APHC010116412019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE WIAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 295 OF 2019 Between: Oriental Insurance Company LTD., Rep. by its Manager, T.P.Hub, Zoom Complex, Vijayawada, A.P., Policy No.431401/31/2012/4613, Policy valid from 7.3.2013 to 6.3.2014, Policy issued at Khammam Branch) ...Appellant/Respondent No.3 AND 1. Kolli Suresh Kumar, S/o. Venkateswara Rao, Aged about 45 years, Occ: Business And Agriculture, R/o.D.No.59-8-6, Gayathri Nagar, Vijayawada Urban, Krishna District. ...Respondent/Petitioner 2. Pasam Subba Rao, S/o. Siva Ramayya, Aged 46 years. Driver of XYLO Motor Car bearing No.P 20-R-9090, R/o. Home Tower, Home Nagar, Langar House, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad. 3. V.V.D.V.N. Prasad, S/o.V.V. Chowdary, aged about 51 years. Owner of XYLO Motor Car bearing No.AP.20-R-9099, h.No.3-16, Hamali Colony, Chatakorida, Kothagudem -507101. ...Respondents/Respondent No.1 & 2 Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, against the Judgment and Decree in M.V.O.P. No. 527 of 2014 dated 23.08.2018 on the file of the II Additional District Judge -cum- Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vijayawada. Appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the Memorandum of Appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the lower Court and the material evidence on record and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Gudi Srinivasu, Advocate for the Appellant and Smt. Amrutha Boppudi for the respondent No.1 and none appeared for other respondents. This Court doth order and decree as follows: 1. That the Appeal filed by the Appellant/lnsurance Company be and is hereby Dismissed; 2. That the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal be and is hereby directed to be deposited by the Appellants/Respondents jointly and severally, within a period of two (2) months, from the date of receipt of copy of this Judgment, if not already deposited; 3. That on such deposit Respondent/Petitioner be and is hereby entitled to withdraw the entire amount, without furnishing any security; 4. That there be no order as to costs in this appeal. Sd/- T. SRINIVASA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 2. Two CD Copies -cum- II SAM sree HIGH COURT DATED:08/10/2Q25 DECREE NI.A.C.WI.A. No. 295 of 2019 X ? ^ OCT 20?5 0\‘ «9 a •i- ^ Current Secuon j^'y- DISMISSING THE M.A.C.M.A. . -"1 APHC010116412019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 295 OF 2019 Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, against the Judgment and Decree in M.V.O.P. No. 527 of 2014 dated 23.08.2018 on the file of the II Additional District Judge -cum- Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vijayawada. Between: Oriental Insurance Company LTD., Rep. by its Manager, T.P.Hub, Zoom Complex, Vijayawada, A.P., Policy No.431401/31/2012/4613, Policy valid from 7.3.2013 to 6.3.2014, Policy issued at Khammam Branch) ...Appellant/Respondent No.3 AND 1. Kolli Suresh Kumar, S/o. Venkateswara Rao, Aged about 45 Occ: Business And Agriculture, R/o.D.No.59-8-6, Gayathri Nagar Vijayawada Urban, Krishna District. years. ...Respondent/Petitioner 2. Pasam Subba Rao, S/o. Siva Ramayya, Aged 46 years, Driver of XYLO Motor Car bearing No.P 20-R-9099, R/o. Home Tower, Home Nagar, Langar House, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad. 3. V.V.D.V.N. Prasad, S/o.V.V. Chowdary, aged about 51 years. Owner of XYLO Motor Car bearing No.AP.20-R-9099, h.No.3-16, Hamali Colony, Chatakonda, Kothagudem -507101. ...Respondents/Respondent No.1 & 2 lA NO: 2 OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including the order and decree dated 23.08.2018 in M.V.O.P.No.527 of 2014 on thejie of the II Additional District Judge- Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vijayawada. Counsel for the Appellant: Sri GudI Srinivasu Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Smt. Amrutha Boppudi Counsel for other Respondent No.2: None Appeared The Court made the following Judgment: cum- IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI *** +IV1.A.C.M.A.N0.295 of 2019 Between: # Oriental Insurance Company Ltd,, Rep. By its Manager ... Appellant AND $ Kolli Suresh Kumar and 2 others ... Respondents Date of Common Judgement pronounced on: 08.10.2025 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM 1. Whether Reporters of Local nevyspapers May be allowed to see the judgments? Yes/No 2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked: to Law Reporters/Journals: Yes/No 3. Whether the Lordship wishes to see the fair copy: Of the Judgment? Yes/No 2 RNTJ & MRKJ MACMA_295_2019 rs *IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI ^HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI ♦HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM % Dated: +M.A.C.M.A.N0.295 of 2019 Between: # Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Rep. By its Manager ... Appellant AND $ Kolli Surest) Kumar and 2 others ... Respondents ! Counsel for the Appellant ^Counsel for the Respondents Gudi Srinivasu Amrutha Boppudi Date of Common Order pronounced on : 08.10.2025 <GIST; >HEAD NOTE : ? Cases referred ; 1. 2024 see Online SC 3385 2. 2023 (2) sec 204 3. 2025 sec Online SC 262 4. (2003) 7 sec 484 5. (2010) 10 sec 341 6. (2003) 2 sec 274 7. (2020) 4 sec 413 8. (2012) 12 sec 274 9. 2022 (1) sec 198 10. 1995 (1) sec 551 11. (2005) 3 sec 254 / THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM M.A.C.M.A.No.295 of 2019 JUDGMENT'.(per Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam) Heard Sri Gudi Srinivasu, learned counsel for the appellant/ Oriental Insurance company and Smt. B. Vasahtha Lakshmi, learned counsel assisted by Ms. Amrutha Boppudi, learned counsel for respondent No. 1/petitioner. Perused the entire material on record. 2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant/lnsurance Company U/s. 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 aggrieved by the award and decree in M.V.O.P. No.527 of 2014 dated 23.08.2018, passed by the learned II Addl. District Judge-cum-Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Vijayawada (in short ‘the Tribunal’). 3. The parties hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. Brief case of the Respondent/Petitioner before the Tribunal: 4. The claim petition was filed for the injuries sustained by the petitioner on 02.12.2013 at 11:30 p.m. On that fateful day, the petitioner was traveling from Hyderabad to Vijayawada in a Mahindra RNTJ & MRKJ MACMA_295__2019 Xylo car bearing No.AP 20R 9099, along with his friends namely, WDVN Prasad/2"^ respondent (owner of the vehicle), and Pasam Subba Rao/1®* respondent (person driving the said vehicle). All of a sudden, the said car was overturned due to tyre burst and the went out of control, dashed the divider, resulting into an accident near Toll Plaza at the outskirts of Korlapahad Village of Kethapally Mandal. car 5. The above said vehicle was damaged, in addition to that, the petitioner sustained grievous multiple injuries all over the body with multiple fractures. After the first aid treatment at Suryaraopeta Hospital the petitioner was shifted to Suraksha Hospital, Vijayawada for treatment and got admitted. The petitioner had undergone surgeries for cervical spine injury & Quadriparesis C5-6 Traumatic dislocation of complete spinal cord injury, for which, he spent than Rs. 15,00,000/- for his multiple operations. Despite undergoing rnultiple surgeries, the petitioner continues to suffer from permanent disability. more 6. It is submitted that prior to the accident, the petitioner engaged in different businesses as well as agricultural works, earning more than Rs.40,000/- per month. It is further submitted that due to the permanent disability, the petitioner hired attendants to support was 3 RNTJ&MRKJ MACMA_295_2019 and assist his daily activities as well as other works such as Helpers, Drivers etc. Therefore, an amount of compensation of Rs.82,00,000/- was sought by the petitioner before the Tribunal due to his accidental Injuries. Brief case of the appellant/ Insurance Company before the Tribunal: Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in M.V.O.P. No.527 of 2014 before the Tribunal remained ex-parte. 7. The 3'’^ respondent/insurance Company filed written statement denying the material allegations made in M.V.O.P. as false. It is also submitted in the written statement that the respondent was not holding valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. The contention that the petitioner had undergone surgeries at Suraksha Hospitals, Vijayawada by spending more than Rs. 15,00,000/- was also denied by the Insurance Company. Furthermore, the Insurance Company denied the age, income, disability of the petitioner and asserted that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is excessive and not reasonable. 8. 4 RNTJ & MRKJ MACMA_295_2019 Issues framed by the Tribunal: 9. The learned Tribunal after considering the facts and circumstances, framed the following issues:- I. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of Mahindra XYLO Motor Car AP 20 R 9099 by the 1®' respondent. II. Whether petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so the quantum and payable by which of the respondents. To what relief? For the sake of comprehensive view, the appendix of oral and documentary evidence produced before the Tribunal is extracted here 10. below:- Oral Evidence before the Tribunal:- Witnesses for the petitioner:- si. Name of the witness Examined Role No. as Kolli Suresh Kumar 1 PW-1 Petitioner/Claima nt 2 P. Venkayamma PW-2 Cook 3 Dr. M.V.H.Phani Dheeraj PW-3 Physiotherapist 5 RNTJ & MRKJ MACMA_295_2019 4 Dr. S. Ashok Kumar PW-4 Physiotherapist S G.Suresh P.W.5 Physiotherapist 6 D.Sanjoy @ Sandeep P.W.6 Helper to P.W-1 7 K.Ravi P.W:7 Driver to P.W-1 8 Dr.N.Sirisha P.W.8 Psychotherapist Specialization in Neuro 9 Dr. G.Rajesh Kumar P.W.9 Neuro Surgeon at Suraksha Hospital, Vijayawada 10 B.Phani Billing Manager of Suraksha Hospital, Vijayawada P.W.IO 11 Dr. C.Venkata Dasaraiah P.W. 11 Professor of orthopedics in Govt. General Hospital, Vijayawada 12 Dr. George Tharion Professor, Physical Medicine Rehabilitation, CMC, Vellore P.W.12 13 K. Narasimha Rao Who leased out lands to P.W-1 P. W.13 14 V. Nicholas Dhivyanadham Accountant in CMC Hospital, Vellore P.W.14 15 Jakkula Mohan Surgical Shop Employee P.W. 15 6 RNTJ & MRKJ MACMA_295_2019 16 T.Nani P.W.16 Helper to P.W-1 17 K.Srinivasa Rao P.W.17 Attender to P.W-1 18 G.Krishna Babu P.W.18 Proprietor of Baba Surgicals 19 G.Ranga Rao P.W.19 Proprietor of Chandu Surgicals 20 K.Naga Lakshmi P.W.20 Washer man Documents marked on behalf of the petitioner:- SI.No. Date & document marked as Description of the Document 1 Ex.A-1 Attested copy of F.I.R. crime No. 170/13. 2 Ex.A-2 Attested copy of wound certificate. 3 Ex.A-3 Attested copy of charge sheet. 4 Ex.A-4 Xerox copy of Driving License of R.l. 5 Ex.A-5 Xerox copy of the R.C. of the crime vehicle. 6 Ex.A-6 Medical bills including discharge summary. 7 Ex.A-7 Surgical bills issued by S.M.Y.R.N.A. Enterprises. 8 Ex.A-8 Surgical bills issued by various enterprises. 9 Ex.A-9 Paid receipts vouchers for helpers who assist the petitioner. 10 Ex.A-10 Paid receipts vouchers of various psychotherapy doctors. 7 RNTJ & MRKJ MACMA_295_2019 11 Ex.A-11 Medical bills issued by Christian Medical College, Vellore, including discharge summary. 12 Ex.A-12 Lease Agreement of the petitioner. 13 Ex.A-13 Disability certificate of the petitioner issued by District Medical Board members. 14 Ex.A-14 Bunch of X-rays. 15 Ex.A-15 Scanning reports of the petitioner. Photo state copy of the registered sale deed of the petitioner with EC. Ex.A-16 16 Ambulance Bills. Ex.A-17 17 18 Ex.A-18 Electric wheelchair rotation. 19 Photographs of the petitioners. Ex.A-19 20 Ex.A-20 Various surgical and medical bills. Bills issued by Sri Chandu Surgical, Vijayawada for Rs.1,57,581/- 21 Ex.A-21 22 Ex.A-22 Bills issued by Baba surgical, Vijayawada for Rs.98,581/- 23 Ex.A-23 Receipts issued by Dr.S.Ashok Kumar for Rs.3,00,000/- 24 Vouchers/receipts issued by Dr.G.Suresh for Rs.3,00,000/- Ex.A-24 25 Ex.A-25 Vouchers issued by K.Srinivasa Rao towards attendant service for Rs.90,000/- H 8 flNTJ & MRKJ MACMA_295_2019 26 Ex.A-26 Vouchers issued by Sanjeev towards helper services for Rs. 1,50,000/- 27 Ex.A-27 Vouchers issued by T.Navi towards the servant and cook for Rs.1,20,000/- 28 Ex.A-28 Vouchers issued by K.Naga Lakshmi towards services for Rs.90,000/- Witnesses for respondent No.3:- Nil Nil Nil Nil Documents marked on behalf of respondent No.3: SI.No. Date & document marked as Description of the Document 1. Ex.B.l True copy of Insurance Policy Findings of the Tribunal: 11. The Tribunal, after considering the totality of the facts circumstances, had awarded total compensation of Rs. 1,30,00,000/-, against the claim of Rs.82,00,000/-, with costs and with interest at 7.5% per annum vide award and decree dated 23.08.2018. Insurance Company and respondent Nos.1 and 2 (person driving the car and the owner of the vehicle), were directed jointly and severally to pay the compensation. Being aggrieved by the award and decree and The 9 RNTJ & MRKJ MACMA_295_2019 dated 23.08.2018, the instant appeal is filed by the 3'^ respondent Insurance Company only before this Court. Arguments in the appeal: The learned counsel for the appellant-insurance Company had raised mainly two grounds challenging the award dated 23.08.2018. He primarily contended that the Tribunal awarded the compensation more than the claim and such an approach is not legal and valid. Secondly, it is submitted that the income of the petitioner was not supported by any document and the Tribunal took the monthly income as Rs.20,000/- in the absence of documentary proofs and Rs.2,40,000/- as annual income on the basis of guesswork, which is not legal, valid and liable to be interdictable. 12. 13. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/petitioner submits that the Tribunal after perceiving the cogent evidence on record had rightly assessed the income of the petitioner. She further submits that, as the instant claim petition was emanated under the provisions of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the adjudicating authorities are empowered to award just and reasonable compensation in the lis more than claim also. She states that in the absence of documentary evidence also, the Tribunal is empowered to 10 RNTJ & MRKJ MACMA_295_2019 award higher amount so as to meet the ends of justice. In support of her arguments, she also placed reliance on judgments reported in 2003 (2) see 274 and 2022 (1) See 198. Analysis: 14. We have considered the submissions advanced by the respective counsels on record and perused the material on record. 15. In view of above rival contentions, the following points arise for our adjudication in the instant appeal;- (1) Whether the Tribunal/Court can award compensation more than the claim arising out of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or not? (2) Whether the Tribunal/Court can rely on guess work in assessing the income of the victim in adjudicating the claim under the Motor Vehicles Act or not? 16. Before venturing into comprehensive holistic analysis of the facts and law, it is apt to discuss about the relevant witnesses and their specific depositions to arrive at logical conclusion in the lis. 17. It is the specific case of the petitioner, who was examined as P W-1., that due to the accident, he sustained multiple fractures all over his body and was immediately shifted through 108 Ambulance to 11 RNTJ & MRKJ MACMA_295_2019 the nearest hospital at Suryaraopet Town, wherein, he received first- Further, the petitioner was shifted to Suraksha aid treatment. Hospital, Vijayawada. for treatment and undergone multiple surgeries at his Spinal Cord at C-5 and C-6 levels. The said surgeries were conducted by Dr. Rajesh Kumar (P.W-9). The petitioner got admitted as an inpatient in the Intensive Care Unit for 30 days in the said Hospital and even after the prolonged treatment, the Doctors advised him to take rest throughout his life. 18. The petitioner also deposed that during the period in hospital, he spent around Rs. 1,00,000/- towards surgeries, hospital maintenance, nursing, medicines, etc. petitioner that even after discharge from the Hospital, Doctors advised him to go for regular physiotherapy throughout his life due to the serious nature of injuries sustained by him. Accordingly, the petitioner engaged four qualified physiotherapists in phased manner (P.W-3, P.W-4, P.W-5 & P.W-8), who took care of him periodically. The petitioner also stated that he engaged one cook, two helpers to assist his day to day activities, such as, bathing, changing clothes and other essential things, for which, he pay Rs. 10,000/- for helper, Rs.6000/- for cook, towards their salary. It is further case of the 12 RNTJ & MRKJ MACMA_295_2019 Even after discharge from the Suraksha Hospital, Vijayawada., petitioner was referred to Nadi Vaidyam at Chakra Sidhi Hospital at Hyderabad. Further, petitioner was referred to Christian Medical and 19. Rehabilitation Centre at Raivellore, wherein, he was admitted on 27.11.2015 and discharged on 19.01.2016. In the said Rehabilitation Centre at Vellore, the petitioner was treated by Dr.George Tharion (P.W-12), who is Professor in Physical Medicine Rehabilitation. The petitioner/P.W-1 further stated that he was shifted to the Raivellore hospital in the private ambulance by spending about Rs.50,000/- towards to and fro charges and underwent skin grafting to his right leg. The petitioner/P.W-1 also attended before the District Medical Board, which assed his disability and issued 100% Permanent Disability Certificate in his favour. The petitioner/P.W-1 further deposed that prior to his accident, he used to take agricultural lands to an extent of Ac. 19.94 cents on lease basis from K.Narasimha Rao (P.W-13), K.Janardhan Rao, K.Gopala Rao, who are joint owners of the agricultural lands vide lease agreement dated 15.04.2010 (Ex.A- 12), thereby he used to earn Rs.40,000/- to Rs.50,000/- per month. Apart from that, he was doing real-estate business and he used to earn Rs.6,00,000/- to Rs.7,00,000/- per annum, the petitioner/P.W-1 got marked Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-20. Later, the In proof of same 13 RNTJ & MRKJ MACMA_295_2019 petitioner/P.W-1 in his further chief-examination on 05.08.2017 also exhibited Ex.A-21 to Ex.A-28, which are clearly described in the para No. 10 in the instant judgment. P.W-2 is a cook engaged by the petitioner for his day to day cooking purpose, who worked for the petitioner from January, 2012 to September, 2014 and the vouchers resembling payments paid to her However, the 3^^ respondent-insurance Company did not elicit any substantial evidence to contradict the case of the petitioner. 20. were marked as Ex.A-9. 21. P.W-3 is a Physiotherapist specialized in Neurology, who extended his services to the petitioner from the years 2014 to 2016. He further stated that the petitioner requires life-long physiotherapy. The payments made by the petitioner towards his service charges were marked as Ex.A-10 (Bunch of receipts). 22. P.W-4 is also a Physiotherapist, who treated the petitioner since 2015 onwards also reiterated that he needs treatment throughout his life in view of the nature of the injuries. The physiotherapy receipts were marked as Ex.A-23 totaling of Rs.3,00,000/-. 14 RNTJ& MRKJ MACMA_295_2019 23. P.W-5 is another physiotherapist, who used to treat the petitioner in the morning hours- due to disability. He further stated that he also issued vouchers which categorically affirmed physiotherapy treatment. are part of Ex.A-10 and the petitioner require life-long In fact, the Insurance Company examined the Physiotherapists, but was unable to demolish their that cross assertions. 24. Coming to P.W-6, who assisted the petitioner in his daily works such as brushing, bathing, attending personal needs for two years and the payments received by him through petitioner/P.W-1 & P.W-6 were marked as Ex.A-9. 25. P.W-7 is an attendant-cum-driver hired by the petitioner for two and half years, who deposed that he has been helping the petitioner in day to day works, for which, he used to receive Rs.6000/- per month and the same were marked in Ex.A-10 (receipts/vouchers of various Physiotherapist Doctors). 26. P.W-8 is a Physiotherapist specialized in Neuro (MPT), who attended the petitioner in the evening hours daily about one and half years. She also issued payment vouchers which are part of Ex.A-10. 15 RNTJ & MRKJ MACMA_295_2019 27. P.W-9 namely, Dr.G.Rajesh Kumar, is a Consultant Neuro- Surgeon of Suraksha Hospital, Vijayawada., who categorically deposed that on 02.12.2013 at 3:30 pm, the petitioner was admitted in the Suraksha Hospital due to road accident and he found that the patient was not able to move both lower limbs, noticed that both of his upper limbs were in a weak state. On his examination, the petitioner was found to have grade 0/5 power in both the'lower limbs and after conducting MRI Cervical Spine Examination, it was revealed that there was dislocation of C-5, C-6 levels, causing severe spinal cord compression and on 02.12.2013, they performed surgery and the petitioner was in ICU for 4 days. Subsequently, the petitioner was discharged on 27.12.2013 with a Medical Advice, who requires regular Physiotherapy. He further stated that Ex.A-2 (Wound Certificate), Ex.A-14 (Bunch of X-ray films) were issued by Suraksha Hospital, Vijayawada. Ex.A-6 (Medical bills, including Discharge Summary) was also issued by the Suraksha Hospital. Ex.A-7 (Surgical bills) issued by Smyrna Enterprises was advised to the petitioner for his day to day nursing care due to his bed ridden condition. 16 RNTJ & MRKJ MACMA_295_2019 P.W-9 further stated that the petitioner is a permanently disabled and he requires physiotherapy person due to the injuries sustained by him and he also requires nursing care for his entire life. In the cross-examination, P.W-9 also stated that at the time of discharge, the petitioner’s four limbs were having tracheostomy tube inside evinery cathedre taken overall and had no fever to maintain the muscle tone. The Insurance Company, except putting suggestions did not elicit any substantial information to discard the assertions of P.W-9 so far as the petitioner’s health condition and his permanent disabilities. 28. P.W-10, who is the Billing Manager at Suraksha Hospital, Vijayawada., stated that Ex.A-6 (Medical Bills including discharge summary) was issued by the Suraksha Hospital, Vijayawada., under his Signature. 29. 30. P.W-11 namely. Dr. C. Venkata Dasaraiah, who is working as Professor of Orthopedics at Government Hospital, Vijayawada., deposed that the petitioner appeared before the District Medical Board seeking disability certificate on 05.09.2014. The concerned Board authorities after verifying the treatment records and also after conducting physical examination on the petitioner, assessed his 17 RNTJ & MRKJ MACMA_295_2019 disability as 100% permanent in nature caused by the cervical spine injury. He also deposed that, the petitioner cannot attend his routine duties quadric-pleasure and he requires help of attenders for his day to day works. P.W-11 also confirmed that Ex.A-13 (Disability Certificate of the petitioner) was issued by District Medical Board Members and certified by him. he confirmed that the petitioner did not take treatment at Government Hospital Vijayawada. In the cross-examination of P.W-11, P.W-12 namely, Dr.K.George Tharion, who is a Professor in Physical Medicine Rehabilitation, Christian Medical College, Vellore deposed that he treated the petitioner at CMC, where he was 31. admitted in the hospital on 27.11.2015, thereafter, he was discharged on 19.01.2016. He further stated that the petitioner was admitted with the Injury to the Spinal Cord at Cervical C-5 level. He also asserted that, P.W-1 requires long time assistance and Physiotherapy in view of extensive paralysis and he confirmed that, Ex.A-11 (Medical Bills) were issued by the Christian Medical College, Vellore including discharge summary, which amounts to Rs.2,61,111/-. In the cross- examination of P.W-12, he noted that there is improvement in Motor 18 RNTJ & MRKJ MACMA_295_2019 power in the Upper limbs and Minimial Voluntary Control in the lower limbs. 32. P.W-13 deposed that he along with his relatives owns agricultural lands in an extent of Ac. 19.94 cents in Janardhandapuram, Ponavaram, Krishna District., leased out their lands in favour of the petitioner/P.W-1 for a period of 5 years with effect from 15.04.2010. Ex-A-12 (Lease Agreement) was executed in favour of P.W-1 for an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- for the period of 5 years that is Rs.2,00,000/- per annum. In the cross-examination, - P.W-13 admits that Ex.A-12 is a unregistered document. an 33. P.W-14 namely, V.Nicholas Dhivyanadham. accountant in CMC Hpspital, Vellore since 2000, deposed that the patient by name Koli Suresh Kumar (petitioner/P.W-1) admitted in the Hospital on 27.11.2015 and he was discharged on 20.01.2016. The Ex.A-11 (Medical Bills) issued by the CMC, Vellore including Discharge Summary was prepared and signed by him. P.W-14 not cross-examined by the Insurance Company. who is the was 34. P.W-15 who is an ex-employee of M/s Smyrna Enterprises, Suryaraopet, Vijayawada., deposed that the said enterprise is a surgical shop, which sell all types of surgical items. He also deposed 19 RNTJ & MRKJ MACMA_295_2019 that he worked in the said shop since May 2016 as an employee, due to his medical inability, he left the shop recently. He further deposed that Ex.A-7 (Surgical Bills) were issued by M/s. Smyrna Enterprises, Suryaraopet, Vijayawada. 35. P.W-16 is a cook-cum-helper engaged by the petitioner, who deposed that he extended his services for monthly salary of Rs.8000/- and issued 15 Vouchers from 01.03.2016 to 01.05.2017, which were marked as Ex.A-27 which totally comes to Rs. 1,20,000/-. P.W-17 worked as attender to the petitioner for his day to day works on monthly salary of Rs.6000/- and the vouchers issued to him 36. by the petitioner from 01.03.2016 to 01.05.2017 were marked in Ex.A-25 37. P.W-18 is the Proprietor of Baba Surgicals, Suryaraopet, Vijayawada, who deposed that the petitioner used to purchase surgical items from his shop, which was marked as Ex.A-22. 38. P.W-19 is also a proprietor of Sri Chandu Surgicals, Prasadampadu, Vijayawada, who deposed that the petitioner used to purchase surgical items from his shop and the bills issued to the petitioner were marked as Ex.A-21. 20 RNTJ & MRKJ MACMA_295_2019 39. P.W-20 worked as Servant-cum-Dhobi to the petitioner for monthly salary of Rs.6000/- and the vouchers received for the period from 01.03.2016 to 01.05.2017, were marked as Ex.A-28. 40. Admittedly on behalf of Insurance Company, examined, but only Ex.B-1 (True Copy of Insurance Policy) marked. none were was 41. In view of the above material witnesses i.e., P.W-1 to P.W-20 coupled with documentary evidence i.e., Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-28 and Ex.B-1, we are going to deal with the points set out in the present appeal. Point No.1 (Whether the Tribunal/Court can award compensation more than the claim arising out of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 not?) or 42. It deserves to be noted that the object and intendment of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is social welfare legislation. The said Act was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to the accidents arising from Motor Vehicles. This Act further aims at regulating the use of Motor Vehicles and provide just compensation for the victims who suffer injuries or to legal representatives of those who lost their lives in accidents. 21 RNTJ&MRK] MACMA_295_2019 43. In fact, the concept of ‘just compensation’ emanated from restitutio in integum’, which means restoration to the original condition. In other words, take the receiver of such compensation back to a position as if the loss/injury suffered by them had not occurred. 44. It is also relevant to refer the dictum of the Apex Court held in K.S. Muralidhar Vs. R. Subbulakshmi & Anr.\ wherein, it had categorically expressed that while determining the compensation for loss of amenities, suffering, etc. victim/injured to the original shape as closely as possible, they would have been if the accident had not occurred. should aim to restore the 45. The Apex Court in the case of Meenadevi Vs. Nun Chand Matho^, in its vivid terms explained at para No. 14 as under: The Tribunal/Court ought to award ‘just’ compensation which is reasonable in the facts relying upon the evidence produced on record. Therefore, less valuation, if any, made in the Claim Petition would not be impediment to award just compensation exceeding the claimed amount ” 14 ^ 2024 see Online Se 3385 ' 2023 (2) see 204 22 RNTJ & MRKJ MACMA_295_2019 46. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by following the principle held in Meenadevi case (supra) arrived at its conclusion in Hare Krushna Mahanta Vs. Hima Dari Sahu & AnH. It is apt to note here the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s expression in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Jasbir Kour^, which reads 47. as under:- “ 7. It has to be kept in view that the Tribunal constituted under the Act as provided in Section 168 is required to make an award determining the amount of compensation which is to be in the real sense "damages" which in turn appears to'it to be "just and reasonable". It has to be borne in mind that compensation for loss of limbs or life can hardly be weighed in golden scales. But at the same time it has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall for the victim. Statutory provisions clearly indicate that the compensation must be "just" and it cannot be a bonanza; not a source of profit; but the same should not be a pittance. The courts and tribunals have a duty to weigh the various factors and quantify the amount of compensation, which should be just. What would be "just" compensation is a vexed question. There can be no golden rule applicable to all cases for measuring the value of human life or a limb. Measure of damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculations. It would depend upon the particular facts and circumstances, and attending peculiar or special features, if any. Every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the background of "just" compensation which is the pivotal consideration. Though by use of the expression "which appears to it to be just" a wide discretion is vested in the Tribunal, the determination has to be rational, to be done by a judicious approach and not the outcome of whims, wild ' 2025 see Online Se 262 (2003) 7 see 484 23 RNTJ & MRKJ MACMA_295_2019 guesses and arbitrariness. The expression "just" denotes equitability, fairness and reasonableness, and non-arbitrary. If it is not so it cannot be just. (See Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra SRTC.) ” Further, the Apex Court in the dictum of Yadava Kumar Vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd.^ also held under:- 48. as “ 17. The High Court and the Tribunal must realise that there is a distinction between compensation and damages. The expression compensation may include a claim for damages 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 there cannot be any rigid or mathematical precision in the matter of determination of compensation ” 49. The learned counsel for the respondent/petitioner placed strong reliance on the judgment in Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and Ors.® “ 21. For the reasons discussed above, in our view, under the MV Act, there is no restriction that the Tribunal/court cannot award compensation amount exceeding the claimed amount. The function of the ^(2010) 10 see 341 ® (2003) 2 see 274 24 RNTJ & MRKJ MACMA_295_2019 Tribunal/court is to award “just” compensation which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced record. Further, in such cases there is no question of claim becoming time-barred or it cannot be contended that by enhancing the claim there would be change of cause of action. It is also to be stated that as provided under sub-section (4) to Section 166, even the report submitted to the Claims Tribunal under sub-section (6) of Section 158 can be treated as an application for compensation under the MV Act. If required, in appropriate cases, the court may permit amendment to the claim petition ” on 50. In Kajal Vs. Jagadish Chand and Ors.^ also, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the ‘just compensation’ importance in adjudicating the claims under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 cases. The-' relevant portion of the same read as under;- “ 33.' We are aware that the amount awarded by us is more than the amount claimed. However, it is well settled law that in the motor accident claim petitions, the Court must award the just compensation and, in case, the just compensation is more than the amount claimed, that must be awarded especially where the claimant is a minor ” Evidently, there is no legal embargo that compensation could be awarded only to the extent of claimed amount. The key word is “just compensation”. Thus, the Tribunal has power to award the compensation more than the amount claimed, so as to award compensation to meet the ends of justice. 51. , '(2020) 4 see 413 25 RNTJ & MRKJ MACMA_295_2019 52. In the Nght of object and intendment of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988., and also above authoritative dictums of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, we hold that there is no legal embargo/restriction that Tribunals/Courts cannot award compensation exceeding the claim amount since the primary function of the adjudicating authority has to award ‘just compensation’. Hence, we answer Point No.1 in favour of the respondent/petitioner. Point No.2: (Whether the Tribunal/Court can rely on guess work in assessing the income of the victim in adjudicating the claim under the Motor Vehicles Act or not?) The focal point urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant/respondent is that the petitioner did not produce any authentic documentary proof to show his income, as such, assessing the income of the petitioner by the Tribunal as 20,000/- per month by way of guess work is per se illegal and not valid. 53. In this context, it is pertinent to see the evidence on record to address the point emerged in the appeal. It is the specific evidence of the petitioner that he is a hale and healthy person aged about 45 years and used to do business prior to the unfortunate accident. He further asserted that the petitioner used to take agricultural lands lease basis from K.Narasimha Rao, K.Janardhan Rao and K.Gopala 54. on 26 RNTJ & MRKJ MACMA_2S5_2019 Rao, who are joint holders of the land, in proof of the same the petitioner got marked Ex.A-12 (Lease Agreement in favour of the petitioner dated 15.04.2010). P.W-13, who is one of the land owner deposed about their execution of lease deed in favour of the petitioner of an extent of agricultural land admeasuring Ac. 19.94 cents at Jagandhapuram, Ponnavaram, Krishna District., for a period of 5 years with effect from 15.04.2010 by fixing the lease amount at Rs. 10,00,000/-. Further, Ex.A-12 clearly reveals that K.Narasimha Rao, K.Janardhan Rao and K.Gopala Rao leased out their lands extent of Ac. 19.94 cents in Jaganadhapuram, Ponnavaram, Krishna District., in favour of the petitioner for the period of 5 years by fixing an the lease amount of Rs. 10,00,000. 55. Indisputably as seen from the material on record, the petitioner came from respectable family owning good reputation. Further, the petitioner also exhibited Ex.A-16 (Photocopy of registered Sale Deed along with encumbrance certificate). The said Registered Sale Deed Document No.408/2015 dated 13.02.2015, registered before the Sub- Registrar Office, Ibrahimpatnam clearly reveals that, P.W-1 sold extent of Ac. 1.00 cents of land in R.S No. 14/1, Mullapadu Village an 27 RNTJ & MRKJ MACMA_295_2019 Mullapadu Gram Panchayat, Krishna District in favour of B. Ramarao for a sale consideration of Rs.7,26,000/-. Further, the Encumbrance Certificate dated 27.02.2016 of S.R.O, Ibrahimpatnam, Krishna District, dearly depicts that the petitioner sold his lands in favour of multiple persons spreading eight transactions, which also correlates to the version of the petitioner that for the purpose of his medical necessities only, he sold the property and this suggests that the petitioner is owing the lands. Apart from that, Ex.A-12 also reveals that -^petitioner is doing agricultural works in the leased lands of an extent of Ac. 19.94 cents in Jaganadhapuram, Ponnavaram. All these evidences cumulatively crystal clear that the petitioner/P.W-1 was doing business as well as agricultural works, monthly income is Rs.40,000/-, the Tribunal by perceiving the overall facts and circumstances and also taking into consideration of the ground realties assessed petitioner’s income as Rs.20,000/- per month. In assessing the income of the petitioner in the absence of direct documentary evidence, naturally adjudicating forums rely upon some guess work, more particularly, while interpreting the provisions enshrined in the Motor Vehicles Act. 56. over Though the petitioner/P.W-1 claims that his 28 RNTJ & MRKJ MACMA_295_2019 57. In K.Suresh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.^, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held as under;- “ lO. It is noteworthy ot state that an adjudicating authority, while determining the quantum of compensation, has to keep in view the sufferings of the injured person which would include his inability to lead a full life, his incapacity to enjoy the normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries and his ability to earn as much as he used to or could have earned. Hence, while computing compensation the approach of the Tribunal or a court has to be broad based. Needless to say, it would involve guesswork as there cannot be any mathematical exactitude or a precise formula to determine the quantum of compensation. In determination of compensation the fundamental criterion of “just compensation” should be inhered ” earn some In respect of guesswork, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandra alias Chandram Vs. Mukesh Kumar Yadav^., while dealing with the. claim of victims arising out of Motor Vehicles Act., determined the income by perceiving all the aspects, had held as under:- 58. “ 9. The Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the deceased by adopting minimum wage notified for the skilled labour in the year 2016. In absence of salary certificate the minimum wage notification can be a yardstick but at the same time cannot be an absolute one to fix the income of the deceased. In absence of documentary evidence on record some amount of guesswork is required to be done. But at the same time the guesswork for assessing the income of the deceased should not be totally detached from reality. Merely because the claimants were unable to produce documentary evidence to show the monthly income of Shivpal, same does ® (2012) 12 see 274 , ® 2022 (1) see 198 29 RNTJ& MRKJ MACMA_295_2019 not justify adoption of lowest tier of minimum wage while computing the income ” 59. Further in the case of R.D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. 10 the Apex'Court had held as under;- “ 12. In its very nature whenever a tribunal court is required to fix the amount of compensation in cases of accident, it involves some guesswork, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of the disability caused. But all the aforesaid elements have to be viewed with objective standards ” 60. By virtue of the above evidence, the petitioner/P.W-1 claims that he used to earn Rs.40,000/- per month as income. But, apparently P.W-1 did not produce any Income Tax Returns in proof of his income. However, the Tribunal by perceiving the facts and circumstances and also taking into consideration of the ground realities assessed the income of P.W-1 as Rs.20,000- per month. or a 61. In the light of above legal position and in view of the clear categorical evidence on record, we hold point No.2 in favour of the respondent/petitioner. 62. Since the learned counsel for the appellant/respondent fairly urged two focal grounds and did not dispute the other aspects arrived at by the Tribunal, as such, we are not going into other components >,10 1995(1) see 551 30 RNTJ & MRKJ MACMA_295_2019 arrived by the Tribunal in the lis. However, it is well settled that if the Tribunal has taken a possible view based on the material record, the appellate court would be loath to interfere, context, it is apt to note the dictum of the Apex Court held in Divisional Controller, KSRTC (NWKRTC) Vs. A.T. Mane^^ held underi on In this as “ 10. Since the only ground on which the finding of the domestic tribunal has been set aside being the ground that the passengers concerned not examined or their statements were not recorded, in spite of there being other material to establish the misconduct of the respondent, we are of the opinion, the courts below have erred in allowing the claim of the respondent. In our opinion, the ratio laid down in the above case of Rattan Singh applies squarely to the facts of this case ” are Conclusion; 63. For the aforesaid discussion and keeping in view the laudable object and intendment of the Motor Vehicles Act., coupled with the authoritative pronouncements of the Apex Court, we see no reason to interfere with the findings arrived by the Tribunal. 64. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A filed by the appellant/lnsurance Company is dismissed. The compensation amount awarded by the (2005) 3 see 254 31 RNTJ & MRKJ MACMA_295_2019 Tribunal shall be deposited by the appellants/respondents jointly and severally, within a period of two (2) months, from the date of receipt of copy of this Judgment, if not already deposited. On such deposit, respondent/petitioner is entitled to withdraw the entire amount, without furnishing any security. No costs. As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed. Sd/- T. SRINIVASA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Honourable Sri Justice RAVI NATH TILHARI (For his Lordships Kind Perusal) One Fair Copy to the Hon’ble Sri Justice MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM (For his Lordships Kind Perusal) To, 1. The Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal —cum- II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 2. One CC to Sri Gudi Srinivasu, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Smt. Amrutha Boppudi, Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. 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, Amaravathi. 8. Three CD Copies SAM sree m I % HIGH COURT DATED:08/10/2025 JUDGMENT + DECREE M.A.C.M.A. No. 295 of 2019 7 k ncT ws ^ . CurreniSeciic 'll X ro' I O AC-fCVV?i DISMISSING THE M.A.C.M.A.