APHC010045302005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) Thursday, the Seventeenth day of April Two Thousand and Twenty Five The Honourable Ms. Justice B S Bhanumathi Motor Accident Civil Between: Vutukuri Nageswara Rao and Vannamreddi Madhusudhana Rao and Others Counsel for the appellant: 1. Sivalenka Ramachandra Prasad Counsel for the respondents: 1. Dr.Sastry Jandhyala The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Thursday, the Seventeenth day of April Two Thousand and Twenty Five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B S Bhanumathi Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1510/2005 Vutukuri Nageswara Rao ...Appellant Vannamreddi Madhusudhana Rao and Others ...Respondents Counsel for the appellant: Sivalenka Ramachandra Prasad Counsel for the respondents: Dr.Sastry Jandhyala The Court made the following: [3311] Miscellaneous Appeal No.1510/2005 ...Appellant ...Respondents 2 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1510 of 2005 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short ‘the M.V.Act’) against the award and decree dated 26.06.2004, in M.V.O.P.No.267 of 2001 on the file of the Court of IX Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Krishna, at Machilipatnam seeking enhancement of compensation from Rs.8,000/- to Rs.60,000/- as claimed by the claimant. 2. The case of the claimant is briefly as follows: The petitioner is eking out his livelihood on attending kalamkari works. The petitioner and others engaged a lorry bearing No.AHK 6445 from Pedana to Srikakulam. On 21.06.1993 at about 3.00 A.M., the driver of the lorry drove it in a rash and negligent manner resulting in the vehicle turning turtle and causing injuries to the inmates. A case in Crime No.45 of 1993 was registered against the respondent No.1 under Sections 337 and 338 IPC. The petitioner was hale and healthy before the accident. Due to the accident, the petitioner sustained fractures of left tibia and fibula and other injuries over the body. The petitioner was treated in government hospital, Mahilipatnam for 15 days and thereafter in Saibaba Nursing Home, Pedana, for three months. The petitioner spent Rs.60,000/- towards medical expenses. The petitioner used to earn Rs.3,000/- per month before the accident. But, due to the injuries suffered in the accident, he lost his earning. Thus, he claimed Rs.60,000/- as compensation. 3. The 1st and 2nd respondents filed separate counters denying the allegations in the petition. 4. The 3rd respondent / insurance company filed a separate counter denying the averments and disowning its liability. 3 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1510 of 2005 5. This petition, along with batch of other case numbers, viz., MVOP Nos.265, 266, 268 and 269 of 2001 arising out of the same accident, was disposed of by a common trial and common order. 6. On behalf of the claimants, the petitioners in MVOPs No.265 266, 267, 268 and 269 of 2001 were examined as PWs.1 to 5 and PW.6, Dr. S.Rama Brahammam, C.A.S., was examined. The claimants filed Ex.A.1 Certified copy of FIR in Cr.No.45 of 1993 of Challapalli P.S., Ex.A.2 Certified copy of M.V.Report, Ex.A.3 certified copy of wound certificate of PW.1 dated 19.08.1993, Ex.A.4 Certified copy of order in MVOP No.310 of 1994 & 311 of 1994 on the file of Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, M.T.M., Ex.A.5 Certified copy of the wound certificate of PW.2, Ex.A.6 certified copy of the wound certificate of PW.3, dated 19.08.1993, Ex.A.7 X-ray of PW.3, dated 19.08.1993, Ex.A.8 wound certificate of PW.4 dated 19.08.1993 and Ex.A.9 wound certificate of PW.5 dated 19.08.1993. 7. On behalf of the respondents R.W.1 V.S.Subrahmanyam, Gudivada was examined. R.W.2 K.Venkateswara Rao, Advocate was examined. Ex.B.1 policy and Ex.B.2 investigation report were marked. 8. After considering the contentions and the evidence, the Tribunal found that the petitioner suffered injury No.1 which caused pain and swelling and the injury No.2 is lacerated injury. There were fractures of left tibia and fibula as per Ex.A.6. The petitioner did not examine the doctor to speak about the probative value of Ex.A.6, as per the observation of the Tribunal. The Tribunal noted that considering the age, avocation and income of the petitioner and the nature of the injuries, Rs.8,000/- would be reasonable amount of compensation and 4 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1510 of 2005 directed the same to be paid along with the interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 9. Aggrieved by the award, this appeal was filed. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal ought to have granted more amount of compensation as the petitioner suffered fracture injuries to the limbs and lost income for long time as he was treated as inpatient in the hospital and thereafter he took long time for recovering fully. Therefore, he contended that the Tribunal ought to have granted more amount towards loss of income and the disability suffered. 11. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent opposed the appeal stating that the Tribunal awarded adequate amount of compensation. 12. Since the accident occurred in the year 1993 whereas the claim petition was filed in the year 2001 and the award was passed in the year 2004, the values as on the date of the cause of action in the year 1993 have to be taken into consideration. Merely because the award was passed in the year 2004, the values as on that day or as on today cannot be taken into consideration. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. 13. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ B.S.BHANUMATHI, J 17.04.2025 PNV/RAR