APHC011365812014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 797/2025 Between: 1. PEDDAPOGULA GANGULAMMA, W/O GANGULAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC BELDARI COOLIE, RESIDING AT PEDDAPALLI HARIJANAWADA, VEERABALLI VILLAGE, POST AND MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1. A LAKSHMAIAH, S/O VENKATASWAMY, OWNER OF THE AUTO BEARING NO. AP 04 W 3538, RESIDENT OF D.NO.26/61, CHURCH STREET, BETHAL COLONY, RAYACHOTY, KADAPA DISTRICT. 2. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, 4TH FLOOR, SAGAR PLAZA, ABIDS, HYDERABAD, REP ITS MANAGAR LEGAL. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the order passed in M.V.OP.NO. 674/2009 DATED 19-8-2013 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum- Principal District Judge, Kadapa, YSR District. Counsel for the Appellant: 1. D KODANDARAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. T MAHENDER RAO 2. D RAVI KIRAN 3. The Court made the following: 2 CGR, J. MACMA No.797 of 2025 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN M.A.C.M.A.No.797 of 2025 JUDGMENT: Present appeal is filed by the appellant – claimant, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 (for short, “the Act”), dis-satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by Order, dated 19.08.2013, passed in M.V.O.P.No.674 of 2009 on the file of the Chairman, Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Kadapa, (for short, “the Tribunal”). 2. For the sake of convenience, parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts relating to the present appeal in a nutshell are as follows: (a) This is a case of injuries. Claimant has instituted claim under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injuries sustained in the accident along with interest. Claimant is aged about 40 years, doing coolie work and used to earn Rs.125/- per day. On 10.12.2008 after attending to cooli work and returning back home, she along with others boarded 1st respondent’s auto bearing Registration No.AP-04-W-3538 at Rayachoty RTC Bus Stand. On account of high- speed, rash and negligent driving by 1st respondent driver, lost control, due to which, it turned turtle thereby the claimant and other fellow passengers 3 CGR, J. MACMA No.797 of 2025 sustained injuries. She was shifted to Government Hospital for treatment. She was performed surgery to right hand, right leg by inserting implants. In the process, she incurred medical expenses and also other charges, therefore, claim was laid for Rs.3,00,000/-. The details of expenses incurred by claimant are as follows: 1) 8 bottles of blood x Rs.1,500/- = Rs. 12,000/- 2) Medicines = Rs. 40,000/- 3) Attendant charges = Rs. 20,000/- 4) Extra-nourishment = Rs. 10,000/- 5) Transport charges = Rs. 10,000/- (b) 1st respondent - driver-cum-owner of Auto remained ex parte. (c) 2nd respondent Insurer filed written statement inter alia denying the manner in which the accident occurred, and that 1st respondent was responsible and negligent in causing the accident, besides disputing the quantum of compensation claimed. (d) Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues: “1. Whether the accident was on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle bearing No.AP-04-W-3538, whether the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally are liable to answer the claim? 2. If so, what is the quantum of compensation that the petitioner is entitled to and who are liable to pay the compensation? 3. To what relief?” (e) To support the case of claimant, she was examined as PW.1 and also examined the doctor, who treated the injuries, as PW.2, and got 4 CGR, J. MACMA No.797 of 2025 marked Exs.A1 to A7 and Ex.X-1. None were examined for respondents, nor were any documents marked. (f) The Tribunal basing on evidence available on record has come to conclusion that the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by 1st respondent. Further, considering the evidence of PW.2, Doctor, who treated claimant and also the wound certificate under Ex.A2, admission and discharge slip under Ex.A4 and disability certificate under Ex.A7, the nature of injuries came to be assessed to be grievous and therefore awarded compensation for three grievous injuries at the rate of Rs.30,000/- each, Rs,.30,000/- towards fractures to ribs; Rs.2,082/- towards medicines; Rs.25,000/- towards permanent disability; Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs.10,000/- towards attendant charges; and Rs.10,000/- towards transport charges, in total, awarded Rs.1,77,082/- along with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation. Assailing the same to be not just and fair, the claimant preferred present appeal. 4. Heard Sri V. Lakshmi Harish, learned counsel, representing Sri D. Kodanda Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri D.Ravi Kiran, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal has failed to assess the functional disability in particular and applied structural 5 CGR, J. MACMA No.797 of 2025 formula for the purpose of computation of compensation, rather it has merely awarded compensation on mere guesswork. Further, the Tribunal has not considered to grant future prospects. Since the injured was working as coolie at relevant point of time, her income ought to have been assessed and determined on notional basis, considering the minimum wages indexation as adopted by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for 2nd respondent Insurer tried to support the impugned order, by contending that the Tribunal has awarded compensation after appreciation of the evidence on record, though the Tribunal has not clearly assessed the functional disability, considering the nature of injuries sustained, the same can be considered as 60% as per Ex.A7 disability certificate. Further, the claimant herself has claimed that she was earning Rs.125/- per day, translating into Rs.3,750/- p.m., therefore, her annual income can be considered accordingly, by applying multiplier of “15” as she being aged 40 years. Coming to the aspect of future prospects, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-Insurer fairly conceded to. 7. Perused the record and considered the rival submissions of both the learned counsel. 8. The occurrence of accident and liability of Insurer per se are not in dispute. There is no appeal preferred by the Insurer challenging the 6 CGR, J. MACMA No.797 of 2025 impugned order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal, having decided the issue of negligence being attributable to 1st respondent, proceeded to determine the compensation. In order to assess the compensation, two important key factors required to be considered were the disability factor and, secondly, the income of victim for the purpose of assessing loss of earnings. 9. Insofar as disability factor was concerned, the Tribunal discussed the evidence of PW.2, Associate Professor of Orthopaedics at Government Hospital, Tirupati, who extended treatment to the injured. As per his evidence, it was stated that claimant suffered permanent disability of 75%, however, the certificate given by him provided the disability at 60%. The wound certificate marked under Ex.A2 shows the nature of injury sustained. The Tribunal having considered these two material evidences, has come to conclusion that the claimant suffered three severe injuries viz., (i) fracture of midshaft of humerus; (ii) fracture of right interior public rami; and (iii) fractures of 2, 3, 4 and 5 ribs on left side, besides, she also sustained minor injury of facture of upper shaft of right femur. Though the nature of injuries was assessed, the Tribunal did not really give any specific finding on the amount of disability. Therefore, this Court is now examining aforesaid aspect. Ex.A-7 states the physical disability as 60%, whereas PW.2, doctor, has in his evidence stated that the claimant has suffered permanent disability of 75%. For the purpose of determination of 7 CGR, J. MACMA No.797 of 2025 compensation, one has to see what exactly would be the functional disability. In order to arrive at functional disability, the nature of activity undertaken by the claimant has to be considered. In the present case, claimant was working as coolie, therefore, she was essentially required to work manually, and therefore, any injury that is sustained, particularly legs or hands, would disable her from performing functions normally. Considering the aforesaid aspects, the evidence of doctor and also disability certificate, this Court is inclined to fix the functional disability as 60%. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, and rightly not disputed by the other side, the claimant is entitled for future prospects. 10. Coming to the last aspect of monthly income of claimant, even as per her plea and also oral evidence, she was earning Rs.125/- per day, translating into Rs.3,750/- per month. She claims to be working as agricultural coolie. Though learned counsel for the appellant had contended that the minimum wages payable to coolie required to be granted, in the absence of any such material before this Court, the income as claimed by the claimant, since appears to be reasonable, her income is accordingly, considered as Rs.3,750/- per month. 11. In view of the aforesaid observations and findings of this Court, the just and fair compensation determined stands as under: 8 CGR, J. MACMA No.797 of 2025 S.No. Description of the Head Amount Entitled (in rupees) 1 Compensation for loss of earnings on account of disfiguration and permanent disability at 60% - [(Rs.3,750/- + (future prospects @ 40% of Rs.3,750/- = Rs.1500/-)] X 12 = 63,000/- x multiplier 15 = 9,45,000/-. By applying 60% disability, it comes to Rs.5,67,000/- Rs.5,67,000/- 3 Medical expenses viz., blood bottles and medicines Rs.52,000/- 4 Transport and extra-nourishment @ Rs.10,000/- each Rs.20,000/- 5 Attendant charges Rs.20,000/- Total Compensation Rs.6,59,000/- 12. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed, by enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.1,77,082/- to Rs.6,59,000/- payable with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The 2nd respondent-Insurer is directed to deposit the balance compensation, after deducting the amount, if any, already deposited, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit being made, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the same. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any in this case, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date:22.09.2025. cs