IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2810 OF 2012 Between: Arasamkula Kishore, S/o Prakasa Rao, Hindu, Lorry Mechanic (Autonagar Vijayawada), Resident of D.No.41-30/7-27, Near Good Morning Tea Stall, Ranigarithols, Krishnalanka, Vijayawada. ...Appellant/Petitioner AND R.Nageswara Rao, S/o. Narasayya, Hindu, Owner of the Lorry bearing, NO.AP-03-V-2115, Resident of D.No32-5-12/A, Someswara Agraharam Palakol, W.G. District. 1. 2. Yelakala Srinivasa Rao, S/o Parasuramulu, Hindu, Driver of the Lorry bearing. No. AP-03- V-2115, C/o 1st Respondent, D.No.52-5-12/A, Someswara Agrai ram, Palakol, W.G. District. M/s The New India Assurance Campany Limited, Represented by its Branch Manager, Haripriya Mansion, Bank Street, Palakol, W.G. District. (Policy No.620604310902/0000087- Dated 01-10-2009 to 30- 09-2010). 3. ...Respondents Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V Act, against the Order dated 08.05.2012 in MVOP No. 421 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XII Additional District Judge, (F.T.C), Vijayawada. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Trial Court and material papers in the Suit and upon hearing arguments of Sri. V Padmanabha Rao, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri K V Seshagiri Rao, Advocate for Respondent No.3 This Court doth Order and decree as follows: 1. That the Appeal be and is hereby allowed; That the compensation awarded in the impugned award dated 08.05.2012 of Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XII Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Vijayawada in M.V.O.P.No.421 of 2010 be and is hereby enhanced from Rs.60,000/- to Rs.96,000/- with 8% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization: That the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation: That the third respondent-insurance Company be and is hereby directed to deposit the amount after giving due credit to amounts, if any, deposited already within one month before the Claims Tribunal and That there be no order as to cost in this appeal. 2. 3. 4. 5. Sd/-B PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XII Additional District Judge, (F.T.C), Vijayawada, Krishna District 2. Three CD copies VNA HIGH COURT DATED:23/01/2025 ff DECREE MACMA.No.281 Oof 2012 X 0 7 FEB 2025 ^ Current Section i o ALLOWING THE M.A.C.M.A WITHOUT COSTS I IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2810 OF 2012 Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V Act, against the Order dated 08.05.2012 in MVOP No. 421 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XII Additional District Judge, (F.T.C), Vijayawada. Between: Arasamkula Kishore, S/o Prakasa Rao, Hindu, Lorry Mechanic (Autonagar Vijayawada), Resident of D.No.41-30/7-27, Near Good Morning Tea Stall, Ranigarithols, Krishnalanka, Vijayawada. ...Appellant/Petitioners AND 1. R.Nageswara Rao, S/o. Narasayya, Hindu, Owner of the Lorry bearing, NO.AP-03-V-2115, Resident of D.No32-5-12/A, Someswara Agraharam Palakol, W.G. District. 2. Yelakala Srinivasa Rao, S/o Parasuramulu, Hindu, Driver of the Lorry bearing, No. AP-03- V-2115, C/o 1st Respondent, D.No.52-5-12/A, Someswara Agrai ram, Palakol, W.G. District. 3. M/s The New India Assurance Campany Limited, Represented by its Branch Manager, Haripriya Mansion, Bank Street, Palakol, W.G. District. (Policy No.620604310902/0000087- Dated 01-10-2009 to 30- 09-2010). ...Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Sri. V Padmanabha Rao Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : Sri K V Seshagiri Rao Counsel for the Respondents No.1 & 2: --- The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE APHC010587482012 / [3365] PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2810/2012 Between: ...APPELLANT Arasamkula Kishore, AND ...RESPONDENT(S) R Nageswara Rao and Others Counsel for the Appellant: 1.VPADMANABHA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.KALPANAEKBOTE 2.KVSESHAGIRI RAO 3.. The Court made the following: 2 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A. No.2810of2012 ; THE HON’BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR M.A.C.M.A. No.2810 of 2012 JUDGMENT: In this Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claimant impugned the award dated 08.05.2012 of learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XII Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Vijayawada (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.421 of 2010. 