1 APHC010687362013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3520] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 781/2013 Between: 1. PUTTAM RAMA KRISHNA, S/O. GURAVAIAH, LORRY DRIVER R/O. RAMACHANDRARAOPETA, JAGGAYYAPETA MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORTATION CORPORATION4 OTHER, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD 2. P VENKATESWARA RAO, S/O. PARUSURAMAIAH, OWNER OF HIRE BUS APSRTC NO. AP16TU 1666, D.NO. 57-7-11, NEW POSTAL COLONY, PATAMATA, VIJAYAWADA -7. 3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, M.G.ROAD, OPP TO : A.I.R.STATION, VIJAYAWADA - 10 (POLICY NO. 628/02/31/01/00000056,DT.24.04.07 TO 23.04.08) 4. G NARASIMHA RAO, S/O. G.NAGA CHANDRA RAO, OWNER OF LORRY NO. AP16TU 4547 OPP: ANNAPURNA THEATRE, JAGAYYAPETA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 2 5. M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER ALIBAIG STREET, GOVERNORPETA, VIJAYAWADA -2. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased to IA NO: 1 OF 2013(MACMAMP 1704 OF 2013 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 fix an early date of hearing of the appeal Counsel for the Appellant: 1. B G UMA DEVI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SRAVAN KUMAR MANNAVA 2. K SATYANARAYAN MURTHY(SC FOR APSRTC) 3. AMANCHARLA SATISH BABU The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA M.A.C.M.A.No.781 of 2013 JUDGMENT: 1. Claimant in M.V.O.P.No.901 of 2007 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Vijayawada(for short “the learned MACT”), aggrieved by the order and decree dated 03.01.2013, whereunder a compensation of Rs.36,000/- was awarded, filed the present appeal questioning the adequacy of compensation. 2. The claim was laid by the appellant for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 03.06.2007 at about 03:00 A.M., while he was discharging his duties as a driver for the lorry bearing No.AP 16 TU 4547 alleging that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of bus bearing No.AP 16 TU 1666 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) driven by respondent No.1 driver, owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3. The lorry in which the petitioner was travelling is owned by respondent No.4 and insured with respondent No.5. 3. Owners of vehicles, respondent Nos.2 and 4, remained ex parte before the learned MACT. Respondent Nos.1, 3 and 5 contested the case. 4. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as the petitioner and the respondents, as and how they are arrayed in the impugned proceedings. 4 Case of the claimant: 5(i). The accident occurred at Jaganaik Thanda within the limits of Chivemla Police Station, Nalgonda District, due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the offending vehicle. The petitioner / appellant suffered multiple fractures and injuries to the right leg, forehead and right ankle. The petitioner was shifted to the Area Hospital, Suryapeta, Nalgonda District and from there to Mother Teresa Hospital at Kodada, Nalgonda District for better treatment. (ii). A case in Crime No.94 of 2007 was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle. The petitioner was working as a driver of lorry and earning Rs.5,000/- per month as salary, apart from Rs.100/- as batta per day. Due to the accident, he suffered permanent disablement and became unable to discharge his duties. He has incurred Rs.30,000/- towards medical expenses. The offending vehicle was taken on hire by respondent No.2 and the same was insured with Respondent No.3. Therefore, Respondent No.3 is liable to pay the compensation. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 are also liable. Case of Respondent No.1: 6. There was negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. As per the agreement, Respondent No.3 is liable to pay compensation. Respondent No.1 is not liable to pay any compensation. 5 Case of Respondent No.3: 7. The petitioner shall prove the negligence of respondent No.1, the nature and effect of the injuries, valid and effective driving licence for respondent No.1 and compliance of the terms of the Insurance Policy. There is negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. Respondent No.3 is not liable to pay any compensation. Case of Respondent No.5: 8. The petitioner shall prove the age, occupation, income and nature and effect of the injuries. Respondent No.5 is not liable to pay any compensation as Respondent No.4 has violated the terms and conditions of the policy. Findings of the learned MACT: 9. The learned MACT, by referring to the evidence of P.W.1, Ex.A1-FIR, Ex.A3-Charge Sheet etc. and also the evidence of R.W.1, an employee of respondent No.1-Corporation, found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of respondent No.1 and that there was no negligence on the part of the petitioner. 10. With regard to liability, the learned MACT found that Respondent No.1 is the owner of the offending vehicle and that the vehicle was insured with respondent No.3. Extra premium was also collected. Therefore, respondent No.3 is liable to pay the compensation. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 are not liable to pay the compensation. 6 11. With regard to quantum of compensation, by referring to the evidence of P.W.2 / Dr. Lakshmi Prasad and the discharge summary, it was found by the learned MACT that the petitioner sustained one fracture injury, operation conducted, insertion of nails taken place and removal is necessary, hence, there is necessity of future treatment. Ex.A15-entire medical bills are standing for Rs.6,189/-. The learned MACT awarded Rs.3,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering. Rs.6,000/- towards loss of earnings during the period of treatment and recovery and Rs.2,000/- towards extra nourishment and in all awarded a compensation of Rs.36,000/-. 