1 APHC010765922016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3520] FRIDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1028/2016 Between: 1. Althi Bhaskara Rao, Vizianagaram, S/O Suryanarayana Jeep Driver R/O Jammu Narayanapuram Village Vizianagram Mandal & District ...APPELLANT AND 1. B Raju, Vizianagaram District, s/o Appalaswamy driver of lorry bearing no. Ap 30 u 5237 s.r. Colony, ramabhadrapuram village & mandal vizianagaram district 2. The toshali cements private ltd, rep by its v.s.c. Bose pwner of lorry s.no. 15/176, cheepurupalli road rajam, srikakulam district 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, REP BY ITS DIVISIONA MANAGER VISAKHAPATNAM ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant: 1. G V S MEHAR KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. G VISHWESHWAR REDDY 2. S A V RATNAM The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1028/2016 The Court made the following Order: 1. Heard both sides. 2. This is an appeal directed against out of the orders dated 31.12.2009 passed in O.P.No.690 of 2008 by the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal – cum – I Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram [for short ‘learned MACT’]. The claimant feeling dissatisfied by the compensation awarded at Rs.1,10,500/- as against claim made for Rs.2,50,000/- filed the present appeal. 3. Since there is no appeal by any of the respondents including the respondent No.3/Insurance Company, who contested the matter. Just and adequate nature of quantum of compensation, to which the claimant is entitled, alone is the point requires consideration and determination in this appeal in light of the submissions made by both sides. 4. [i] The case of petitioner in brief is that, on 19.04.2008, while travelling in a jeep bearing No.AP 30 U 2470 near milk Dairy of Venkata Raju in Matcherlavalasa village, the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP30 U 5237 [hereinafter referred as ‘the offending vehicle], came from Arikathota towards Ramabadhrapuram side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the jeep, whereby two passengers died and the petitioners sustained injuries. A case in 3 Cr.No.36 of 2008 was registered by police of Ramabhadrapuram and the driver of crime vehicle was charge-sheeted. [ii] The petitioner/appellant was aged 27 years, earning Rs.200/- per day by the date of the accident. He was treated for a period of three months in the hospital. He suffered severe pain and mental agony and also disability at 25% which is reflected in Ex.A7. P.W2 a doctor and a member of the District Medical Board, Vizianagaram assessed the disability at 25%. Since disability is a partial and permanent, the petitioner is unable to attend the work as he was attending earlier. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to just and reasonable compensation. 5. The contention of the respondent is that the compensation claimed is excessive, and the income of Rs.200 per day, cannot be accepted when social economic circumstances of the year 2008 are considered. 6. The learned MACT, after considering the evidence on record, covered by the wound certificate (Ex.A2), a bunch of medical bills totaling to Rs.20,000/- and odd (Ex.A3), O.P. chit (Ex.A4), medical report (Ex.A5), disability certificate issued by the District Medical Board, Vizianagaram (Ex.A7), and the X-ray report (Ex.A8) etc., awarded the compensation in a sum of Rs.3,000/- for shock, Rs.15,000/- for grievous injuries. Rs.3,000/- for simple injuries, Rs.67,500/- towards permanent disability taking income 4 15,000/- per annum and 22,000/- towards medical expenses. Total compensation awarded is Rs.1,10,500/-. 7. There is no dispute that the petitioner was the driver by profession. Nature of the disability is categorically addressed by the learned MACT. The substantial controversy is as to what is the income of claimant that can be accepted in a context of the case. 8. Taking income at Rs.100/- per day and Rs.3,000/- per month appears to be a reasonable for calculating the loss of income under the head of permanent disability for which there is no serious objection from the respondent Insurance Company also. Upon taking note of socio economic condition of the year 2008 and the back ground of claimant. Therefore, the income of the petitioner/claimant is taken of Rs.3,000/- per month notionally, in the context of the case whereby the annual income comes to Rs.36,000/-. Disability is 25%, whereby the loss of income comes to 9,000/- per annum. For the age group of petitioner ‘27’, the multiplier applicable is ‘17’. Hence, the same is applied. Then the loss of income can be arrived at Rs.1,53,000/- under the head of permanent disability [9,000/- X 17 = 1,53,000/-]. In respect of the other heads, the compensation awarded by the learned MACT found reasonable and no interference is found necessary. 9. In the light of the evidence on record, entitlement of claimant for compensation is found as follows: 5 S.No. Head Amount of Claim 1 Pain and Suffering 18,000/- 2 Shock 3,000/- 3 Permanent disability 1,53,000/- 4 Medical expenditure 22,000/- 5 Transportation 4,000/- Total 2,00,000/- 10. In the result, the MACMA filed by the claimants is allowed, as follows: [i] Compensation awarded by the learned MACT at Rs.1,10,500/- is enhanced to Rs.2,00,000/- with interest @7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. [ii] The 3rd respondent-Insurance Company shall deposit the balance amount of compensation within a period of two (2) months. [iii] Upon deposit, the claimant shall be entitled to withdraw the amount at once. [iv] There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending and the Interim order granted earlier, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________ A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J 18.07.2025 KKV 6 270 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1028/2016 18.07.2025 KKV