2. Heard arguments of Sri V.Padmanabha Rao, the learned counsel for appellant and Sri K.V.Seshagiri Rao, the learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company. There has been no representation for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 3. The following facts are required to be noticed: The present appellant was the injured claimant before the Claims Tribunal. He is a lorry mechanic by profession and used to earn Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- per month. The offending vehicle in this case is a lorry bearing No.AP-03-V-2115. At the material point of time it was driven by respondent No.2. The \ \ \ 3 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A. No.2810of2012 i vehicle was owned by respondent No.1 and was insured by respondent No.3. On 19.12.2009 the claimant was proceeding on a cycle and at about 11:45 P.M. in the night when he reached a traffic signal junction on NH-5 road near Phakeergudem, Vijayawada the offending lorry came at high speed having been driven by its driver rashly or negligently it dashed the claimant and consequently he sustained an injury to his head leading to hemorrhage and a fracture to his right leg at the knee point and a fracture for the ankle of the right leg and he also sustained Initially he was treated at several other simple injuries. Government General Hospital, Vijayawada and thereafter was treated at N.R.I. General Hospital, Chinakakani. Pertaining to this incident of accident, Krishnalanka Police registered Crime No.580 of 2009 and F.I.R. was issued as per Ex.A.1. At the material point of time the driver was holding the valid and effective driving licence evidenced by Ex.A.5. The vehicle was covered by valid The claimant filed insurance policy evidenced by Ex.B.1. M.V.O.P.No.421 of 2010 seeking compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. The driver and owner did not put up their contest. Insurance company/respondent No.3 raised a contest disputing the case set \ 4 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A. No.2810of2012 Learned Chairman, Motor Accidents out in the claim petition. Additional District Judge (F.T.C.) Claims Tribunal-cum-XII Vijayawada framed the following issues for consideration: 1) Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident on 19.12.2009 at 11.45 p.m. during midnight at traffic signal junction on N.H.5 road near Phakeergudem due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.AP-03-V- 2115 by the 2"'^ respondent? 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation as prayed for? If so, from whom and how much amount? 3) To what relief? At the trial, PWs.1 to 3 testified and Exs.A.1 to A. 16 and 4. Exs.X.1 to X.3 were marked for claimant. For respondent No.3- Insurance Company, no oral evidence was adduced and it got exhibited a copy of the insurance policy as per Ex.B.1. After considering the entire evidence on record and after 5. giving due regard to the arguments advanced on both sides, the learned Claims Tribunal reached the conclusion that the accident and injuries were out of rash or negligent driving on part of the V 5 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A. No.2810of2012 driver of lorry bearing No.AP-03-V-2115. it held that the lorry N driver was responsible for the incident and the owner is vicariously liable and the insurer as an indemnifier is liable to compensate for the injuries sustained by the claimant. After referring to the extensive medical record produced by the claimant under Exs.A.2, A.3, A.4, A.8 to A.15 and Exs.X.1 to X.3 the Claims Tribunal recorded that for about three months the claimant had to undergo treatment and lost his earnings during that period and he underwent two surgeries as deposed by PW.2/doctor and it found that the claimant did not suffer any permanent disability and did not lose his capacity to earn in future. It considered the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.3,000/-. It granted compensation under the following heads: Compensation for Transport expenses to hospital Rs. 1,000-00 Compensation for loss of earnings Rs. 9,000-00 Compensation for pain and suffering Rs. 30,000-00 Compensation for medical expenses Rs. 10,000-00 Compensation for attendant charges Rs. 5,000-00 Compensation for extra nourishment Rs. 5,000-00 Total: Rs. 60,000-00 / \ 6 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A. No.2810of2012 ' / 6. The operative portion of the order reads as below: “In the result, the claim application of the petitioner is partly allowed with proportionate costs by awarding an amount of Rs.60,000/- as compensation to the petitioner to the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident which took place on 19.12.2009. The respondents 1 and 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation amount of Rs.60,000/- to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of this claim application i.e., from 30.07.2010 till the date of realization. The respondents 1 to 3 are directed to deposit the said compensation amount of Rs.60,000/- accrued interest thereon and costs of the claim application within 30 days from the date of the judgment. On such deposit the petitioner is at liberty to withdraw the entire compensation amount of Rs.60,000/- accrued interest thereon and costs of the claim application immediately. Rest of the claim application of the petition is dismissed without costs. Advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs. 