APHC011416632016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 203 OF 2025 Between: G.Subhash @ Gone Bose Babu, S/o Siva Kumar, Resident of Ashok Nagar, Guduru village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. ...APPELLANT/PETITIONER Aged about 24 years. AND 1. K V Narasa Raju, S/o. Ramachandra Raju, Owner of the Lorry Regn. No.AP 27 V 6549, Resident of D.No.159, Veerepalli village, Ulavapadu Mandal, Prakasam District. 2. National Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Gandhi Nagar, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1973, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated: 13/11/2015 in MVOP No.237/2014 on the file of the court of the Motor Accidents Gudur, SPSR Nellore District. Claims Tribunal This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and material in the Suit and upon hearing arguments of SRI D.KODANDARAMI REDDY Advocate for the Appellant and SRI S.A.V.RATNAM, Respondent. papers Advocate for This court doth order and decree as follows: 1. That the Appeal be and is hereby Allowed in part. 2. The the Compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.8 to be and is hereby enhanced interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of realization. 54,750/- to Rs. 15,65,943/- payable with petition till 3. That the 2'''^ respondent-insurance directed to deposit the enhanced company be and is hereby compensation, after deducting the amount, if any, already deposited within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 4. That on such deposit being made entitled to withdraw the same. 5. That there shall be the appellant be and is hereby no order as to costs in this Appeal. SDI- KJ.RAJA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gudur, SPSR Nellore District, (with records if any) 2. Two C.D Copies. TAC 4 m HIGH COURT DATED:24/07/2025 DECREE MACMA NO. 203 OF 2025 MA.CMA IS ALLOWED IN PART APHC011416632016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANFOI IS appcai nq: 203 OF 2025 Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1973, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated: 13/11/2015 in MVOP No.237/2014 on the file of the court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gudur, SPSR Nellore District. Between: G.Subhash @ Gone Bose Babu, S/o Siva Kumar, Resident of Ashok Nagar, Guduru village and Mandal Aged about 24 years. SPSR Nellore District. ...APPELLANT/PETITIONER AND 1. K V Narasa Raju, S/o. Ramachandra Raju, Owner of the Lorry Regn. NO.AP 27 V 6549, Resident of D. No. 159, Veerepalli village, Ulavapadu Mandal, Prakasam District. 2. National Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Gandhi Nagar, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS / / I 1 Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI D. KODANDARAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents : SRI S.A.V. RATNAM The Court made the following JUDGMENT : i ! ■ 1 APHC011416632016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENTS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.203 of 2025 Between: 1.G.SUBHASH @ GONE BOSE BABU, S/0 SIVA KUMAR. AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS. RESIDENT OF ASHOK NAGAR, GUDURU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND I.K.V. NARASA RAJU, S/0 RAMACHANDRA RAJU, OWNER OF LORRY REGN. NO.AP 27 V 6549, RESIDENT OF D.NO. 159, VEEREPALLI VILLAGE, ULAVAPADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 2.NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, GANDHI NAGAR, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant: I.D. KODANDARAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): I.S.A.V. RATNAM The Court made the following: 2 CGRJ M.A.C.M.A.No.203 of2025 JUDGMENT: The present civil miscellaneous appeal arises out of the order dated 13.11.2015 passed in M.V.O.P.No.237 of 2014 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gudur, whereby compensation of Rs.8,54,750/- was awarded to the claimant, along with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit, as against the claim of Rs. 18,00,000/-, for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident. 2. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded the claimant preferred the present appeal. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: (i) This is a case arising out of a motor accident, which resulted in injuries to appellant/claimant. The appellant/claima nt, while proceeding on a motorcycle along with one Mr. P. Ramesh, met with an accident on account of lorry bearing registration No.AP-27-V- 6549 hitting the motorcycle from behind. Resultantly, the appellant, who was pillion rider, fell down and the right wheel of lorry ran over his right leg, causing severe injuries to him. He was admitted to hospital and underwent treatment as in-patient from 21.01.2007 to 05.04.2007. After conducting various surgeries, his right leg came to be dysfunctional. He was stated to have spent Rs.9,00,000/- towards medical expenses and continued to incur expenses for further \ >• 3 CGRJ M.A.C.M.A.No.203 of2025 treatment. He was stated to be aged 21 years when the incident occurred and was preparing for EAMCET examination, having completed Intermediate. He was also stated to be giving tuitions to students of 7'*^ to 10*'^ classes and earning Rs.2,500/- per month. Based on the same, a claim for grant of compensation of Rs. 18,00,000/- with interest, was laid. The 1®‘ respondent-owner of lorry remained ex parte and 2'^'^ respondent-insurance Company filed counter before the Tribunal, contesting the claim. (ii) (iii) Claimant got himself examined as P.W.1, besides examining P.Ws.2 and 3, who were the doctors treated him, and nd marked Exs.AI to A4. None were examined on behalf of 2 respondent-insurance Company, however, Ex.BI-Insurance policy was marked. (iv) Based on the pleadings and evidence adduced, both oral and documentary, the Tribunal has framed the following issues: Whether the pleaded accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.AP-27-V-6549 by its driver and whether it resulted injuries to the petitioner? 