passed the award in the following terms: “In the result, the petition is partly allowed granting Rs. 4,20,000/- towards compensation for the injuries sustained by the petitioner in the accident occurred, with proportionate costs and interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondents 1 and 2. Time for 30 days is granted to deposit the awarded 6 Dr.VRKS,J MACMA.No.2615 of 2012 amount by the second respondent, and on such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs. 70,000/- and the remaining amount shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of two years. ” 5. Aggrieved by the inadequate compensation granted by the claims tribunal, the injured claimant preferred this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for appellant, Sri J.Janaki Rami Reddy submitted that evidence was not fully appreciated by the learned claims tribunal and under various heads, it granted meagre compensation and on fair assessment of the evidence, it could be seen that the claimant is entitled to the whole of the compensation claimed and cited a. Kumari Kiran V. Sajjan Singh^ b. NSuresh V. Yusuf Shariff 7. As against it, Sri Gudi Srinivasu, the learned counsel for insurance company/R2 contended that all the facts and the evidence were appropriately analyzed by the claims tribunal and it considered the claim made was excessive and accordingly, it granted just compensation and therefore there is no warrant for interference. ' (2015) 1 see 539 ^ 2012 Aej 2572 7 Dr.VRKS,J MACMA.No.2615 of 2012 The point that falls for consideration is “In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, whether compensation awarded is not just compensation and thereby requires interference in this appeal?” 8. POINT: - PW.1 stated that he was earning Rs.4,000/- 9. Appellant as per month as a mason. The learned claims tribunal considered that he could be the evidence and finally concluded saying earning Rs.3,000/- per month only. That comes to Rs.36,000/- per annum. So far so good. However, it went on to consider the plight of the appellant and then stated that because of amputation of his right leg below knee, he could not attend his masonry work but he could still attend some work and earn and these earnings from the paragraph No.26 of the impugned assessed at Rs.1,00,000/- per annum. Here lies the If the appellant/ claimant was found earning could it be said that after as could be seen award was contradiction. Rs.36,000/- per annum as a mason loss of his leg, he could earn Rs.1,00,000/- per annum. One could comprehend the assessment made by the claims tribunal in record, this court never this regard. After considering the material on 8 Dr.VRKSJ MACMA.No.2615of 2012 holds the view that at the most, the mason after loss of his leg could engage himself in other productive works and may earn Rs.25,000/-. Therefore, an additional amount of Rs.75,000/- is to be granted towards loss of earning capacity. At paragraph No.30 of the impugned award, learned claims tribunal rightly recognized from the evidence that the appellant/ claimant was under treatment for nearly three months. However, nothing was granted towards actual loss of earnings. Since his monthly income was assessed at Rs.3,000/- by the claims tribunal, an amount of Rs.9,000/- shall be granted towards loss of actual earnings. A man at the age of 32 years must lead a better life but now he has to lead that life in misery without a leg supporting him. Learned claims tribunal was frugal in granting only Rs.30,000/- towards loss of amenities. In the opinion of this court, an additional sum of Rs.20,000/- would make it just. Thus, the following additional amounts are granted. 10. Amount in Rs. 9,000/- Towards loss of actual earnings 1. An additional amount towards loss of 20,000/- 2. 9 Dr.VRKS,J MACMA.No.2615 of 2012 amenities 75,000/- additional amount towards loss of earning capacity An 3. amount of Rs.1,04,000/- is granted. Thus, an additional Point is answered in favour of the appellant. allowed enhancing the in the result, this appeal is compensation awarded in the impugned award dated 31.05.2012 of the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - 11. Cum MVOP.No.615 of 2009 - IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool in from Rs.4,20,000/- to Rs.5,24,000/- with 9% interest per till the date of realization. Respondent annum from the date of petition the jointly and severally liable to pay No.2/The United India Insurance Nos.1 and 2 are compensation. Respondent directed to deposit the amount after giving Company Limited is due credit to amounts, if any, deposited already, within 30 days tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs, sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any. before the claims As a shall stand closed. Sd/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To. Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurnool, Kurnool 1. The Chairman, Motor District 2. One CC to Sri. J Janakirami Reddy Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri. Gudi Srinivasu Advocate [OPUC] Officer, V.R Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 4. The Section 5. Three CD Copies 51cC' HIGH COURT DATED:28/02/2025 JUDGMENT + DECREE MACMA.No.2615 of 2012 and/^ 18 MAK 2025 SO//' . Current Section ^ ALLOWING THE M.A.C.M.A WITHOUT COSTS