IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI MONDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1881 OF 2016 Appeal is filed under Section 173 of M.V Act, against the judgment and decree dated 03.01.2012 passed in MOP NO.887 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vizianagaram, The Special Judge for Trial of Cases Under the SCs & STs [POA] Act-cum-Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram. Between: Galagatia Mutyalu, S/o Appala Swamy @ Tavitayya, aged about 37 years, R/o Parasurampuram Village, Komarada Mandal, Viziaznagaram District. ...Appellant/Petitioner AND 1. Dasari Tirupathi Rao, S/o late Appalaswamy, Driver of APSRTC Hire Bus Bearing No. AP 35 U 9068 R/o Balaji Nagar, Vizianagaram. 2. S.K. Murthy Raju, S/o Late Ranga Raju, Owner of APSRTC, Hire Bus Bearing No. AP 35 U 9068 R/o Balaji Nagar, Vizianagaram Respondent No.1 and 2 dismissed as per the Court Order dated 20/02/2024 3. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Visakhapatnam ) .■ s 4. APSRTC, Rep. by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad • ^4 } ...Respondents/ Respondents V i Counsel for the Appellant: Sri. G Sai Narayana Rao Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : Sri Kota Subba Rao Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada( Standing Counsel for APSRTC) The Court made the following: JUDGMENT \ THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA * SARMA jVI.A.C.M.A. No.1881 of 2niR % 03.02.2025 # Galagatia Mutyalu S/o Appala Swamy Tavitayya, R/o Parasurampuram Village Komarada Mandal, Viziaznagaram District. Petitioner Versus $ Dasari Tirupathi Rao S/o late Appalaswamy, Driver of APSRTC Hire Bus Bearing R/o Balaji Nagar, Vizianagaram & 3 Others ! Counsel for the Petitioner ! Counsel for the Respondents : No AP 35 U 9068 Respondents Sri G SAI NARAYANA RAO VINOD KUMAR TARLADA (SC FOR APSRTC) KOTA SUBBA RAO ARUN KUMAR LATHKER < Gist; > Head Note: ? Cases referred; 2011 (8) see 142 2021(6) AWC 5583=2021 (O)Supreme (SC) 891 2025 AIAR (Civil) 1 2020(04) see 413 2010 (10) sec 341 2007 (14) see 61 1992(2) see 567 2011(1) see 343 2013 (4) ALT 747 2023 (3) sec 439 1995 (a) see 551; 2009(6) see 121 * THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA M.A.C.M.A. No.1881 of 2016 # Galagatia Mutyalu S/o Appala Swamy Tavitayya R/o Parasurampuram Village Koomarada Mandal, Viziaznagaram District. Petitioner Versus $ Dasari Tirupathi Rao S/o late Appalaswamy Driver of APSRTC Hire Bus Bearing No AP 35 U 9068 R/o Balaji Nagar Vizianagaram 3 OTHERS DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED: 03.02.2025 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL: Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the Order? Whether the copies of Order may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order Yes/No 2. Yes/No 3. 7 Yes/No --V 1 ^ THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA M.A.C.M.A. No.1881 of 2016 JUDGMENT: Heard learned counsel for contesting Parties. The claimant in M.V.O.P.No.887 of 2010 on the file of the Chairman, 2. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [‘Tribunal’ for short] -cum- Additional District Judge, Vizianagram, i.e., Galagatia Mutyalu is the appellant before this Court in this M.A.C.M.A.No.1881 of 2016. The appellant is questioning just and adequate nature of compensation 3. awarded by the learned Tribunal in a sum of Rs.65,000/- as against his claim made for Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 15.04.2010. The parties will be hereinafter referred as how they are arrayed before 4. the learned Tribunal. 5. Case of claimant: The case of the claimant, in brief, driving him to file the claim petition in terms of Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988, in brief, is that on the date of accident while the petitioner and two others taking their cattle from Shandy, Parvathipuram towards Navagram village to his resident, at about 2 « 19.30 hours, when they were near Nadukuru village, APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 35 U 9068 owned by the 2 represented by respondent No.4, driven by the 1®* respondent insured, with the respondent No.3 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the petitioner, whereby the accident occurred. The petitioner/claima nt received bleeding injuries on the right eye, forehead, chin, teeth are broken and he has received multiple injuries including some the grievous in nature. nd respondent hired with APSRTC, 5(2). He was shifted to Area Hospital, Palakonda in 108 ambulance, got first aid treatment. Later shifted to RIMS hospital, Srikakulam and undergone treatment. He was hale and healthy working as labourer, earning of Rs.50/- per day prior to accident, but due to the accident, he suffered disability, apart from suffering mental agony, expenses for treatment etc.,. Hence, he is entitled for just and reasonable compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. 6. Respondents 1 and 2 are the driver and owner of the offending vehicle respectively, remained ex parte. 7. Respondents 3 and 4 contested the case, throwing liability on each \ other. Apart from disputing the accident, negligence, nature and effect of injuries, the quantum of compensation claimed by the petitioner and denying their liability in toto, putting the petitioner to strict proof of each and every fact asserted by him. 3 Learned Tribunal formulated issues treating the truth or otherwise of accident, negligence, nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner, negligence of the driver of the bus, entitlement of the petitioner for compensation and liability of the respondents. 8. 9. Issues settled by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal are:- 1) Whether the accident occurred resulting in injuries to the petitioner due to rash and negligent driving of the motor vehicle (APSRTC hired bus) bearing registration No.AP 35 U 9068 by it’s driver? Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation and if so 2) at what quantum and from which of the respondents? 3) To what relief? 10. Evidence: The petitioner got examined himself as PW.1, reiterated the assertions made in the petition as to nature and manner of accident and its effect. hospitalization of the petitioner, treatment undergone disability etc.,. 11. The appellant has relied on crime record vide Ex.AI/copy of F.I.R. Ex.A2/ wound certificate, A3/Motor Vehicle Inspector’s Report and Ex.A4/Charge sheet laid against the driver, Ex.A5/bunch of medical bills, Ed.A6/disability Certificate, Ex.A7 and A8/X-rays, Ex.A9/Accident Register/M.LC and evidence of PW.2, Doctor, who attended the petitioner. p 4 Respondent No.3 Insurance Company relied on Ex.B1/ Policy, no other oral or documentary evidence is adduced for the respondents. 12. 13. Findings of the leaned Tribunal: Relying on the evidence of PW.1/ petitioner, PW.2/Doctor, occurrence of the accident, negligence of the driver of offending vehicle, the petitioner sustaining injuries in the accident are believed by the learned Tribunal. With regard to the quantum of compensation learned Tribunal found that the medical bills are standing for Rs.815/- alone. Pleaded disability @30% is not stated by the medical Board. Transportation to hospital and extra nourishment etc., are not supported by any paper evidence. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for Rs. 10,000/- towards transportation medicines, etc.. nourishment, Rs. 10,000/- towards pain suffering and loss of income Rs.5000/- during the period of rest and Rs.40,000/- towards the other heads like amenities, loss, longevity of life, enjoyment of life and other prospectus of life etc. and award a compensation of Rs.65,000/- in all. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, the injured claimant is before this Court, in this appeal. 5 Contentions raised in this appeal:- 14. The Tribunal ought to have considered the disability, basing, on Disability Certificate and evidence of PW.2 as to the nature and effect of injuries and should have awarded just and reasonable compensation by taking note of practical aspects into consideration. The compensation awarded is very meager. Income of Rs.150/- claimed and disability pleaded is not at all considered by the learned Tribunal and the quantum of compensation awarded is neither rational nor justified. Per contra, on behalf of the APSRTC, it is contended that the RTC is 15. not liable to pay any compensation, though the bus is hired by APSRTC and legal position in that regard is settled as to liability of Insurance Company to pay the compensation. On behalf of the Insurance Company, it is submitted that imposing of liability on the insurance company alone is not correct and quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is adequate and that no interference is warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case, and that, appeal is fit 16. to be dismissed. 17. Perused the record. Thoughtful consideration is given to the arguments advanced. 18. 6 19. Points that arose for determination in this appeal, in the context of the case and rival contentions, are 1) Whether the compensation of Rs.65,000/- a\A/arded by the learned M.A.C.T, in M.V.O.P.887 of 2010 under award dated 03.01.2012 is just and reasonable or Whether the petitioner/appellant is entitled for more compensation? If so, to what quantum and what shall be the liability of the respondents? 2) What is the result of this appeal? Point No.1:- 20. Accident and neqliqence:- The petitioner is an eye witness to the accident. His oral evidence coupled with the crime and medical record, is sufficient to believe the occurrence of accident and negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. Ex-B1/ insurance policy, issued by Respondent No.3 is not in dispute. Precedential quidance:- 21. Legal position as to liability of the Insurance Company, to pay compensation in respect of vehicle hired for a Corporation, is settled vide 1 Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation V. Kulsum and Ors. ' 2011 (8) SCC142 •mr‘, 7 and Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. And Others^ 22. 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.^, 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 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.'^, 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 Future Treatment xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx 4. 5. Attendant Charges Loss of Amenities of Life Loss of Future Prospect Special Education Expenditure Conveyance and Special Diet Loss of Marriage Prospects 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Total Rs. ...xxxxxx ^ 2021(6) AWC 5583=2021 (O)Supreme (SC) 891 ^ 2025 AIAR (Civil) 1 *2020(04) see 413 8 23. Parameters for quantifying the compensation under various heads addressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, is found necessary, to have standards base in the process of quantifying the compensation, to which the claimant is entitled. 24. Hon’ble Apex Court in Yadava Kumar Vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited and Anr.,^ vide para Nos. 10, by referring to Sunil Kumar Vs. Ram Singh Gaud^, 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 Corporation^, 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 ^2010(10) see 341 ®2007 (14)see 61 ' 1992(2) see 567 9 there cannot be any rigid or mathematical precision in the matter of determination of compensation." In Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another^ vide para 19, the Apex Court summarized principles to be followed in the process of quantifying the 25. compensation are addressed after referring to socio economic and practical aspects from which, the claimants can claim 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., it is observed that ‘We may now summarise the principles discussed above (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 percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as 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 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. 2011 (1) see 343 h 10 (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...” In V. Naga Raju V. Yesumudi Ramana Rao and Another® where under the single Judge of this Court referred to the unfortunate situation of the claimants, failure to obtaining disability certificates etc., and duty of the Doctors and hospitals to get disability assessed with the Medical Board and at a later stages the duties of the Advocate, at the time of filing claim petitions advising the parties to have certificates from the medical boards etc. . 26. 27. In Sidram Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr.^° vide para 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 (cited 9 supra), and also various heads under which compensation can be awarded, victim of a motor vehicle accident. 28. In Sidram’s case, it is also observed by referring to a case in R.D. 11 Hattangadi V. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd. that while fixing amount of compensation in cases of accident, it involves some guess work, some ® 2013 (4) ALT 747 2023 (3) see 439 1995 (a) see 551 10 11 11 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. 29. Now it is necessary to examine the evidence and its sufficiency to award compensation under various heads referred in the judgments mentioned above. Analysis of Evidence and Material: 30. Oral evidence, which is relevant for awarding compensation:- (i) The petitioner has stated about his age and occupation that he [a] was 36years, and that he was a labourer, earning Rs.150/- per day. He suffered injuries disability and unable to work. During cross-examination, nothing elicited as to disbelieve about [b; he sustaining injuries, except suggesting that the injuries are simple and totally healed and that income of the petitioner @150/- per day is incorrect. Doctor, PW.2 stated that the petitioner was aged 38 by the time [c] he treated, X-ray was taken, there is loss of teeth, fracture of right mandible. disability is around 30%, due to loss of teeth contributed inability to speak and 12 social moving becomes restricted, apart from losing biting capacity. The petitioner cannot bite as how he could do earlier. Except suggesting that medical board is fit to issue disability and that PW.2 is not competent to assess and state about disability, and the evidence of PW.2 is aimed to help the petitioner and not according to the norms and protocol of medical board, nothing more is elicited. (ii) Documentary Evidence: Medical Bills are standing for Rs.815/- vide Ex.A5. Disability Certificate is referring to 30% spoken by the PW.2 [it is not issued by the Medical Board]. Wound Certificate/Ex.A2, which is not in dispute is reflecting (06) injuries. (iii) Learned Tribunal did not decide income aspect specifically and confined to awarding compensation under the heads of Transportation, pain and suffering, for loss of enjoyment amenities, prospects of life and awarded a lumpsum amount notionally. (iv) Although calculation with mathematical and scientific precision in exact terms is not possible, in the light of the evidence, considering the age of the claimant and evidence of Doctor/PW.2 petitioner/appellant, who issued the wound certificate as to injures and who treated the 13 disability and who has also issued the Disability Certificate, the following aspects can be relied for the purpose of quantifying the compensation: (a) Injuries mentioned in wound certificate viz., Ex.A2:- 1) Loss of teeth 2) fracture of right mandible 3) The claimant is suffering los of speech and unable to speak properly, partial esthetic and socio moving loss of biting capacity, disability is @30%. (b) PW.2 is not member of medical board. (c) Disability Certificate is not issued by the medical Board. (d) PW.2 is the Doctor, who treated and issued disability certificate. (V) The disability of loss of teeth biting capacity cannot be considered as total functional disability for labour work. However, in view of loss of biting capacity and contributing for loss of social moving, in view of losing teeth, etc., and disability contributing for financial loss can be taken @10% as against 30% disability at facial part as stated by PW.2 31. The income of claimant can be taken @100/- per day, considering the socio economic conditions and his age by the date of accident. Progress in the income, can be taken @30%, whereby the monthly income can be taken 14 at Rs.3900/-, 10% of the same comes to Rs.390/- and Rs.4680/- per the year. Multiplier that can be adopted for the age of the petitioner is 15 as per Sarla . Therefore, under the head of loss of income due to disability can be fixed [4680 x 15] @70,200/-. 12 Verma’s case 32. Upon considering the evidence of PWs.1, 2 as to treatment undergone, follow up treatment, x-rays taken, fracture of mandible under the heads of medical expenditure, loss of income during the period of rest around two months and under the head of pain and suffering, attendant charges, loss of amenities, conveyance charges and special diet etc., reasonable amount of compensation can be awarded to the petitioner. Just Compensation that can be awarded under various heads in the above factual scenario is found as follows: S. No. 33. Head Pain and suffering Medicines expenses Attendant charges etc... Loss of amenities etc.. Conveyance and special diet Loss of income during the rest etc.. Amount (In ?) Rs. 15,000/- Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/- Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 10,000/- 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) Loss of income due to disability [Rs,4,800/-X 15] Rs.70,200/- Rs.1,35.200/- Total 2009 (6) see 121 15 In the light of the discussion made above, entitlement of the claimant for compensation is found @ Rs.1,35,200/-, which this Court finds as just and reasonable, and that the liability fixed by the learned Tribunal on the respondent No.3 alone holds good. Further, the interest awarded by the learned Tribunal and the compensation awarded from the date of petition is also enhanced to 9% from 7.5% on the compensation amount, while maintaining the costs etc., awarded by the learned Tribunal, answered accordingly. Point No.2:- Point No.1 is 34. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part, the compensation amount of Rs.65,000/- awarded by the Tribunal in M.V.O.P.No.887 of 2010, is enhanced to Rs.1,35,200/- with interest @9% instead of 7.5% awarded by the learned Tribunal while maintaining costs awarded as it is. Claimant/appellant is permitted to withdraw the amount at once on deposit. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeal shall stand closed. Sd/- B CHITTI JOSEPH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR owrfo //TRUE COPY// SE OFFICER One fair copy to the Hon’ble Sri Justice A.HARI HARANADHA SARMA (for His Lordships’ kind perusal) 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vizianagaram, The Special Judge for Trial of Cases under the SCs & STs [POA] Act- cum-Addl. district & Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram district (with records if any) 2. One CC to Sri. G Sai Narayana Rao Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri. Kota Subba Rao Advocate [OPUC] To, 4. One CC to Sri. Vinod Kumar Tarlada( Standing Counsel for APSRTC) Advocate [OPUC] 1 5. Nine(09) L.R copies 6. The Under Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi 7. The Secretary, Andhra Pradesh High Court Advocates Association Library, High Court Buildings at Amaravathi 8. The Section Officer, V.R Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi 9. Three CD Copies Stu vna fs 'f HIGH COURT DATED: 03/02/2025 JUDGMENT + DECREE MACMA.No.1881 of 2016 5 17 FEB 2C2j S', ^ . Current Section PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA \ IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI MONDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1881 OF 2016 Between: Galagatia Mutyalu, S/o Appala Swamy @ Tavitayya, aged about 37 years R/o Parasurampuram Village, Komarada Mandal, Viziaznagaram District. ...Appellant/Petitioner AND 1. Dasari Tirupathi Rao, S/o late Appalaswamy, Driver of APSRTC Hire Bus Bearing No. AP 35 U 9068 R/o Balaji Nagar, Vizianagaram. 2. S.K. Murthy Raju, S/o Late Ranga Raju, Owner of APSRTC, Hire Bus Bearing No. AP 35 U 9068 R/o Balaji Nagar, Vizianagaram Respondent No.1 and 2 dismissed as per the Court Order dated 20/02/2024 3. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Visakhapatnam 4. APSRTC, Rep. by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad ...Respondents/ Respondents Appeal is filed under Section 173 of M.V Act, against the judgment and decree dated 03.01.2012 passed in MOP NO.887 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vizianagaram, The Special Judge for Trial of Cases Under the SCs & STs [POA] Act-cum-Addl. district & Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and material papers in the Suit and upon hearing arguments of Sri. G Sai Narayana Rao, Advocate for the Appellant and Sri Kota Subba Rao, Advocate for Respondent No.3 and of Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada( Standing Counsel for APSRTC), Advocate for Respondent No.4 This Court doth Order and decree as follows: 1. That the appeal be and the same is hereby allowed in part; 2. That the compensation amount of Rs.65,000/- awarded by the Tribunal in M.V.O.P.No.887 of 2010 is hereby enhanced to Rs.1,35,200/- with interest @9% instead of 7.5% awarded by the Tribunal while maintaining costs awarded as it is and 3. That the Claimant/appellant is hereby permitted to withdraw the amount at once on deposit. Sd/- B CHITTI JOSEPH ASSISTANT REGISJ^AR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vizianagaram, The Special Judge for Trial of Cases under the SCs & STs [POA] Act- cum-Addl. district & Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram district 2. Three CD copies vna iHIGH COURT DATED: 03/02/2025 DECREE MACMA.No.1881 of 2016 o g 17 FEB 2C2j ^ . Current Section p at PARTLY ALLOWING THE MAGMA