^ . FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.111 of 2019 Between: Talapalli Ramakrishna Thallapalli Rama Krishnaiah, S/o.T.Ramadasu, aged about 43 years, Hindu, Previously working as Hamali, Presently dependent, R/o.D.No.3/136, Baduguvaripalli Village, Bondalakunta Post, Muddanur Mandal, Kadapa District, presently resident at Balaji Nagar, near S.V.Degree college, Kadapa City and District. ...Appellant/Claimant AND 1. V Raj Cement Carrier LLP of Mithesk K.Babaria, owner of the Lorry Bearing No. AP04 TW 4124, R/o. Jammalamadugu Town and Mandal, Kadapa District. 2. The National Insurance Company Limited, rep its Branch Manager, Branch Office, Near Opp. RTC Bus Stand Out Gate, Railway Station Road, Kadapa Town and District. 3. Arava Isaq, S/o. Jacob, aged about 44 years, Christian, Driver of the Lorry Bearing No.AP04 TW4124, R/o. D.No.2/162, Bestavemula Village, Mylavaram Mandal, Kadapa District. ...Respondents/ Respondents Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, against the Decree and Order dated 09-10-2018 passed in MVOP No.84/2017 on the file ■ 4 , of the .Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Family Court-cum-VI Additional District judge, Kadapa, Kadapa District. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of Petition, the Order and Decree of the Trial Court and the the Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri D Kodanda Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri Kotha Rama Respondent No.2 and none appeared for the Respondent Nos.1 & 3. This Court doth Order and decree as follows: material papers in Rami Reddy, Mohan, Advocate for 1. That the appeal be and is hereby allowed in part; 2. That the order dated 09.10.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.84 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Family Court-cum- VI Additional District Judge’s Court, Kadapa, be and is hereby modified by enhancing the compensation awarded to the appellant/petitione r from Rs.14,79,800/- to Rs.21,14,040/- with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the total compensation from the date of petition till the date of realization’ 3. That there be no order as to costs in this appeal. SD/- SHAIK MOHAMMED RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER Claims Tribunal-cum-Family Court-cum-VI Additional District judge, Kadapa, Kadapa District. 2. Three CD Copies To TK •'f HIGH COURT DATED:02/05/2025 DECREE MACMA.No.111 of 2019 25 m 2025 .X •a ?• , Current Section ^ . ALLOWING THE MACMA IN PART IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE present PRADESH AT AMARAVATI the honourable smt justice V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDFNT CIVIL MISCEL. AN.Pn,.c Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, against the Derr» and Order dated 09-10-2018 passed in MVOP No 84/2017 Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal judge, Kadapa, Kadapa District. No.111 of 2niQ on the file of the -cum-Family Court-cum-VI Additional District Between: S/o T ^ Thallapalli Rama Krishnaiah, aT.Ramadasu, aged about 43 years, Hindu, Previously working Bonda ak r? Baduguvaripalli Village Bondalakunta Post, Muddanur Mandal, Kadapa District ^es, en, at Balaji Nagar, near S.V.Degree college, Kadapa City as presently and -Appellant/Claimant AND 1- V Raj Cement Carrier LLP of Mithesk Bearing No. AP04 TW4124, Kadapa District. I 2. The National Insurance Company Limited Branch Office, Near 0pp. rtc Bus Road, Kadapa Town and District. K.Babaria, owner of the Lorry R/o. Jammalamadugu Town and Mandal, ’ *^®P ils Branch Manager, Stand Out Gate, Railway Station 3. Arava Isaq, S/o. Jacob, aged about 44 years, Christian, Driver of the Lorry Bearing No.AP04 TW 4124, R/o. D.No.2/162, Bestavemula Village, Mylavaram Mandal, Kadapa District. ...Respondents/ Respondents : Sri D Kodanda Rami Reddy : Sri Kotha Rama Mohan Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 3: None Appeared Counsel for the Appellant Counsel for Respondent No.2 The Court made the following: APHC010058652019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V. SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.111 of 2019 Between: ...APPELLANT Talapalli Rama Krishna AND V. Raj Cement Carrier LLP. of Mithesk K. Babaria ...RESPONDENT(S ) and others Counsel for the Appellant: 1.D. KODANDA RAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1.RAMA MOHAN RAO KOTHA The Court made the following: 2 VS,J MACMANo.111 of 2019 JUDGMENT: The present civil miscellaneous appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, arises out of the order and decree dated 09.10.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.84 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Family Court-cum-VI Additional District Judge’s Court, Kadapa. By the said order, the Tribunal has partly allowed the said claim petition, awarding a compensation of Rs.14,79,800/- to the petitioner/claimant, as against the claim of Rs.25,00,000/-, for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that occurred on 09.09.2016. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, the petitioner/claimant has preferred this appeal, seeking enhancement of the compensation. Respondent No.1 is the owner, respondent No.2 is the insurer and respondent No.3 is the driver of the offending vehicle and they were arrayed as respondent Nos.1 to 3 in the claim petition. 2. 3. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 4. The case of the petitioner/claimant, in brief, is as follows: The petitioner was aged 42 years and was hale and healthy on the date of accident. He used to travel daily from his village, Boduguvaripalli, to Muddanur town to work as a Hamali. On as \ 3 VS.J MACMA No.111 of 2019 09.09.2016, he went to Muddanur stand and at about 2.45 an auto to the shops located to attend hamali work at old bus carrying pickle boxes from p.m., while he was Jammalamadugu road, a lorry bearing registration No.AP04 TW 4124 driven by respondent on No.3, came from four-road junction at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, petitioner from behind while he without blowing horn, and dashed the was walking on the left side of the road, down and the lorry As a result, the petitioner fell over the lower part of his left leg, crushing it and causing severe bleeding injuries. The petitioner ran was shifted to and a case in Crime No.95 of 2016 was registered against respondent No.3- Government Hospital, Proddatur, of Muddanur Police Station driver of the offending vehicle. It was further contended that the petitioner was subsequently Shifted to RIMS Hospital, Kadapa, where his left leg was amputated below the knee. The petitioner was treated as an in-patient in the said taken surgeons at Kadapa, incurring medicines transport charges and Rs. 10,000/- hospital from 09.09.2016 to 19. treatment from private orthopaedic 11.2016 and later also, he has Rs.20,000/- Rs. 10,000/- towards towards treatment. and nourishment. towards attendant charges. It was contended that earn Rs.500/- to Rs.600/- prior to the accident, the petitioner used per day, i.e., mpjBlImi-^Rff 15,^ to per 4 VS,J MACMA No.111 of 2019 month, and maintain his family with the said earnings. Due to the amputation, he is unable to stand or work and he became a dependant on his family for daily needs. It was further contended that, although there is no 100% physical disability, he has suffered 100% functional disability, and his quality of life has severely deteriorated due to the injuries sustained in the accident. It was further contended that he requires an artificial limb, which costs around Rs.2,50,000/- and needs to be replaced every four years, resulting in the requirement of at least four such artificial limbs over his lifetime. He, therefore, sought a compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-from respondent Nos.1 to 3. Before the Tribunal, the 1®* respondent-owner and the 3^^ 5. respondent-driver of the offending vehicle remained ex parte. The 2^^ respondent-insurance Company filed a written statement resisting the claim of the petitioner. It was contended that the offending vehicle was not insured with the 2""^ respondent-insurance Company at the time of the accident. It was further contended that the petitioner lost balance and fell down on roadside stones and sustained injuries, but however, managed the police in collusion with respondent No.1 and foisted a false case against respondent No.3, with a view to claim compensation. It was further contended that the place of accident was far away from the road margin, which indicates non-involvement of the offending lorry. It was further contended that in the absence of 6. \ 5 VS,J MACMANo.111 of 2019 sufficient proof regarding the earnings of the petitioner, medical expenses incurred, costs of the artificial limb and the percentage of disability suffered, the petitioner is not entitled to claim compensation. It was further contended that the compensation claimed was excessive and unjustified and, thus, prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 7. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1 Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry bearing No.AP04 TW 4124, resulting in causing injuries to the petitioner Talapalli Ramakrishna @ Thallapalli Ramakrishnaiah ? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? and 3. To what relief? 8. On behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.M to A5 were marked. On behalf of the 2'^'^ respondent-insurance Company, no oral evidence was adduced and Ex.B1-copy of insurance policy was marked. After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and 9. documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and since the offending vehicle was insured with the 2*^^ respondent under Ex.B1-policy and the policy^was in force, the 2 nd 6 VS,J MACMANo.111 of 2019 respondent is liable to indemnify the liability of respondent No.1-owner of the offending vehicle. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal, having considered the oral and documentary evidence, awarded a sum of Rs. 12,34,800/- towards loss of earnings Rs.25,000/- towards ‘pain and sufferance’, Rs.25,000/- towards medical and miscellaneous expenses’, Rs.25,000/- towards ‘loss of Rs. 10,000/- towards ‘attendant and transport charges’. amenities’ Rs.50,000/- towards ‘trauma and agony coupled with social stigma Rs.10,000/- towards ‘extra diet and nourishment’ and Rs.1,00,000/- towards cost of artificial leg. In all, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.14,79,800/- (Fourteen Lakhs Seventy Nine Thousand Eight Hundred only) to the petitioner, payable by respondent Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally, together with proportionate costs and interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit, and directed the 2"^ respondent-insurance Company to deposit the said amount of compensation within two months from the date of order. On deposit of the compensation amount, the petitioner Rs.7,39,900/- was permitted to withdraw half of the amount i.e. together with costs and interest and the remaining amount was directed to be kept in a fixed deposit for a period of two years. 7 VS,J MAGMA No.111 of 2019 Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the petitioner preferred the present civil miscellaneous appeal, seeking enhancement of the compensation. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant contends that as 11. the petitioner sustained grievous injuries in the accident, resulting in the amputation of his left leg below the knee, and he is unable to discharge his regular duties as a hamali, the Tribunal ought to have taken the disability suffered by him as 100%. He further contends that while calculating the monthly income, the Tribunal erred in taking 25 working days in a month, instead of 30 days. He further contends that for fixing an artificial limb, it would cost around Rs.2,50,000/-, but the Tribunal has granted only Rs.1,00,000/- towards cost of artificial leg, which needs to be enhanced. He further contends that the Tribunal failed to consider that the artificial limb fixed to the petitioner requires regular periodical repairs and maintenance. He further contends that meager amounts have been awarded under the other heads of ‘loss of amenities’, ‘trauma and agony coupled with social stigma’, ‘pain and sufferance’ and ‘extra diet and nourishment’ and the same require enhancement. He, therefore, prays to allow the appeal by enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 2 respondent- insurance Company wc^ld contend that the Tribunal has already taken 12. 8 VS,J MACMA No.111 of 2019 a liberal view in granting the compensation and no further He further contends that awarding of future prospects at 40% is not warranted as the petitioner was aged above 40 years as on the date of accident. It is, therefore, prayed to dismiss the appeal. enhancement is warranted. 13. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable, or requires enhancement in this appeal; if so, to what extent?” POINT: 14. There is no dispute with the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and in the absence of any challenge thereto, the said finding, which is well-founded on the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the petitioner, needs no interference. In view of the contentions raised in the present appeal, the only issue that requires consideration is with respect to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 15. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the petitioner has claimed that he was working as a hamali and earning Rs.500/- to Rs.600/- per day prior to the accident, in the absence of any oral and documentary evidence to substantiate the exact warnings of the 9 VS,J MACMA No. 111 of 2019 petitioner, the Tribunal deemed it reasonable to assume that his daily income as a hamali would not be less than Rs.300/- per day, which, in the considered opinion of this Court, is just and proper. However, while calculating the monthly income, the Tribunal took into account only 25 working days in a month and accordingly, assessed the monthly income of the petitioner as Rs.7,500/- (Rs.300 x 25), However, having regard to the petitioner’s avocation as a hamali and as it is always desirable to adopt a liberal and purposive approach in favour of the victim/claimant in matters of granting compensation, this Court finds it just and reasonable to compute the monthly income of the petitioner by taking 30 working days in a month. By calculating so, the monthly income of the petitioner would be Rs.9,000/- (Rs.300/- x 30) and consequently, his annual income would come to Rs.1,08,000/- (Rs.9,000x12). 16. It is a well settled position of law that in cases of permanent disablement caused by a motor accident, the claimant is also entitled to future prospects besides loss of income. The Tribunal has observed that since the petitioner was aged below 50 years, future prospects at 40% can be considered and accordingly, added 40% to the annual income of the petitioner towards loss of future prospects. However, as per the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National 10 VS,J MAGMA No.111 of 2019 Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi^, for those aged between 40-50 years, the appropriate addition for future prospects is 30% in case of persons with permanent employment, and 25% in the case of those who are self-employed or on fixed salary. Considering the fact that the petitioner was aged 42 years at the time of accident and was working as a hamali, this Court is of the opinion that an addition of 30% towards future prospects would be just and reasonable. Thus, the percentage of future prospects awarded by the Tribunal is reduced from 40% to 30%. Consequently, by adding 30% to the actual annual income of Rs.1,08,000/-, the petitioner’s annual income together with future prospects amounts to Rs.1,40,400/- (Rs.1,08,000/- + Rs.32,400/-). So far as the assessment of permanent disability is concerned. 