APHC010725002014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3365] FRIDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 3562/2014 Between: Kavati Sai Babu ...APPELLANT AND Venkata Sai Spinners Another and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1. SRICHARAN TELAPROLU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. . 2. U RAMANJANEYULU 3. R K SURI The Court made the following: 2 Dr.VRKS,J MACMA.No.3562 of 2014 THE HON’BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR MACMA No. 3562 of 2014 JUDGMENT: 1. This appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is filed by the appellant/ claimant impugning the order dated 29.06.2011 of the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – Cum – VI Additional District Judge, Guntur in MVOP.No.351 of 2009. 2. Heard arguments of Sri Sricharan Telaprolu, the learned counsel for appellant and Sri U Ramanjaneyulu, the learned counsel for respondent No.2/ Insurance company. 3. The following facts are required to be noticed: Mr.Kavati Sai Babu is a minor boy aged 11 years. On 03.10.2005 at about 6 pm, he was walking on the left side of the road near Kotha Nageswara Rao Rice Mill, Pedanandipadu Village, Guntur District. An Indigo car bearing registration No. AP 27 J 900 was coming in the opposite direction came to the wrong side and the driver of it was rash or negligent and the vehicle dashed the boy and caused the following grievous injures: 1. Wound over left side of fore head of about 5 Cms., in length. 3 Dr.VRKS,J MACMA.No.3562 of 2014 2. Degloving wound over the lower half of the right leg extending on to the medial side of the ankle joint and foot with bone exposed through the wound. 3. X-ray of the right leg with ankle joint reveals communited fracture of the tibia with bone loss. 4. Against the driver of the said car, Cr.No.84 of 2005 was registered at Pedanandipadu Police Station/Ex.A1. After due investigation, the driver was charge sheeted for prosecution/ Ex.A2. The minor boy represented by his paternal grandmother filed MVOP.No.351 of 2009 under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 wherein Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation was brought as against the owner and the insurance company. Before the claims tribunal, the owner of the offending vehicle filed his counter that there was no negligence or rashness on part of the driver of the car. He took the plea that he obtained an insurance policy valid from 15.04.2005 to 14.04.2006 and the subject matter accident took place on 03.10.2005 by which time, the insurance policy was valid and effective and pleads for exoneration. Insurance company took similar pleas and said that the driver of 4 Dr.VRKS,J MACMA.No.3562 of 2014 the offending vehicle did not have valid driving licence. Learned claims tribunal settled the following issues for trial. 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle i.e., Car bearing No.AP 27 J 900? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled compensation, and if so, to what amount and to against whom and for causing injuries to the Petitioner? 3. To what relief? 5. PW.1 to 3 testified and Exs.A1 to A4 and Exs.X1 to X3 were marked on behalf of the claimant. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced either by the owner or by the insurance company. After giving due regard to the submissions on both sides and after categorically analyzing the evidence on record and putting faith in the version of the eye- witness/PW.3 and the investigative outcomes of the police as disclosed in Ex.A2/charge sheet, the claims tribunal concluded saying that the injured boy was not at fault and he suffered serious injuries only because of rash or negligent driving of the driver of the offending car. The owner of the said car was found liable to pay compensation. It further observed that because of the existence of valid and effective insurance policy, the liability 5 Dr.VRKS,J MACMA.No.3562 of 2014 should also be shouldered by the insurance company. It then considered the age of the boy as 11 years and from the evidence of PW.2/doctor and Ex.X1 case sheet and Ex.X2 – X-ray films six in number and Ex.X3 further X-ray films and Ex.A4 disability certificate and Ex.A3 wound certificate, it held that the injured boy was suffering from permanent disability of 40% and took the notional income of the boy at Rs.15,000/- per year and granted Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of earning power. It thus considered the material on record and granted compensation as mentioned below. Amount in Rs. 1. Towards transportation charges 2,000 2. Towards extra nourishment 3,000 3. Towards pain and suffering 10,000 4. Towards loss of amenities 10,000 5. Towards loss of earning power 1,00,000 6 Dr.VRKS,J MACMA.No.3562 of 2014 Thus, the total compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- was awarded. It passed the award in the following terms: “In the result, the Petition is allowed, partly, with proportionate costs, awarding a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- (Rupees one lakh and twenty five thousand only) towards compensation to the Petitioner together with simple interest @ 7.5% per annum from the dare of this Petition till the date of deposit. The Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to deposit the said amount within 30 days from the date of this Order and on making such deposit, the Petitioner is entitled to withdraw the entire amount. Rest of the claim has been dismissed.” 6. Aggrieved by the meagre compensation, the injured boy preferred this appeal. Learned counsel for appellant argued that claims tribunal failed to grant anything towards medical expenses and granted meagre amounts under various heads and prayed for enhancement of compensation. 