12. There is no appeal by respondent No.3. Arguments in the appeal: For the appellant: 13. The compensation awarded is very low. The factum of the petitioner sustaining fracture, undergoing operation, incurring expenditure, necessity of future treatment, age, occupation and income of the petitioner are all not properly considered by the learned MACT. For respondent No.3: 14. The learned MACT has rightly awarded the compensation and that there are no grounds to interfere. 7 Scope of appeal: 15. Since there is no appeal by the Insurance Company or the owner of the offending vehicle, accident, negligence, liability and entitlement of claimant for compensation are all out of dispute. 16. Quantum of compensation awarded by the learned MACT alone requires examination as to its sufficiency or otherwise. 17. Heard the learned counsel for appellant and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 5. Perused the record. Thoughtful consideration is given to the arguments advanced by the both sides. 18. The points that arise for determination in this appeal are: 1) Whether a compensation of Rs.36,000/- awarded by the learned MACT under the impugned judgment is just and reasonable or requires any interference, if so, on what grounds and to which extent? 2) What is the result of the appeal? Point No.1: Precedential Guidance: 19. A reference to parameters, for quantifying the compensation under various heads, addressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court is found necessary, to 8 have standard base in the process of quantifying the compensation, to which the claimant is entitled. (i) With regard to awarding just and reasonable quantum of compensation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Baby Sakshi Greola vs. Manzoor Ahmad Simon and Anr.1, arising out of SLP(c).No.10996 of 2018 on 11.12.2024, considered the scope and powers of the Tribunal in awarding just and reasonable compensation within the meaning of Act, after marshaling entire case law, more particularly with reference to the earlier observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court made in Kajal V. Jagadish Chand and Ors.2, referred to various heads under which, compensation can be awarded, in injuries cases vide paragraph No.52, the heads are as follows:- S. No. Head Amount (In ₹) 1. Medicines and Medical Treatment xxxxx 2. Loss of Earning Capacity due to Disability xxxxx 3. Pain and Suffering xxxxx 4. Future Treatment xxxxx 5. Attendant Charges xxxxx 6. Loss of Amenities of Life xxxxx 7. Loss of Future Prospect xxxxx 8. Special Education Expenditure xxxxx 9. Conveyance and Special Diet xxxxx 10. Loss of Marriage Prospects xxxxxx _________ Total Rs. …xxxxxx _________ (ii). Hon’ble Apex Court in Yadava Kumar Vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited and Anr.,3 vide para No.10, by 12025 AIAR (Civil) 1 22020 (04) SCC 413 32010(10)SCC 341 9 referring to Sunil Kumar Vs. Ram Singh Gaud4,as to application of multiplier method in case of injuries while calculating loss of future earnings, in para 16 referring to Hardeo Kaur Vs. Rajasthan State Transport Corporation5, as to fixing of quantum of compensation with liberal approach, valuing the life and limb of individual in generous scale, in para 17 observed that :- “The High Court and the Tribunal must realize that there is a distinction between compensation and damage. The expression compensation may include a claim for damage but compensation is more comprehensive. Normally damages are given for an injury which is suffered, whereas compensation stands on a slightly higher footing. It is given for the atonement of injury caused and the intention behind grant of compensation is to put back the injured party as far as possible in the same position, as if the injury has not taken place, by way of grant of pecuniary relief. Thus, in the matter of computation of compensation, the approach will be slightly more broad based than what is done in the matter of assessment of damages. At the same time it is true that there cannot be any rigid or mathematical precision in the matter of determination of compensation.” (iii). In Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another6, the Hon’ble Apex Court summarized principles to be followed in the process of quantifying the compensation after referring to socio economic and practical aspects from which, the claimants come and the practical difficulties, the parties may face in the process of getting disability assessed and getting all certificates from either the Doctors, who treated, or from the medical boards etc. principles summarized vide para No.19 are as follows: 19. We may now summarise the principles discussed above: 4 2007 (14) SCC 61 5 1992(2) SCC 567 6 2011 (1) SCC 343 10 (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 the percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as the 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 to 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. (iv) In Sidram vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr.7 vide para No.40, the Hon’ble Apex Court referred to the general principles relating to compensation in injury cases and assessment of future loss of earning due to permanent disability by referring to Rajkumar’s case, and also various heads under which compensation can be awarded to a victim of a motor vehicle accident. 7 2023 (3) SCC 439 11 (v) In Sidram’s case, reference is made to a case in R.D. Hattangadi V. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd.8. From the observations made therein, it can be understood that while fixing amount of compensation in cases of accident, it involves some guess work, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of the disability caused. But, all these elements have to be viewed with objective standards. In assessing damages, the Court must exclude all considerations of matter which rest in awarding speculation or fancy, though conjecture to some extent is inevitable. Consideration, analysis and findings: 20(i). Claimant as P.W.1 deposed about sustaining multiple injuries to the right leg, fore-head and to the right ankle. As P.W.1, the petitioner stated that he incurred expenditure of Rs.30,000/- for medicines and medical charges. The documents relied on by him for the injuries and quantification of compensation are: (a) Ex.A11- Six prescription chits, (b) Ex.A12- Six medical bills worth for Rs.6,189/-, (c) Ex.A13-ECG report, (d) Ex.A14-HIV report, (e) Ex.A15-Dischage–cum-Doctor’s Medical bill and (f) Ex.A16- X-rays. 8 1995 (1) SCC 551 12 (ii). During cross examination of petitioner (P.W.1), it was suggested to him that he was not a disabled person and that he is working as a driver. He did not surrender his driving license. His license is renewed. (iii). It was suggested to him that he did not sustain any grievous injuries. It was also suggested to him that the medical bills are fabricated. 21(i). P.W.2, the doctor who treated the petitioner stated that he has issued discharge summary-cum-bill as per Ex.A15. The findings are: (1) Fracture media-nailing of right ankle; for that internal fixation was done and six months bed rest was advised; (2)Ex. A11 are the prescription chits; (3) Ex.A12 are the medical bills and (4) Ex.A13 and Ex.A14 are also issued by him. (ii). The screws were inserted in the ankle of petitioner at the time of surgery. There is necessity to remove the same after some time. For that, expenditure of Rs.15,000/- may be necessary. Petitioner may not be able to drive heavy vehicles. (iii). He has admitted during cross examination that Ex.A15 he has mentioned that expenditure of Rs.8,000/- may be necessary for removal of screws. He has also admitted that in Ex.A2 the nature of injuries is simple. 22(i). Evidence of RW.1 and 2 are relating to the liability but not touching the quantification. The liability aspect is also on the point of hired vehicle. Legal position with regard to liability of insurance company in respect of a hired bus is 13 settled. While explaining the findings in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation vs. Kailash Nath Kothari9 case with reference to interpretation of definition of “owner” under Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and contrast with the definition of “owner” under Section 2(19) of the 1939 Act that, it would include the subject of a hire-purchase agreement etc. Hon’ble Supreme Court in U.P.SRTC vs. Kulsum10 case clarified the issue. (ii). The judgments in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation vs. Kailash Nath Kothari (9 supra) Case and U.P.SRTC vs. Kulsum (10 supra), case, both are referred and discussed by the three judges bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation vs. Rajenderi Devi and Others11 case, wherein it is observed that Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation vs. Kailash Nath Kothari case has been distinguished and the same has no application in the light of the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in U.P.SRTC vs. Kulsum Case. Accordingly, it is found that the Insurance Company is liable. 23. Ex.A11 are bunch of prescription chits showing the medicines advised, Ex.A12 is bunch of medical bills standing for Rs.6,189/-, Ex.A13 is ECG report. Nothing could be drawn from this. Likewise, Ex.A14 is also the some laboratory HIV report indicating non-reactive which also does not contribute much. Ex.A15 9 1997 ACJ 1148(SC) 10 (2011) 8 SCC 142 11 (2020) 19 SCC 230 14 is the discharge summary indicating date of admission and date of discharge on 13.06.2007. 24. The disability, if any, of the petitioner is not established by any evidence. Dr.P.W.2, who gave evidence, has made a casual observation that the petitioner may not be in a position to drive heavy vehicles, but, no reasons are assigned. Disability certificate is not enclosed. Therefore, any permanent disability contributing to loss of income permanently cannot be accepted in the light of the evidence. 25. Sustaining grievous injury, operation conducted, insertion of nails and future treatment etc. can be believed with the evidence made available. They require consideration while quantifying the compensation. 26. In view of the reasons and evidence referred above, the entitlement of the claimant for reasonable compensation in comparison to the compensation awarded by the learned MACT is found as follows: Sl. No. Head Granted by the learned MACT Fixed by this Appellate Court 1. Medical expenses Rs.3,000/- Rs.25,000/- 2. Pain and suffering Rs.25,000/- Rs.25,000/- 3. Loss of earnings during the period of treatment / hospitalization and bed rest Rs.6,000/- Rs.15,000/- 4. Extra nourishment Rs.2,000/- Rs.5,000/- 15 27. For the reasons aforesaid and in view of the discussion made above, the point framed is answered concluding that the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.90,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization and the order and decree dated 03.01.2013 passed by the learned MACT in M.V.O.P.No.901 of 2007 require modification accordingly. Point No.2: 28. In the result, the appeal is allowed-in-part as follows: (i) The compensation awarded by the learned MACT at Rs.36,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum is modified and enhanced to Rs.90,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. (ii) The claimant is permitted to withdraw the amount at once on deposit. (iii) Respondent No.3 is liable to pay the compensation amount. (iv) Time for depositing the balance compensation amount is two months. 5. Transportation -Nil- Rs.5,000/- 6. Attendant charges -Nil- Rs.5,000/- 7. Future medical needs -Nil- Rs.10,000/- Total: Rs.36,000/- Rs.90,000/- 16 (v) There shall be no order as to costs, in this appeal. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeal shall stand closed. ____________________________ A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J Date.24.10.2025 Knr 17 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA M.A.C.M.A No.781 of 2013 24th October, 2025 Knr