1,500/-. \ 7 Dr. VRKS. J M.A.C.M.A. No.2810 of 2012 7. Grieved by the compensation awarded and believing that he is entitled to more compensation, the injured claimant preferred the present appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Claims Tribunal committed an error in assessing the monthly income of the appellant at Rs.3,000/- and it ought to have considered the evidence on record in a proper manner. Towards various heads the amounts granted are not in accordance with evidence and not in accordance with practical realities. It is on these grounds, the learned counsel urges that the compensation as claimed by the appellant before the Claims Tribunal may be awarded. are 9. Learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company argued that the Claims Tribunal considered the entire evidence and after recording appropriate reasons reached to correct conclusions and the judgment impugned does not suffer from any factual or legal infirmities to be interfered with in this appeal and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 8 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A. No.2810of2012 The point that falls for consideration in this appeal is; 10. Whether the compensation awarded is not just and proportionate to the injuries sustained thereby requiring interference? POINT: 11. There is on record the evidence of the appellant/claimant as PW.1 wherein he deposed that he is a lorry mechanic. Though there was a denial from the insurance company about his occupation, there was no evidence on oath contradicting the statement of PW.1. The insurance company did not suggest what other occupation the claimant was engaged in. The claimant as PW.1 stated that as a lorry mechanic he has been earning anywhere between Rs. 10,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month. There was no sworn evidence led by respondents to say as to how that could be called as incorrect or not true. This aspect of the matter was dealt with by the Claims Tribunal at paragraph No.11. It stated that the claimant failed to produce any document indicating his vocation or his earnings. It was in such 12. \ / % 9 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A. No.2810of2012 circumstances it notionally assessed the income of claimant/appellant as Rs.3,000/- per month. To justify its conclusion, it recorded a reason stating that even an unskilled agricultural labourer was earning not less than Rs.100/- per day during the relevant period and therefore it thought of Rs.3,000/- per month assed by it as the income of the claimant as correct. Having considered the material on record, this Court is unable to subscribe to the reasons assigned by the Claims Tribunal in this regard. A lorry mechanic is a skilled professional. If an agricultural labourer gets more than Rs.100/- per day and thus more than Rs.3,000/- per month a skilled labourer such as a lorry mechanic would certainly get more than what an unskilled agricultural labourer could get. For an independent professional like a lorry mechanic one does not know any system available to certify that he is engaged in such a profession. Similarly, an independent skilled labourer would be doing his work and taking his money and in this country in such unorganized sectors one does not come across any appropriate accounts being maintained. Therefore, a pragmatic approach is required to be there in considering such aspects. Even if one accepts f 10 n Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A. No.2810of2012 Rs. 10,000/- per month at the minimum as spoken to by PW.1 as the monthly income of the claimant, since there is no opposing evidence brought on record by the respondents, a judicial forum has to necessarily accept a fact as proved by evidence. Therefore, the Claims Tribunal ought to have considered Rs. 10,000/- as the earnings per month for the claimant instead of taking a notional income of Rs.3,000/-. Therefore, that part of the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal cannot be sustained. The monthly income of the appellant/claimant is recorded at Rs.10,000/- per month. 13. As can be seen from the record and as contended by the learned counsel for appellant, it is clear that for about three months the appellant was under treatment and therefore, was unable to attend his work and consequently could not earn what he could have otherwise earned in those three months. The Claims Tribunal calculated his loss of actual earnings at Rs.3,000/- per month and a total of Rs.9,000/- was granted in that regard. Since this Court has found his monthly income at Rs.10,000/- the actual loss of earnings would be Rs.30,000/-. \ 11 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A. No.2810of2012 \ After giving due consideration what the Claims Tribunal had granted this Court has now granted Rs.21,000/- towards loss of actual earnings which is an addition to what was granted by the Claims Tribunal. 