7. As against it, learned counsel for respondent No.2/ insurance company contended that the subject matter accident occurred on 03.10.2005 but the claim petition preferred before the claims tribunal very belatedly in the year 2009. It is further argued that the impugned award was passed in the year 2011 and very belatedly this appeal was filed in the year 2014. It is further argued that there are no errors in facts and law calling for any interference in this appeal and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 7 Dr.VRKS,J MACMA.No.3562 of 2014 8. The point that falls for consideration is Whether the impugned award failed to grant ‘just’ compensation in accordance with law and facts? POINT: - 9. Children at their young age suffer accidents of such nature which leave them disable and they require appropriate compensation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dealt with these aspects very elaborately and stated that non-fatal accidents leading to such grievous injuries and disability for minor children, the compensation that has to be awarded should be reasonably sufficient so that it equips the victim to return to the normal life to the maximum possible extent. Requisite compensation has to be granted to the child victims towards pain, shock, frustration, deprivation of ordinary pleasures and enjoyment associated with healthy and mobile limbs. The consideration should also be directed to the stress the family care givers undergo in taking care of the disabled child. The compensation granted should enable the child to acquire something or to develop a lifestyle which would offset to some extent the inconvenience or discomfort arising out of the disability. Courts or tribunals in cases 8 Dr.VRKS,J MACMA.No.3562 of 2014 of compensation to children should not adopt principle of notional income and multiplier method1. 10. In the case at hand, paragraph No.17 and 18 of the impugned award read as below: “17.In support of the evidence of PWs.1 and 3 with regard to the injuries sustained by the Petitioner, P.W.2 was examined. P.W.2 is the Doctor, who examined the Petitioner and issued Wound Certificate. P.W.2 clearly deposed that he found three injuries as mentioned in the wound certificate on the body of the Petitioner. He also deposed that on 3-10-2005 wound debridement was done and external fixator was applied to right tibia. The wound was kept open. After daily dressings the wound became healthy, and skin grafting was done on 26-10-2005. After 10 days skin grafting was taken up and the wound healed completely, and the patient was discharged on 14-11-2005 with external fixator on. He also deposed that again the Petitioner was called back on 1-1-2006 and the fixator was removed, and POP cast was applied and it was removed on 23-2-2006 with an advise to do physiotherapy. The Doctor opined that the Petitioner would have a permanent partial disability of about 40%. So, the testimony of P.W.2 clearly supported the version of P.Ws.1 and 3 about the injuries sustained by the Petitioner in the said accident. 18.Now, it has to be decided as to what amount the petitioner is entitled towards compensation for his injuries. In this petition, the petitioner is claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- towards special and general damages. Under the head of special damages, the Petitioner is claiming Rs.10,000/- towards damages for medical expenses, extra nourishment, transporting expenses and attendant charges. With regard to medical expenses, the Petitioner not filed any medical bills. He filed only case sheet and check x- rays. These documents do not reveal the expenses 1 Kumari Kiran V. Sajjan Singh (2015) 1 SCC 539 9 Dr.VRKS,J MACMA.No.3562 of 2014 incurred by the Petitioner towards medicines. So, I hold that without filing any medical bills the Petitioner cannot claim any compensation under the head of medical expenses. Therefore, the claim under this head of Rs. 10,000/- has been rejected.” As per the record, the appellant was treated at Sai Priya Hospital, Guntur. What was mentioned by the claims tribunal in paragraph No.17 would show that from the date of accident on 03.10.2005, the victim was treated on multiplier occasions till 23.02.2006 and thereafter he was advised for physiotherapy. He was found to have permanent partial disability of 40% as his right knee movements are badly restricted and he is only able to walk on toes of right foot which according to PW.2 would never become normal. Though for several months, the boy was treated and was further advised to take physiotherapy, the claims tribunal refused to grant anything towards medical expenses. It is not the case of anyone that the injured appellant was given treatment without money. Mere non filing of medical bills could not have influenced the thinking of the claims tribunal in this regard. Learned counsel for appellant is very right in contending that at least Rs.25,000/- should be granted towards past medical expenses and future medical expenses. Therefore, towards pas and future medical expenses Rs.25,000/- is granted. When the 10 Dr.VRKS,J MACMA.No.3562 of 2014 child was taken to doctor and was brought back on many and multiple occasions granting Rs.2,000/- by the claims tribunal towards conveyance charges appears to be too meagre and therefore, the same is enhanced to Rs.5,000/- granting an additional amount of Rs.3,000/-. Similarly, towards extra nourishment what was granted was only Rs.3,000/- which is awfully low and therefore an additional amount of Rs.7,000/- shall be granted towards it. Learned claims tribunal granted Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities and Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of earning power. Following the ratio of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India which is mentioned in the earlier paragraphs, this court is to consider both the amounts under the head - loss of amenities for life. In that view of the matter, what was granted by the claims tribunal under this head was Rs.1,10,000/-. Child throughout his life has to walk one foot grounded while the other foot could never be grounded and that makes him to suffer serious stress. Therefore, an additional amount of Rs.20,000/- is found reasonable. Thus, by this appeal, this court grants an additional compensation of Rs.55,000/-. Hence, the point is answered accordingly. 11 Dr.VRKS,J MACMA.No.3562 of 2014 11. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part enhancing the compensation awarded in the impugned award dated 29.06.2011 of the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – Cum – VI Additional District Judge, Guntur in MVOP.No.351 of 2009 from Rs.1,25,000/- to Rs.1,80,000/- with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Respondent No.2/ National Insurance Company Limited is directed to deposit the amount within 30 days before the claims tribunal after giving due credit to amounts, if any, deposited already. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J Date: 07.03.2025 Dvs 12 Dr.VRKS,J MACMA.No.3562 of 2014 THE HON’BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR MACMA No. 3562 of 2014 Date: 07.03.2025 Dvs