17. the Tribunal has relied upon the evidence of P.W.2-doctor and Ex.A5- Disability Certificate issued by him, and assessed the petitioner’s permanent disability as 70%. It is true that, as per Ex.A5-Disability Certificate, P.W.2 certified that the petitioner had suffered 70% permanent disability. However, the evidence of P.W.2 would clearly establish that the petitioner underwent a below-knee amputation and is no longer capable of performing his previous job as a hamali. Considering the fact that the amputatfon of the limb has significantly ^ 2017 ACJ 2700 11 VS,J MAGMA No. 111 of 2019 impaired the petitioner’s ability to engage in manual labour, thereby severely affecting his earning capacity, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner’s functional disability should be assessed at 90% for the purpose of determining loss of earning capacity, which would serve the ends of justice. Accordingly, when the total annual income of Rs.1,40,400/- is multiplied by 90%, it amounts to Rs. 1,26,360/-. Applying the relevant multiplier of ‘14’ applicable to the age of the petitioner i.e., 42 years, in terms of the decision in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation^, the total loss of earnings would come to Rs.17,69,040/-(Rs.1,26,360/-X 14). Further, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards cost of artificial limb. Although the petitioner claims to have incurred an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- for fixing artificial limb, no evidence was produced by him in support of the said claim. However, considering the fact that the artificial limb fixed to the petitioner requires regular periodical repairs and maintenance, this Court deems it appropriate to award an additional amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards cost of artificial limb and its maintenance. Thus, the total amount 18. granted under the said head is enhanced from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/-. " 2017 ACJ 2700 12 VS,J MACMANo.111of2019 With regard to other amounts granted by the Tribunal under 19. various heads, i.e., Rs.25,000/- towards ‘pain and sufferance’, Rs.25,000/- towards ‘medical and miscellaneous expenses’ Rs.25,000/- towards ‘loss of amenities’, Rs.10,000/- towards ‘attendant and transport charges’, Rs.50,000/- towards ‘trauma and agony coupled with social stigma’, and Rs. 10,000/- towards ‘extra diet and nourishment’, this Court finds that the said amounts are just and reasonable and no interference is warranted therewith. 20. Thus, the amounts granted under the heads ‘loss of earnings and disability’ and ‘artificial leg’ are enhanced by this Court, while the amounts granted under the remaining heads stood confirmed. To sum up, the amounts awarded by the Tribunal and the amounts granted in the present appeal in the light of the computations made above, are as follows: Amount granted by the Tribunal Amount awarded by this Court Head now Rs.17,69,040/- Loss of earnings and disability Pain and sufferance Rs.12,34,800/- Rs.25,000/- Rs.25,000/- Rs.25,000/- Rs.25,000/- Medical & Miscellaneous expenses Loss of amenities & Rs.25,000/- Rs.25,000/- enjoyment of life Attendant & Transport charges Trauma & agony coupled with social stigma Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/- Rs.50,000/- Rs.50,000/- 13 VS,J MACMA No.111 of 2019 Extra diet & Nourishment Rs.10,000/- Rs. 10,000/- Artificial Leg Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.2,00,000/- Total Rs.14,79,800/- Rs.21,14,040/- 21. Accordingly, the civil miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed and the order dated 09.10.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.84 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Family Court-cum-Vi Additional District Judge’s Court, Kadapa, is hereby modified by enhancing the compensation awarded to the appellant/petitioner from Rs.14,79,800/- to Rs.21,14,040/-, with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the total compensation from the date of KJ'', . • . f' petition till the date of realization. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand closed. 7 SD/- SHAIK MOHAMMED RAFI ASSISTANTREGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// L SECTION OFFICER ^ Accidents Claims Tribunal-bum-Family Court-cum-VI Additional District judge, Kadapa, Kadapa District, (with records if 2. One CC to Sri D Kodanda Rami Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Kotha Rama Mohan, Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. (to dispatch the trial court records) 5. Three CD Copies To TK c=sa* HIGH COURT DATED:02/05/2025 JUDGMENT + DECREE MACMA.No.111 of 2019 g 25 JUL 2025 ^ Current Section ALLOWING THE MACMA IN PART IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI