IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI TUESDAY .THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 87 OF 2025 Between: Shaik Rizwan, D/o S.Abdul Salam, Aged about 21 years, Muslim, coolie now disabled, resident of H.No 1-3-6A,Tirupadu Village, Gadivemula Mandal, Kurnool Dist ...Appellant/Petitioner AND 1. M/S Sujala Pipes Pvt Ltd., Represented by SPY Reddy,C-1, Industrial Estate, Nandyal, Kurnool District. 2. National Insurance Company Limited, Represented By its Branch Manager, D.No 40/344,Tuia Complex, Gandhi Nagar, Kurnool. ...Respondents/ Respondents Appeal filed under Section 173(1) of M.V Act, aggrieved by the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- V Additional District Judge, Kurnool, passed in M.V.O.P No.206/2012 dt.13.Q3.2015. 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 Sravan Kumar, Advocate for the Appellant and of Smt A Jayanthi, Advocate for Respondent No.2 This Court doth Order and decree as follows: 1. 'That the M.A.C.M.A. be and is hereby allowed in part; 2. That the compensation be and is hereby enhanced from Rs.9,99,852/- to. Rs'.l 1,00,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum, from the date of fjetltion till the date of realization against respondent Nos.1 and 2; 3. That the respondent No.2/insurer be and is hereby directed to deposit the compensation amount within two months from the date of this judgment before the Tribunal; 4. That on such deposit, the claimant be and is hereby permitted to withdraw the enhanced compensation amount along with costs and interest accrued thereon; 5. That the rest of the conditions made in the order of the Tribunal shall remain intact; 6. That the Tribunal shall proceed to pay the amount in the aforesaid terms, adjusting the amount, if any, already paid and 7. The respondents 1&2 do pay costs of Rs.8/- towards proportionate costs to the appellant. MEMORANDUM OF COSTS MACMA No.87 OF 2025 Rs. Ps. Stamps for Vakalatnama Stamps used for the Memo Stamps on certified copy of Judgment of the Trial Court Stamps on certified copy of decree of Trial Court Value of Copy Stamp paper used for enclosures (10X2) Advocate’s fee on Rupees (not certified) 05 00 10 00 01 00 02 00 20 00 Batta and Postage (25 X 2) Translation and Printing charge 50 00 Total 88 00 Proportionate Costs = Succession Amount X costs / Value of appeal Succession Amount = Rs. 1,00,148 AppellantCosts = Rs. 88 Value of the Appeal = Rs. 10,00,148 Proportionate Costs = Rs. 8/- The respondents t&2 do pay costs of Rs.8/- towards proportionate costs to the appellant SD/- N NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- V Additional District Judge, Kurnool, Kurnool District 2. Three CD copies HIGH COURT DATED:07/01/2025 DECREE IVIACMA.No.87 of 2025 ALLOWING THE M.A.C.M.A IN PART IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI TUESDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE i PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 87 OF 2025 Appeal filed under Section 173(1) of M.V Act, aggrieved by the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- V Additional District Judge, Kurnool, passed in M.V.O.P No.206/2012 dt.13.03.2015. Between: Shaik Rizwan, D/o S.Abdul Salam, Aged about 21 years, Muslim, coolie now disabled, resident of H.No 1-3-6A,Tirupadu Village, Gadivemula Mandal, Kurnool Dist ...Appellant/Petitioner AND 1. M/S Sujaia Pipes Pvt Ltd., Represented by SPY Reddy,C-1, Industrial Estate, Nandyal, Kurnool District. 2. National Insurance Company Limited, Represented By its Branch Manager, D.No 40/344,Tula Complex, Gandhi Nagar, Kurnool. ...Respondents/ Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Sri. G Sravan Kumar Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Smt A Jayanthi The Court made the following:JUDGMENT in i' !■ ^ ■ ii I THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS m.a.c.m^ El ‘lotf' m JUDGMENT: . llis’appeal is directed against the order of the Chairman, Vehicle Aceident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional Motor District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.206 of 2012 dated 13.03.2015. the claimant before the Tribunal. The appellant is The respondent No.l and 2 are the owner Tipper Lorty bearing No. AP 21 TT 0764 (hereinafter referred 2. and insurer of the to as “crime lorry”) respectively. before the of the claimant, in the petition The case 3. Tribunal is that; 12.06.2009 at about 11.30 a.m., while the shifting metal chips from loading point i). On petitioner was to work site, the crime loriy with metal load driven by rash and negligent manner operated the its driver in a unload the metal without observing electrical line metal heap. Due to that the rod lift to which was going on the tipper has pulled the resulted the electrical wire was cut down and fell on the petitioner, who is near to the which was attached to electrical wire 2 tipper. On that, the petitioner received electrical burn injuries. ii). Then she was taken treatment as inpatient in Apollo Hospital at Hyderabad from 13.06.2009 to 17.09.2009 and spent an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- towards medical attendant, transport, and other incidental expenses. She claimed compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- against the owner and insurer of the said crime loriy. The respondent No.2/insurer filed counter denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the crime lorry in causing the incident and thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material: 4. 5. 1.Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in a road accident which took place on 12.06.2009 at about 11.30 a.m. due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of tipper bearing No.AP 21 TT 0764 by its driver? 3 2.Whether the driver of the tipper bearing No.AP 21 TT 0764 is having valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident? 3.Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount, against whom? and 4.To what relief, the petitioner is entitled?” During enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.l and 2 examined and Exs.A. 1 to A.8, X. 1 and X.2 were exhibited. On behalf of the respondent No.2, R.Ws.l and 2 were examined and Ex.B.l was marked. On the material, the Tribunal, having concluded that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the crime lorry by its driver, held that claimant is entitled for the compensation of Rs.9,99,852/-, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondent Nos.l and 2, for the injuries sustained by the claimant. It is against the said order; the present appeal was preferred by the claimant. 6. were 7. 8. •1^.\ 4 Heard Sri G. Sravan Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and Smt.A.Jayanthi, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/insurer. 10. Sri G.Sravan Kumar, learned counsel for the 9. appellant/claimant submits that the Tribunal erred in calculating the quantum of compensation entitled by the claimant; that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the material on record in proper perspective in awarding less quantum of compensation to the claimant, thereby, the claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation as claimed before the Tribunal and thereby, prays to consider the appeal preferred by the claimant. On the other hand, Smt.A.Jayanthi, learned counsel for 11. the respondent No.2/insurer submits that the Tribunal, after appreciating the material on record, rightly calculated the compensation entitled by the claimant, which requires no interference, thereby, the present appeal has no merits and is I liab|e for dismissal. f 5 I for determination is “whether is just Now, the point that arises awarded to 12. claimant the the compensation compensation? 13. POINT: It is not in dispute about the injuries sustained by the claimant in the incident as is also not in dispute that there is and insurer of the crime well involvement of the crime lorry, it appeal preferred by the lorry against the findings of the no owner Tribunal. shows that P.W.l. who is aged admitted in their electrical burns and she took till 17.09.2009. All the medical bills The testimony of P.W.2 14. by the time of incident, was about 17 years 13.06.2009 with 50% hospital on treatment as in-patient issued by their hospital. under Ex.A.7 were facts and circumstances. Having regard to the above nature ot injuries sustained by the claimant, it is just and of Rs.40,000/- towards pain 15. to award an amount appropriate and suffering. nourishment. towards extra Rs.20,000/- Rs.30,000/- towards attendant charges , Rs.30,000/- towards 6 loss of earnings, Rs. 10,000/- towards transport expenses and Rs.20,000/- towards loss of amenities. Apart from the above, as per the ratio laid down by the HonTole Supreme Court in Sidram v. The Divisional Manger, United India Insurance Company Limited^, the claimant also entitled compensation under the head of loss of 16. marriage, thereby, the claimant also entitled an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of marriage. Coming to the claim made by the claimant under the head of disability, no material was placed on record to assess the disability sustained by the claimant, thereby, no compensation can be awarded to the claimant under the head of disability. 17. permanent 18. A brief exposition of the calculation made to arrive at the compensation is set out infra: S.No. Heads Calculation 1 Medical expenses. Rs.9,00,000/- (rounded off) ^2022 LiveLaw (SC) 968 i i f 7 |rs.40,000/- Pain and suffering 2 Rs.20,000/- Extra nourishment 3 Rs.30,000/- Attendant Charges 4 Rs.30,000/- Loss of earnings 5 Rs.10,000/- Transport Expenses 6 Rs.20,000/- Loss of amenities Rs.50,000/- Loss of marriage 8 compensation Rs. 11,00,000/ - Total awarded 19. Therefore, in view of the forgoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the award passed by the Tribunal warrants interference by Rs.9,99,852/- to Rs.l1,00,000/-. enhancing the compensation from Thus, this point is answered accordingly. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed in part, with enhancing the compensation from 20. costs, proportionate 8 Rs.9,99,852/- to Rs.l 1,00,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization against respondent Nos.l and 2. The respondent No.2/insurer shall deposit the compensation amount within two months from the date of this judgment before the Tribunal. On such deposit, is permitted to withdraw the enhanced compensation amount along with costs and interest accrued thereon. The rest of the conditions made in the order of the Tribunal shall remained intact. The Tribunal shall proceed pay the amount in the aforesaid terms, adjusting the amount, if any, already paid. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. Miscelianeous petitions pending if any, stand closed. the claimant to SD/- N NAGAMMA ASSISTANTREGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- V Additional District Judge, Kurnool, Kurnool District (with records if any) 2. One CC to Sri. G Sravan Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Smt A Jayanthi, Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi To, 5. Three CD Copies stu ■ ■# HIGH COURT DATED:07/01/2025 JUDGMENT + DECREE MACMA.No.87 of 2025 g{ I0JUL2(ia Ny^r^’^gnt SectigQ^^ ^•^iSPAJC^^ «<» ALLOWING THE M.A.C.M.A IN PART