APHC010255082005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADES AT AMARAVATI QMS THURSDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 3756 OF 2005 Between: 1. Govindugari Ganganna,‘ S/o.Govindu, Aged about 74 years, R/o. > 15-205, Burma Street, Madanapalle, 2. Govindugari Venkatamma, W/o.Ganganna, aged about 69 years R/o. 15-208, Burma Street, Madanapalle, Chittoor District ...Appellants/Petitioners AND 1. Y Bhagyalakshmamma, W/o. Not Known, aged about 49 years, R/o.Sivalayam Street, Penugonda Town, Anantapur District. (Respondent No.1,3 is dismissed for default vide Court Order dated 06/01/2012) (Respondent No.1 was restored vide C.O dated 14/08/2025 in I.A No.2/2025 in MACMA No.3756/2005) 2. The National Insurance Company Ltd, rep by its Branch Manager The Branch Manager, APSRTC Bus Stand, Hindupur, Anantapur District. 3. M Jalajakshi W/o.late Dr.Srinivasulu, aged about 50 years, R/o.D.No.18-1, Ground Floor, Mathya Block, Krishnanagar Apartments, Annasandrapalya, Bangalore. j i (Respondent No.3 is dismissed for default vide Court Order dated 06/01/2012) /, 4. Govindu, S/o.late Dr.Sriniya$ulu, aged about 13 years, [Respondent No.4 is being minor rep by his mother & natural guardian Respondent No.3) R/o.D.No.18-1, Ground Floor, Mathya Block, Krishnanagar Apartments, Annasandrapalya, Bangalore. ...Respondents Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V Act, aggrieved by the order passed by way of decree and Judgment in O.P No. 136 of 2001 dated 13-06- 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- II Additional District Judhe, Madanapalle. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Trial Court and material papers in the Suit and upon hearing arguments of Sri S S Bhatt, Advocate for the Appellant and Smt A Jayanthi, Advocate for Respondent No.2 This Court doth Order and decree as follows: 1. That the appeal be and is hereby allowed in part; 2. That the compensation of Rs. 1,10,495/- (rupees one lakh ten thousand four hundred and ninety five only) be and is hereby awarded with interest @ 9% per annum thereon and proportionate costs throughout; nd 3. That the awarded compensation be payable by both the 1 and the 2 respondents with joint and several liability to the appellants/claimants and the 3'"’^ and the 4**^ respondents; 4. That the appellants/claimants be and are hereby entitled to Rs.40,000/- each, the 3'^'^ respondent be and is hereby entitled to Rs.20,495/- and the 4*^ respondent be and is hereby entitled to Rs. 10,000/-; / J / > r v 5. That the amount be paid within thirty (30) days from the receipt of a copy of the judgment. Sd/- M SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 9 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle, Chittoor District 2. Two CD Copies VNA ! I V I \ \ HIGH COURT DATED:1 1/09/2025 decree MACMA no. 3756 OF 2005 >v *( IS OCT 2025 )?! / Co urrentSectio ■* allowing the appeal APHC010255082005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI SMB THURSDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 3756 OF 2005 Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V Act, aggrieved by the order passed by way of decree and Judgment in O.P No. 136 of 2001 dated 13-06- 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- II Additional District Judhe, Madanapalle. Between: 1. Govindugari Ganganna, S/o.Govindu, Aged about 74 years, R/o. 15-205, Burma Street, Madanapalle, 2. Govindugari Venkatamma, W/o.Ganganna, aged about 69 years, R/o. 15-208, Burma Street, Madanapalle, Chittoor District ...Appellants/Petitioners AND 1. Y Bhagyalakshmamma, W/o. Not Known, aged about 49 years, R/o.Sivalayam Street, Penugonda Town, Anantapur District. (Respondent No.1,3 is dismissed for default vide Court Order dated 06/01/2012) (Respondent No.1 was restored vide C.O dated 14/08/2025 in I.A No.2/2025 in MACMA No.3756/2005) 2. The National Insurance Company Ltd, rep by its Branch Manager The Branch Manager, APSRTC Bus Stand, Hindupur, Anantapur District. / I/ 3. M Jalajakshi W/o.late Dr.Srinivasulu, aged about 50 years R/o.D.No.18-1, Ground Floor, Mathya Block, Krishnanagar Apartments Annasandrapalya, Bangalore. / / 'i / (Respondent No.3 is dismissed for default vide Court Order dated 06/01/2012) 4. Govindu, S/o.late Dr.Srinivasulu, aged about 13 Ground years, R/o.D.No.18-1, Apartments, Floor, Mathya Block, Annasandrapalya, Bangalore. Krishnanagar [Respondent No.4 is being minor rep by his mother & natural guardian Respondent No.3] ...Respondents Counsel for the Appellants : Sri S S Bhatt Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Smt A Jayanthi The Court made the following, order: r APHC010255082005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) QMS [3311] Thursday, the eleventh day of September, two thousand and twenty five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi M.A.C.M.A. No.3756 of 2005 Between: ...Appellants Govindugari Ganganna & others and ...Respondents Y.Bhagyalakshmamma and others Counsel for the appellants: I.S. S. Bhatt Counsel for the respondents: Ms.A. Jayanthi The Court made the following: 2 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3756of 2005 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the decree and the award, dated 13.06.2005, dismissing O.P.No.136 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-ll Additional District Judge, Madanapalle. The appellants are the claimants and the respondents are the respondents before the Tribunal. For the purpose of convenience the parties are arrayed as before the Tribunal. 2. The case of the claimants is briefly stated as follows: On 25.02.2000 at about 5.30 P.M., Dr. G.Sreenivasulu (hereafter referred as deceased) was going on his motor cycle bearing No.FY OIL 2953 and a bus bearing No.ADA 7060, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motor cycle of the deceased. As a result, the deceased sustained several fracture injuries to his left leg, besides other multiple injuries over his body. Immediately, he was shifted to the Government Hospital, Penugonda, from where, he was shifted to the Manipal Hospital, Bangalore, wherein he succumbed to the injuries on 11.03.2000. The police of Somandepalle Police Station registered a case in Crime No.9 / 2000 against the driver of the bus under Section 304-A l.P.C. The claimants paid Rs.10,000/- for medical for treatment of the deceased in the Manipal Hospital, 3. a. expenses Bangalore. The deceased was aged 47 years. He was earning Rs.25,000/- per month as a Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Madanapalle and also as a private practicing doctor. The claimants sought compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- with interest @12% p.a. The 1®* respondent is the owner of the bus. The 2^^ respondent is 3 \ BSB,J \ M.A.C.M.A.No.3756 of 2005 the insurer of the bus. The respondent is the wife of the deceased, and the 4*^ respondent is the son of the deceased, b. The respondent remained ex parte. The 2'"^ respondent filed a written statement opposing the claim and denying the averments and further contending that the claim is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, who are the owner and the insurer of the motor cycle. The 3"'^ and the 4'^ respondents filed a common written statement stating that they cannot be impleaded as proforma respondents, being wife and son of the deceased and that they are entitled to a major share in the amount of compensation. They further contended that the compensation payable is Rs.40,00,000/- (no separate claim was made). The Tribunal framed the following issues; Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bus bearing No.ADA 7060 involved in the accident and whether it resulted in death of the deceased? \ \ \ \ \ c. d. I. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation and if payable by whom and to what extent? II. so To what relief? IV. On behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and exhibits A1 to A6 were marked; e. P.W.1; P.W.2; Venkatamma K.Krishnamurthy C.R.Ranganath P.W.3; / 4 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3756of 2005 Certified copy of F.I.R. in crime No.9/2000 EX.A1 Certified copy of post-mortem certificate. EX.A2 Certified copy of inquest report. EX.A3 Certified copy of M.V.I. report. EX.A4 Certified copy of charge sheet. EX.A5 Installment payment bill bussed by M/s.Sriram Chits Madanapalle. EX.A6 On behalf of the respondents R.Ws.1 to 5 were examined. A bunch of medical bills (18 in number) were marked as Ex.BI and copy of insurance policy was marked as Ex.B2. f. M. Jalajakshi Durgaprasad Dr. J.Kiran Dr.K.H.Manjunath J.Nagaraja R.W.1 R.W.2 R.W.3 R.W.4 R.W.5 The following exhibits were marked through witness: g- Pay certificate. Ex.XI Xerox copy of acquaintance register for the month of January 2000. Salary certificate of the deceased. Ex.X2 Ex.X3 X-ray films (2). Ex.X4 Attested Xerox copy of the death summary of the deceased. Attested copy of information to be filled up by the pension sanction authority. Ex.X5 Ex.X6 Holding that the claimants could not establish that the death of the deceased was due to the injuries suffered in the accident, the whole claim was dismissed, though the Tribunal found that the deceased 4. \ 5 BSBJ M.A.C.IVI.A.No.3756 of 2005 \ suffered injuries which were caused in the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. 5. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal was filed mainly contending that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the whole claim, though the evidence on record establishes that the deceased died due to cardiac arrest consequent to the injuries suffered in the accident and also that the Tribunal erred in taking low income of the deceased as against sufficient proof of his income. It was also contended that the compensation ought to have been granted basing on the medical bills and also that the Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the evidence of R.Ws.3 and 5. \ 6. The crucial question involved in this case is whether the death of the deceased is proximate to the injuries suffered in the accident, or for some other extraneous reason independent of the accident. Nextiy, it is to be examined whether the legal representatives are entitled to compensation, if not for the death of the deceased. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the doctor examined by the claimants clearly deposed that there is possibility of the death being caused due to advancement of cause of death which would have occurred long later if not suffered the injuries in the accident. He further submitted that since the motor vehicle claim is a beneficial scheme under a social welfare legislation, the evidence of R.W.4 ought to have been read in favour of the claimants. He further submitted that the Tribunal erred in opining that it is cardiologist who is competent to speak about the cause of death, but R.W.4 is also competent to speak about the evidence which he deposed before the Tribunal and his evidence was not shaken to be disbelieved or ignored. 7. / 6 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3756 of 2005 That apart, he submitted that the Tribunal failed to grant compensation for the medical treatment taken and the injuries suffered by the deceased, irrespective of the compensation for the resultant death, and that such compensation forms part of his estate left on his death to pass on to his legal representatives. The learned counsel for the insurance company submitted that the Tribunal rightly dismissed the petition, as the claimants could not establish the nexus between the cause of death, i.e., cardiac arrest and the injuries suffered by the deceased in the accident. 8. First of all, it is to be noted that the accident occurred on 25.02.2000, whereas the injured died on 11.03.2000. In the meantime, he underwent treatment for his injuries. Therefore, he incurred expenses for the treatment and suffered pain and agony, for which he is certainly entitled to compensation, subject to establishing all other necessary facts. The Tribunal completely ignored the aspect of granting compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased on account of the injuries suffered by the deceased. As rightly contended, the amount of compensation payable for the injuries suffered in the accident is estate of the deceased, and on his death before the claim is settled, it passes on to the legal representatives. As such, compensation for the injuries suffered cannot be declined. 9. As per the evidence on record, the deceased suffered the following injuries; 10. 1. Abrasion over left knee and leg; 2. Saturated wound over upper part of left leg; 3. Abrasion over left shoulder; 4. Fracture of neck of left femur; Y 7 BSB, J \ M.A.C.M.A.No.3756 of 2005 5. Fracture of shaft of left femur; 6. Fracture of both bones of left leg; 7. Fracture of left clavicle \ 11. The evidence of R.W.3, coupled with documentary evidence such as X- ray films etc., shows that the deceased was admitted as inpatient in the hospital and open reduction and internal fixation of left femur done by nailing on 28.02.2000 and closed G.K. nailing of left tibia done on 02.03.2000. His evidence further shows that clavicle brace given for fractured clavicle and that after surgery, the patient improved considerably and was walking with support. Sutures of the operation were removed on 03.03.2000 and on 10.03.2000. Thereafter, on 11.03.2000, at 08.15 a.m., he succumbed to sudden attack of chest pain associated with sweating and breathlessness and consequently, collapsed all of a sudden due to which emergency treatment was given to him, but he expired at 08.40 am on the same day in the hospital. was was was 12. The respondents filed, under exhibit B1, a bunch of medical bills (18 in number) amounting to expenses of Rs.35,495/-. As there is no much difficulty to upheld the genuineness of the claim under the medical bills, the same shall be allowed as compensation. That apart, as the deceased suffered the above said injuries with multiple fractures and simple injuries, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for each fracture amounting to Rs.40,000/- and Rs.5,000/- for each simple injury amounting to Rs. 15,000/- is granted. Thus, a total sum of Rs.55,000/- shall be granted towards pain and suffering. 13. That apart, as he took treatment for about 15 days and service of attendant is definitely required, some reasonable amount shall be granted to compensate the same. As such, an amount of Rs. 10,000/- is / BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3756 of 2005 just, keeping in view the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2000. The compensation in such cases for meeting the expenditure on transportation shall also be awarded. Therefore, an additional amount of Rs. 10,000/- can be awarded to meet such expenses. Thus, in all, the appellants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.1,10,495/- towards the injuries suffered by the deceased on account of the accident. 14. Coming to the question whether the death was the result of accident or not, the evidence of R.W.4 is more significant. R.W.4 conducted autopsy over the deceased and the relevant part of his evidence regarding the cause of death is as follows; “The death (sic was) caused due to cardiac failure as a result of coronary insufficiency. There is nexus between the injuries sustained by the deceased and cause of death. In “the opinion” (in the P.M. report) I have not mentioned the same. ... The injuries sustained by the deceased may precipitate the complications of pulmonary a cardiac deceases (sic diseases). The deceased might have had some cardiac weaknesses as per the description mentioned in page No.2 of postmortem certificate. He had some cardiac ailment mpnths before the accident. It is not true to suggest that the injuries are not responsoble for the death. The injuries sustained by the deceased accelerated the previous cardiac ailment which finally lead to death. As per the Ex.X5 it is shown that the deceased was recovered from the surgery and he was on P.W.B which means walking with support. ... The meaning of the word “Borderline Caridomegally”, mentioned in page No.1 of Ex.X5 is enlargement of heart. The enlargement of heart needs months or weeks. It is variable. It cannot happen all of a sudden. The words “ECG - Sinus tachy cardia” means increasing of heartbeat. It is not true to suggest that the deceased died (sic not) due to heart ailment only and I 9 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3756 of 2005 \ am deposing falsely to help the deceased family. ... I am not a cardiologist. A cardiologist is the better person to explain the cardiac problems of the deceased. As per the Ex.X5 there is no any such opinion of the cardiologist. Since I am not cardiologist, I cannot since how long period the deceased might have suffered from the said cardiac problem. ... the injured would go into stress after the accident. It depends up on his susceptibility. ... The stress is not mentioned in the certificate Ex.A2 and in death summary in Ex.X5. ... The stress cannot be visible and as such I have not mentioned in the postmortem say \ certificate report. The stress is fact which should be felt by the individual. ... I mentioned in my postmortem examination (sic report) that the weight of heart is 400 grams as against 250 grams to 275 grams in normal conditions. The enlargement of heart cannot happen with in a (sic few) weeks time as suggested. The enlargement of heart can be controlled but not decreased (sic cured) provided the patient takes regular and appropriate treatment.” 15. His evidence is not certain that the death resulted out of the injuries suffered. It is only a possibility in general and his opinion that the death could have been advanced alone cannot be a ground to consider that his death was caused due to proximate cause of injuries. Moreover, without stating in the postmortem report about the material aspects of cardiac problem, being aggravated by the injuries, resulted in the death of the deceased in this case, the witness was delved on the effect of the accident on the cardiac problem causing the death. He is not a cardiologist. He was suffering from the enlarged heart. There is no scientifically proved evidence that the injuries sustained in the accident are the proximate cause of the death. Therefore, this Court is not accepting the contention of the appellants that the death of the / 10 i BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3756 of 2005 deceased was the result of the injuries sutfered by him in the accident. As a result, the claimants N are entitled only to the amount payable to the deceased on account of the injuries suffered by him as stated above. The 3'^'^ and the 4**^ respondents have not Court and claimed 16. / appeared before this any compensation, however, the claimants them also. Therefore, the are entitled to compensation. themselves sought compensation for claimants and the and 4“^ respondents Since the respondent an employee and able to bring up her and has not pursued the appeal, a large portion of the compensation can be awarded to the appellants. They are also entitled to interest @ 9% per annum since the accident occurred in the year 2000 as by then, such rate of interest is common in nationalized banks. was son. Thus, such petition till the date of no dispute of the liability of the insurance company, both the 1®‘ and the 2"^^ respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. interest is payable from the date of the claim realization. Since there is 17. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, in part, awarding compensation of Rs. 1,10,495/- (rupees one lakh ten thousand four hundred and ninety five only) with interest @ 9% per annum thereon and proportionate costs throughout, payable by both the 1"‘ and the 2"^ respondents With joint and several liability to the appellants / claimants and the 3'"' and the 4*'' respondents. The appellants / claimants entitled to Rs.40,000/- each, the 3"'^ respondent Rs.20,495/- and the 4*^ respondent Rs. 10,000/-. The amount shall be paid within thirty (30) days from the receipt of a copy of the judgment. are 11 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3756of2005 Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed Sd/- M SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR '>> \ //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle, Chittoor District (with records if any) 2. One CC to Sri. S S Bhatt Advocate [OPUC] 3. OneCCto Sri. A Jayanthi Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, V.R Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi 5. Two CD Copies Stu vna high court \ DATED.-I 1/09/2025 t I I JUDGMENT + DECREE MACMA no. 3756 OF 2005 O 5( 16 OCT 2025 r'- Ckj IS^Juirent allowing the appeal