2. Whether the driver of the motorcycle bearing NO.AP-26-J-324 and its insurance company are proper and necessary parties to the proceedings? V 4 4/ CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.203 of2025 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? 4. To what relief? (V) Insofar as first issue is concerned, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the lorry, resulting in severe injuries to the claimant. In view of the said finding, the second issue was answered holding that the driver and insurer of the motor cycle on which the appellant was travelling as pillion rider were not proper and necessary parties to the claim petition. Finally, the third and fourth issues regarding the quantum of compensation were decided, by granting an amount of Rs.4,53,743/- towards medical expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards transport expenses Rs.10,000/- towards special diet and attendant charges, Rs.70,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of earnings for four months and Rs.3,06,000/- towards loss of future earnings on account of disfiguration and permanent disability. Thus, a total compensation of Rs.8,54,743/-, which was rounded off to Rs.8,54,750/- was awarded along with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. While computing loss of earnings, the Tribunal has considered the income of appellant/claimant as Rs.2,500/- per \ 5 CGRJ M.A.C.M.A.No.203 of2025 month, assessed functional disability as 60% and applied multiplier of ‘17’. (vi) Assailing the said order to the compensation as claimed by appellant/claimant, is filed. extent of not granting the present appeal 4. Heard Sri V. Lakshmi Harish, learned D. Kodanda Rami Reddy, learned S.A.V. Ratnam, learned Company. counsel representing Sri counsel for appellant, and Smt. nd counsel for 2 respondent-insurance 5. Learned counsel for appellant raised following contentions: a) The Tribunal has not considered while assessing loss of disability. The income of the appellant has been assessed Rs.2,500/- per month on notional basis, rather the Tribunal ought to have considered the income as at least Rs.9,000/- per month, taking into account that the appellant was preparing for EAMCET examination and had brighter future prospects and was also earning by teaching students of 7 grant of future prospects earnings, on account of permanent b) as th / to 10 classes. The Tribunal failed to apply proper multiplier i c) i.e., 18. \ \ 6 *3 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.203 of 2025 The Tribunal erred in not granting compensation under the d) head ‘loss of enjoyment of life and marriage prospects’. Attendant charges, as awarded at the rate of Rs.10,000/-, e) are meager, rather the Tribunal ought to have granted higher amount, having regard to the nature of permanent disability and need to have an attendant in future as well. He has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in V. Mekala v. M. Malathi\ Per contra, learned counsel for 2'^ respondent-insurance 6. Company tried to justify the impugned order, contending that the Tribunal has determined the compensation on proper appreciation of pleadings and evidence on record and that having regard to the assessed disability of 60%, loss of future earnings was rightly determined. She further contended that though the appellant claimed to have passed Intermediate and vyas preparing for EAMCET examination, no piece of evidence has been placed on record to prove his educational qualification, besides the factum of preparing for EAMCET examination and earning Rs. 2,500/- per month by way of tuitions, and hence, the fixation of income of the appellant on notional basis at Rs.2,500/- per month was justified. However, insofar as failure to award future prospects and error in application of (2014)11 see 178 7 C6R,J M.A.C.M.A.No.203 of2025 multiplier are concerned, she did not refute the submissions of learned counsel for appellant. Regarding the attendant charges, she contended that the Tribunal had already considered the nature of injuries and treatment availed, while awarding the attendant charges at Rs.10,000/-, which is well-founded and does not deserve any further enhancement. Finally, insofar as compensation towards loss of marriage prospects is concerned, she contended that as the Tribunal has not considered granting any amount under the said head, a reasonable sum may be awarded. Perused the record and considered rival submissions of both 7. counsels. The present appeal is preferred by claimant, seeking 8. enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The Insurance Company has not preferred any appeal against the impugned order. The Tribunal, based on Wound Certificate (Ex.A3) and evidence of doctors who treated the claimant i.e., P.Ws.2 and 3, came to conclusion that the claimant suffered severe injuries to right leg. The injuries found are -1) traumatic intestinal evisceration, 2) contusion of right lobe of liver, 3) right renal pelvis tear, 4) degloving injury on right thigh and right leg, 5) traumatic dislocation of right knee, 6) fracture of pelvis, 7) multiple fractures of ribs on right side, 8) \ fracture of right foot bones and 9) hypothalamic shock. Taking into 8 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.203 of2025 % consideration the said injuries, the Tribunal has assessed that the right lower limb of the claimant suffers permanent disability of 60%. This finding of Tribunal is not contested or in challenge. It is the contention of the learned counsel for appellant that the income of the appellant assessed at Rs.2,500/- per month is meager and it ought to have been assessed at Rs.9,000/- per month. In order to consider the same, the educational qualifications of the appellant and his future prospects have to be taken into consideration. According to the appellant, he was aged 21 years at the time of incident and having passed Intermediate, was preparing for EAMCET examination and also earning Rs.2,500/- per month, by giving tuitions to students of to 10*^ classes. However, neither 10*^ or 12^^ Board certificates have been produced nor any evidence has been let in to remotely suggest that the appellant was preparing for EAMCET examination or teaching students and earning Rs.2,500/- per month. Since no evidence has been produced regarding his educational qualifications or his actual monthly earnings at relevant point of time, the Tribunal has proceeded to assess the income of the appellant/ claimant on notional basis, which cannot be found fault with. However, this Court finds that the assessment of the claimant’s notional income at Rs. 2,500/- per month is slightly on lower side even minimum wages applicable at relevant point of time would be 9. as 9 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.203 of2025 more than what the Tribunal has considered. Therefore, it would be just and proper for this Court to take Rs.5,000/- as monthly notional income of the appellant/claimant, for the purpose of computing just and reasonable compensation under the head of ‘loss of earnings on account of permanent disability’. Accordingly, the annual notional income of the appellant/claimant is assessed at Rs.60,000/-. As rightly contended by learned counsel for appellant, the Tribunal has failed to take into consideration future prospects of income. Based on principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of cases, the appellant is entitled for future prospects at the 10. rate of 40%, which would come to Rs.24,000/- (Rs.60,000/- x 40%). Thus, the annual income of appellant together with future prospects at the rate of 40%, would come to Rs.84,000/-. 11. The Tribunal has applied multiplier of ‘17’ instead of ‘18’. It is not in dispute that the appellant was 21 years old at the time of accident. Thus, the relevant multiplier would be ‘18’. Therefore, by applying the said multiplier and taking into account the permanent disability assessed at 60%, the total amount of compensation under the head of ‘loss of earnings on account of permanent disability’ would come to Rs.9,07,200/- (Rs.84,000/- x 18 x 60%). / \ 10 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.203 of2025 12. Further, the Tribunal has granted Rs.10,000/- under the head ‘loss of earnings for four months’, considering the monthly income of the appellant as Rs.2,500/- per month. As the notional monthly income of the appellant is now taken as Rs.5,000/- per month, consequently, the amount under the head ‘loss of earnings for four months’ would come to Rs.20,000/- (Rs.5,000/- x 4). Further, the Tribunal has not considered awarding of any compensation under the head of ‘loss of enjoyment of life and marriage prospects’. The nature of injury and the extent of permanent disability make the appellant entitled to be considered for loss of 13. compensation under the aforesaid head. Admittedly, the appellant was aged 21 years at the time of accident and was otherwise hale and healthy. The disability has been assessed at 60% and right leg being a vital supportive part of the body, such impairment clearly constitutes a significant disablement and renders the appellant partially immobile, besides adversely affecting his prospects of marriage, in view of the same, this Court finds it just and reasonable to award a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under the aforesaid head. 14. Lastly, coming to attendant charges, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- under the head ‘special diet and attendant charges’. Learned counsel for appellant contends that attendant charges \ 11 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.203 of2025 assessed are meager. However, no material has been placed record nor any evidence has been let in to suggest as to whether the on appellant was in need of any attendant during post-treatment period. The Tribunal, taking into the need and necessity of having an attendant during the period of treatment, awarded Rs. 10,000/- under the aforesaid head. In the absence of any other evidence on record, this Court finds that any additional compensation towards attendant charges is unsubstantiated. Accordingly, the said claim stands rejected. 15. In view of the above discussion, the compensation to which the appellant/ claimant would be entitled under various heads is revised as under: Amount Entitled (in rupees) S.No. Description of the Head 1 Medical Expenses Rs.4,53,743/- Transport Expenses Rs.5,000/- 2 Special Diet and Attendant charges 3 Rs.l 0,000/- Compensation for pain and suffering 4 Rs.70,000/- 5 Loss of earnings for four months Rs.20,000/- \ .< ; M.A.C.M.A.No.203 of2025 Rs.9,07,200/- loss of account of Compensation for earnings on disfiguration and permanent disability 6 Rs.1,00,000/- Loss of enjoyment of life and marriage prospects 7 Rs.15,65,943/- Total Compensation In the result, this civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed in part, by enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.8,54,750/- to Rs.15,65,943/- payable with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The 2 respondent-insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation, after deducting the amount, if any, already deposited, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit being made, the appellant is entitled to withdraw the same. There shall be no order as to costs. 16. nd As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall SOI- K.J.RAJABABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gudur, SPSR Nellore District, (with records if any) 2. One CC to SRI. D KODANDARAMI REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI. S.A.RATNAM, Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer V.R. Section, High Court of Andhra Prasesh, at Amaravathi. 5. Two C.D Copies. HIGH COURT DATED:24/07/2025 JUDGMENT + DECREE MACMA no. 203 OF 2025 t 21SFP 2025 i ^ . Current Seciion ma.cma is allowed in part