14. Even according to the findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal based on the evidence of PWs.2 and 3, it is clear that there was serious head injury to the claimant and he was treated by PW.3 who detected hemorrhage in the brain. PW.3 said that until that is treated the patient could not be subjected to examination by Orthopedic Surgeon for the purpose of surgeries to the fractures suffered by the claimant. PW.3 stated that after administering necessary treatment the patient was referred to the Orthopedic Doctor. The evidence of PW.2 is that twice he conducted surgeries on PW.I/the appellant herein. For about three months the claimant was treated and for some time he was in-patient and for some time he took treatment as an out-patient. When a patient has to take such treatment for such a long time, it is inevitable that he must take travel from home to hospital and from hospital to home. Learned Claims Tribunal stated that ! r r 12 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A. No.2810of2012 It is Rs. 1,000/- towards transport expenses was sufficient. difficult to countenance the same. Considering the length of time the appellant had to spend money for his travel for treatment, an additional sum of Rs.5,000/- is hereby granted towards transport expenses. Towards attendant charges the Claims Tribunal granted 15. Towards extra nourishment it granted Rs.5,000/-. Rs.5,000/-. Considering the length of treatment and the gravity of injuries he sustained and the need of additional nutritious diet, an additional amount of Rs.5,000/- towards attendant charges and an additional amount of Rs.5,000/- towards diet and extra nourishment are hereby granted. One of the submissions of the learned counsel for the 16. appellant is that the claimant expended Rs.22,418.38 ps. towards medical expenses but the Claims Tribunal granted only Rs.10,000/-. At paragraph No.14 of its order the Claims Tribunal considered these rival submissions and stated that a major part of the treatment of the claimant was covered by Arogyasri Scheme and there was a reimbursement of Rs. 12,418.56 ps. After giving S. 13 ^ ■, \ Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A. No.2810of2012 due credit to it, the Claims Tribunal thought Rs.10,000/- alone could be considered as money expended by the claimant towards medical expenses. Accordingly, it granted the same. Thus, it reached the conclusions based on tangible evidence that was placed before it. In this appeal the appellant could not show any part of the Claims Tribunal in not considering any evidence that was made available to it. In such circumstances, this Court is inclined to think that what was granted by the Claims Tribunal in this regard has to be upheld as correct. error on Learned counsel for appellant submits that towards continuing personal disability Rs.40,000/- and loss of future Rs.50,000/- were claimed before the Claims 17. earning power Tribunal but they were not granted. At paragraph No. 17 the Claims Tribunal recorded that there was absolutely no evidence indicating any permanent disability acquired by the claimant. It further made a reference to the material on record and stated that the injuries were healed and the ability to earn in future remained Since those findings are recorded based on evidence on record and since the findings are intact with the appellant. 14 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A. No.2810 of 2012 supported by proper reasons, this Court finds nothing to interfere with. In view of the facts and circumstances referred to above an Rs.36,000/- is granted towards compensation. Hence, the point is answered accordingly. additional amount of In the result, this Appeal is allowed enhancing the compensation awarded in the impugned award dated 08.05.2012 of learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XII Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Vijayawada in M.V.O.P.No.421 of 2010 from Rs.60,000/- to Rs.96,000/- with 8% interest per from the date of petition till the date of realisation. 18. annum Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the The third respondent-insurance Company is compensation, directed to deposit the amount after giving due credit to amounts month before the Claims if any, deposited already within one Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any shall stand closed. Sd/-B PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XII Additional District Judge, (F.T.C), Vijayawada, Krishna District (with records if any) 2. One CC to Sri. V Padmanabha Rao Advocate [OPUC] FA U '/ i; s. 3. One CC to Sri K V Seshagiri Rao Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, V.R Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi 5. Three CD Copies Stu vna V V. -■-i. » ' H. \ ■ HIGH COURT DATED:23/01/2025 JUDGMENT + DECREE L« MACMA.No.2810 of 2012 ^ 07FE8 20?5 ^ ^ Curreni !>«ction . ^ X; ALLOWING THE M.A.C.M.A WITHOUT COSTS