IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1977 of 2012 Appeal is filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act. against the Judgment and Decree dated 23.11.2010 passed in M.O.P.No.590 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Viziangaram, Special Judge for Trial of Cases under S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) Act-cum-Additional District and Sessions Court, Viziangaram, Viziangaram District. Between: Damarasingi Appaji, S/o.Appayya, Poosapatirega Mandal, Viziangaram District. R/o.Vempadam Village, ...Appellant/Petitioner AND Budumuru Bandiyya, S/o.Appayya, Driver of Auto No.AP 35 U 9854, R/o.Chintapalli Village, Poosapatirega Mandal, Vizianagaram District. 1. 2. Budumuru Samalamma, W/o.Appa Rao, Owner of Auto No.AP 35 U 9854, R/o.Chintapalli Village, Poosapatirega Mandal, Vizianagaram District. 3. The Divisional Manager, IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd., O/o.ll Floor, Office No.1, G.K. Towers, Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam. ...Respondents/ Respondents : SRI G SAI NARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Appellant Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : SRI SARIPALLI SUBRAHMANYAM Counsel for Respondent No.3 The Court made the following: JUDGMENT : SRI K SRINIVASA RAO APHC010628702012 V IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3365] TUESDAY ,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1977/2012 Between: Damarasingi Appaji ...APPELLANT AND Buydumuru Bandiyya 2 Ors and Others Counsel for the Appellant: 1.G SAI NARAYANARAO ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.SARIPALLI SUBRAHMANYAM 2.SRINIVASA RAO KAMARAJUGADDA The Court made the following: 2 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1977 of 2012 THE HON’BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR M.A.C.M.A.No.1977 of 2012 JUDGMENT: Questioning the inadequacy of compensation, the injured claimant preferred this Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 impugning the award dated 23.11.2010 of the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Special Judge for trial of cases under S.Cs. and S.Ts. (POA) Act.-cum- Additional District and Sessions Court, Vizianagaram (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in M.O.P.No.590 of 2008. 2. Heard arguments of Sri U.Nagendra Babu, the learned counsel representing Sri G.Sai Narayana Rao, the learned counsel for appellant and Sri Saripalli Subrahmanyam, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri Kamarajugadda Srinivasa Rao, the learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company. / 3. The following aspects are required to be noticed: ll 3 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1977 of 2012 On 14.07.2008 at about 5:00 P.M. near Vempadam R & B Road, two auto rickshaws travelling in opposite directions collided with each other. Auto rickshaw bearing registration No.AP-35-U- 6250 turned turtle and the passengers therein fell and suffered injuries. One of them is Sri Damarasingi Appaji. He suffered a fracture on right joint knee and also suffered other injuries. He was treated at hospitals. The accident was complained to police and Crime No.68 of 2008 was registered by police. After due investigation a charge sheet was laid showing the driver of auto rickshaw bearing registration No.AP-35-U-9854 drove the auto rickshaw rashly or negligently and caused the accident. The injured Sri Appaji making the driver of the auto rickshaw as respondent No.1 and the owner of the auto rickshaw as respondent No.2 and the insurer of the auto rickshaw as respondent No.3 filed M.O.P.No.590 of 2008 praying for a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. Before the Claims Tribunal the \ driver and owner/respondent Nos.1 and 2 did not choose to \ appear and contest. Respondent No.3-Insurance Company raised a contest and disputed all the facts narrated in the claim petition. 4 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M,A.No.1977 of 2012 4. Learned Claims Tribunal framed the following issues: 1) Whetherthe pleaded accidentoccurred resulting in injuries to the petitioner due to rash and negligent driving of the Auto bearing No.AP-35-U-9854 by its driver/R.1? 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents? 3) To what relief? 5. During enquiry, PWs.1 and 2 and Exs.A.1 to A.6 and Exs.X.1 and X.2 was the evidence for the claimant. Respondent No.3-Insurance Company produced Ex.B.1-insurance policy and did not adduce any oral evidence. 6. On considering the rival submissions and the evidence on record, the learned Claims Tribunal concluded that the accident was due to rash or negligent driving of driver of auto rickshaw bearing No.AP-35-U-9854. By virtue of Ex.B.1-insurance policy it was found that by the date of accident there was valid and effective insurance policy. It found no violations of terms and \ conditions of insurance policy. It fastened the liability on the tort- 5 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1977 of 2012 feasor/driver and the owner of the same as vicarious liable and the insurance company as indemnifier was liable and thus, respondent Nos.1 to 3 were held jointly and severally liable for paying the compensation to the victim. After making assessment of the material on record, it granted compensation under various heads which read as below: Compensation for treatment, transport to hospital, medicines and extra nourishment Rs. 25,000-00 Compensation for pain and sufferings Rs. 10,000-00 Compensation for loss of earnings Rs. 10,000-00 Compensation for amenities of life, prosperous of life, longevity of life and enjoyment of life Rs. 55,000-00 Total: Rs.1,00,000-00 7. Finally, the learned Claims Tribunal passed the award in the following terms: “In the result, the petition is allowed in part with proportionate costs awarding compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) to the petitioner with interest @ 6% p.a. simple from the date of petition till the date of realization recoverable by the petitioner from the respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally. Out of the said compensation amount the petitioner is permitted to 6 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C,M.A.No.1977 of 2012 withdraw Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with accrued interest and costs. The balance amount of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) shall be invested in fixed deposit in his name in any nationalized bank of his choice for a period of two years. The petitioner is permitted to withdraw quarterly interest accrued on his deposit. Time for deposit is one month. The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred only) and the rest of the claim is disallowed.” 8. Grieved by the inadequacy of compensation, the claimant has come up with this appeal contending that the learned Claims Tribunal committed an error in not granting even actual medical expenses and granted meager amount for pain and suffering and despite the physical disability acquired by the claimant appropriate compensation was not granted. It is on these aspects the learned counsel for appellant submitted arguments. 9. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 as well as respondent No.3-lnsurance Company contended that all facts and circumstances were appropriately considered by the learned Claims Tribunal and just compensation was awarded and there is no warrant for interference. % 7 Dr, VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1977 of 2012 10. The point that falls for consideration in this appeal is; (( In terms of the facts and circumstances, whether the compensation awarded was not just and thereby interference is required in this appeal? n POINT: The claimant testified as PW.1 and the doctor who treated 11. him testified as PW.2. The fact that there was accident and the fact that the appellant/claimant suffered injuries and underwent treatment and the fact that accident and resultant injuries were out of rash or negligent driving of the offending auto rickshaw by respondent No.1 which is owned by respondent No.2 and which was insured by respondent No.3 under Ex.B.1-insurance policy are not in dispute and therefore, no further discussion is required in this regard. 12. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and Ex.A.2-wound certificate and Ex.A.5-X-ray report, Ex.X.2-X-ray report and Ex.X.1- case sheet and Ex.A.4-bunch of medical bills disclosed that the 8 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1977 of 2012 claimant suffered several injuries and major among them was fracture of right knee joint. He was admitted in hospital 14.07.2008 and was discharged on 23.07.2008 and he was on advised follow up treatment and he accordingly took the treatment and he appeared before the medical doctor 25.09.2010 at which time he had taken X-ray report from which it was found that the injury was malunited. on There was also an observation by the doctor that the appellant/claimant required further surgery to remove the nails that were implanted in the earlier surgery. Ex.A.4-medical bills disclosed that the claimant expended Rs.37,634/- towards his medicines and transportation. Despite noticing the same and despite absence of any contrary oral evidence on oath and despite absence of any other material on record to disbelieve Ex.A.4 and other related material, the learned Claims Tribunal granted only Rs.25,000/-. The reason it versioned was that the necessary prescriptions were not produced in support of the bills, towards medical expenses, transportation and extra nourishment. In the opinion of this Court the approach of the Claims Tribunal cannot be supported. It then granted Rs.25,000/- The patient who underwent treatment 9 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1977 of 2012 deposed and the doctor who treated him deposed. If the Tribunal entertained any doubts about the medical bills, it could have ascertained the relevant facts from either of them. It was never suggested to PW.2 that one purchased medicines without any prescriptions. It is in these circumstances this Court is of the opinion that what was spent actually is required to be granted. What was spent was Rs.37,634 and what was granted was Rs.25,000/-. Balance amount of Rs. 12,634/- towards treatment, transport to hospital, medicines and extra nourishment is granted. 13. The evidence of PW.2-the doctor about the imminent need to conduct further surgery on the claimant for the purpose of removal of nails that were implanted remained unchallenged. It cannot be denied that this further surgery would require payment of necessary charges by the patient/claimant/appellant. It is seen from the record that the learned Claims Tribunal did not grant any compensation towards future medical expenses. Therefore, Rs. 10,000/- is granted towards future medical expenses. 14. The claimant was aged 36 years by the time of the accident and he was stated to be a Carpenter. Though the doctor said I 10 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No,1977 of 2012 that there was 30% partial permanent disability, there was no evidence on record to consider that the injury he suffered resulted in loss of his earning capacity. Moreover, as rightly observed by the learned Claims Tribunal that PW.2 who gave Ex.A.6-disability certificate failed to give details either in his evidence or in Ex.A.6, the tests which he conducted in making an assessment of the physical disability acquired by the claimant. However, the learned Claims Tribunal was considerate in assessing the fact that whatever disability that is said to have been acquired by the claimant would cause difficulties in leading in his normal life and therefore, Rs.55,000/- was granted towards loss of amenities. This Court finds no error in that regard. 15. The claimant suffered hospitalization and treatment for about three months. He claims to be earning Rs.150/- per day. The learned Claims Tribunal recorded that the claimant is a skilled labour and even an unskilled labour would earn Rs.100/- per day. Having said so, it should have granted reasonable compensation for loss of actual earnings. However, it granted only Rs.10,000/-. Adding an amount of Rs.5,000/- this Court 11 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1977 of 2012 considers that a total amount of Rs. 15,000/- towards actual loss of earnings would meet the ends of justice. In the light of the discussion made earlier, the following additional amounts are found to be just and are thus granted; 16. Towards future medical expenses Rs. 10,000-00 Towards treatment, transport to hospital, medicines and extra nourishment Rs. 12,634-00 Towards loss of earnings Rs. 5,000-00 Total; Rs. 27,634-00 Therefore, the point is answered in favour of the appellant. 17. In the result, this Appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation awarded in the impugned award dated 23.11.2010 of the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Special Judge for trial of cases under S.Cs. and S.Ts. (POA) Act- cum-Additional District and Sessions Court, Vizianagaram in M.O.P.No.590 of 2008 from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.1,27,634/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. The third respondent-insurance 12 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1977 of 2012 Company is directed to deposit the amount after giving due credit to amounts, if any, deposited already within one month before the Claims Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any shall stand closed. Sd/- B CHITTI JOSEPH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Viziangaram Special ■ Ldge for ™Tof Cases under S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) Act-cunvAdd. jonal District and Sessions Court, Viziangaram, Viziangaram District, (with records If any) 2. One CC to Sri G Sai Narayana Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Saripalli Subrahmanyam, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri K Srinivasa Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 5 The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. (to dispatch the trial court records) 6. Three CD Copies TK vna . HIGH COURT DATED:11/02/2025 JUDGMENT + DECREE MACMA.No.1977 of 2012 f 12 MAR 2025 | ^ . Currem jjecuon ^i4£espATC*^<^ PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1977 of 2012 Between: Damarasingi Appaji, S/o.Appayya, R/o.Vempadam Village Poosapatirega Mandal, Viziangaram District. ...Appellant/Petitioner AND 1. Budumuru Bandiyya, S/o.Appayya, Driver of Auto No.AP 35 U 9854, R/o.Chintapalli Village, Poosapatirega Mandal, Vizianagaram District. 2. Budumuru Samalamma, W/o.Appa Rao, Owner of Auto No.AP 35 U 9854, R/o.Chintapaili Village, Poosapatirega Mandal, Vizianagaram District. 3. The Divisional Manager, IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd., O/o.ll Floor, Office No.1, G.K. Towers, Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam. ...Respondents/ Respondents Appeal is filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, against the Judgment and Decree dated 23.11.2010 passed in M.O.P.No.590 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Viziangaram, Special Judge for Trial of Cases under S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) Act-cum-Additional District and Sessions Court, Viziangaram, Viziangaram District. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of Petition, the Order and Decree of the Trial Court and the material papers in the Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri G Sai Narayana Rao, Advocate for the Appellants and of Sri Saripalli Subrahmanyam, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 and Sri K Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for Respondent No.3. This Court doth Order and decree as follows: That the appeal be and the same is hereby allowed in part; That the compensation awarded in the impugned award dated 23.11.2010 in M.O.P.No.590 of 2008 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Special Judge for trial of cases under S.Cs. and S.Ts. (POA) Act-cum-Additional District and Sessions Court, Vizianagaram be and is hereby enhanced from Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs.1,27,634/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation; That Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are hereby 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; That there be no order as to costs in this appeal. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Sd/- B CHITTI JOSEPH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Viziangaram, Special Judge for Trial of Cases under S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) Act-cum-Additional District and Sessions Court, Viziangaram, Viziangaram District. 2. Three CD Copies TK vna HIGH COURT DATED:11/02/2025 DECREE MACMA.No.1977 of 2012 ■S 12 mar 2025 Curreni iiwiioii . ' % PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS