APHC010099012019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 237/2019 Between: 1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, OFFICE SITUATED NEAR MURALI THEATRE, DHOBHI GHAT ROAD, KADAPA CITY. ...APPELLANT AND 1. G GURAPPA ALIAS CHINNA GURAVAIAH, CHINNA GURRAIAH, S/O CHINA GURRAPPA @ CHINNA GURAVAIAH @ GURRAIAH AGED 60 YEARS, HINDU, R/O AT BHAVANARYANA NAGAR STREET, KUMMARA KOTTALU OF BADVEL TOWN, YSR DISTRICT. 2. GERA SREEKANTH, S/O CHANDRASEKHAR, AGED. 29 YEARS, HINDU, DRIVER OF THE CAR BEARING NO.AP21 AQ 4445, R/O D.NO.18/10419/1, L.M. COMPOUND, KOVELAKUNTLA TOWN, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 3. LAVANURI MAHESWARA REDDY, S/O SESHA REDDY, AGED. 44 YEARS, MAJOR, OWNER OF THE CAR BEARING NO.AP21 AQ 4445 R/O OF D.NO.10-801-1, GANDHI NAGAR, KOVELAKUNTLA TOWN AND MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant: 1. N RAMA KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. D KODANDARAMI REDDY 2. P NAGENDRA REDDY The Court made the following: 2 JUDGMENT: United India Insurance Company Limited filed the present appeal aggrieved by the Award, dated 28.11.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.468 of 2016 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal- cum-Principal District Judge, Kadapa, wherein the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.8,69,000/- as against the claim of Rs.12,00,000/-, for the injuries sustained by the claimant in a motor accident that occurred on 18.04.2014. 2. Respondent No.1 is claimant, Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are Driver and Owner of the offending vehicle respectively. 3. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 4. The case of the claimant, in brief, is as follows: a). On 18.04.2014 at about 3.00 p.m., the claimant went to his daughter’s house who is residing in the neighbouring street and after completion of his work, while he was returning from there to his house and when he reached near Anjaneyaswamy Temple, on the left side of the road on Badvel – Mydukur main road at about 3.30 p.m., the Respondent No.1 who is driver of the Car bearing No.AP22 AQ 4445 came on his rear side from Badvel town with high speed without blowing horn in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant. As a result of which, he fell down and sustained severe bleeding and fracture injuries on his both 3 legs, ribs, right shoulder and other parts of the body. He was shifted to Government Area Hospital, Badvel and admitted for treatment. After admission, Doctors referred him to RIMS Hospital, Kadapa. Then he was shifted to RIMS Hospital, Kadapa. As there is no proper care and treatment, the claimant got admitted in Himalaya Super Specialty Hospital, Kadapa as an inpatient on 18.04.2014 at 10.30 p.m, where X-rays were taken and several tests were conducted. Subsequently, he was shifted to Prime Hospital as inpatient on 19.04.2014 where operation was conducted for fracture injuries. On 29.04.2014, the claimant was discharged from the hospital. He incurred an expenditure of Rs.6,00,000/- for treatment. b) As on the date of the accident, the petitioner was aged about 60 years and earning Rs.1,50,000/- per month by doing cultivation and also doing his profession i.e., preparing the pots. Due to major fracture injuries, the claimant became permanently disabled person and he lost his earnings totally. Thus, the petitioner claimed compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the accident. 5. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte. 6. Respondent No.2 who is owner of the Car bearing No.AP21 AQ 4445 filed counter denying the averments of the petition by contending that the injuries sustained by the petitioner are all simple in nature and curable in nature and there is no permanent disability to the petitioner. The Respondent No.2 also denied the income and occupation of the petitioner. He further 4 contended that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is highly excessive and sought for dismissal of the petition. 7. Respondent No.3 also filed written statement denying the averments of the petition and submitted that the driver of the offending vehicle had no authorized driving license to drive the crime vehicle at the time of accident. The petitioner has not sustained any severe injuries and permanent disability. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled for any claim petition and sought for dismissal of the petition. 8. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1.Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 18.04.2014 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Car bearing No.AP21 AQ 4445? 2.Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? 3.To what relief? 9. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimant, he himself got examined as PW1 and also got examined PWs 2 to 4 and marked Ex.A1 to A14. On behalf of the respondents, RWs 1 and 2 were examined and Ex.B1 Attested copy of Policy Copy and Ex.C1 Statement of LW5 were marked. 10. After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, in the absence of any proof with regard to the income of the claimant, the Tribunal, has taken the income of the 5 claimant at Rs.200/- per day which is Rs.6,000/- per month, therefore, annual income comes to Rs.72,000/- (Rs.6,000/- x 12). As per the Ex.A2 wound certificate, since the age of the petitioner is 60 years, the Tribunal applied multiplier of 9 and awarded Rs.6,48,000/- (Rs.72,000/- x 9). In view of the injuries mentioned in the Wound Certificate, the Tribunal took the disability at 50% and awarded Rs.3,24,000/- towards compensation. Apart from that, the Tribunal awarded Rs.3,20,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.50,000/- towards transportation and convenience, Rs.50,000/- towards extra nourishment, Special diet and attendant charges, Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities and also Rs.25,000/- towards costs of the litigation, in all the Tribunal awarded Rs.8,69,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs sixty nine thousand only) payable with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization along with proportionate costs and the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 were jointly and severally made liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. Respondent No.2 was directed to deposit the compensation amount into Court within one month from the date of the award. Upon such deposit, the petitioner was permitted to withdrawn an amount of Rs.4,69,000/- with costs and interest forthwith and remaining amount of Rs.4,00,000/- shall be deposited in any Nationalized Bank for a period of three years. 6 11. Aggrieved by the said award, the respondent No.3/Insurer preferred this appeal disputing the liability and also contended that in the absence of proof of income of the claimant, the Tribunal has erroneously considered the income of the petitioner at Rs.6,000/- per month and awarded huge compensation of Rs.8,69,000/-. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner/respondent No.1 herein has supported the impugned award and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 13. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? 14. Point:- The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that without there being any documentary proof of the income of the petitioner, the Tribunal has erroneously considered the income of the petitioner at Rs.6,000/- per month and awarded huge compensation of Rs.8,69,000/-. 15. As can be seen from the impugned award, the Tribunal, having considered the evidence available on record, more particularly, the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 who have not denied the accident except denying the income and occupation of the petitioner held that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent/driver of the offending vehicle. The 2nd respondent contended that the injuries received by the petitioner are all simple and curable in nature and there is no 7 permanent disability to the petitioner. It is the contention of the 3rd petitioner that the petitioner has not sustained any permanent disability. 16. However, the petitioner in support of his case, got examined PWs 2 to 4 who treated the petitioner who deposed about the fracture injuries sustained by him. PW3 assessed the disability of petitioner at 50% and the Tribunal held that nothing is elicited in favour of the respondents from the cross-examination of PWs 1 to 4. It can also be seen that Ex.B1-insurance policy, which covers third party risk, was in force as on the date of accident. In view of the same, the Tribunal has observed that the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 were jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. 17. Coming to the quantum of compensation, as could be seen from the impugned award, the Tribunal considering the Ex.A2 Wound Certificate opined that the age of the claimant as 60 years as on the date of accident who was hale and healthy. Considering the fact that due to major fracture injuries the claimant became permanently disabled person which is supported by the evidence of PWs 2 to 4, the Tribunal rightly considering the profession of the claimant i.e., preparing the pots treated the income of the petitioner at the rate of Rs.200/- per day i.e., Rs.6,000/- per month, thereby Rs.72,000/- per annum. By applying appropriate multiplier of 9 as per the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi 8 Transport Corporation1 i.e., (Rs.6,000/- x 12 x 9 = Rs.6,48,000/-) and considering the disability at 50% awarded Rs.3,24,000/- (Rs.6,48,000 x ½) towards compensation. Apart from the same, the Tribunal also granted Rs.3,20,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.50,000/- towards transportation and convenience, Rs.50,000/- towards extra nourishment, special diet and attendant charges, Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities and Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner towards costs of the litigation, which are just and reasonable and need no interference. In all, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.8,69,000/- to the petitioner towards compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident, which cannot be said to be excessive or on higher side and no interference is warranted therewith in this appeal. 18. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date: 18.07.2025 ARB 1 2009 ACJ 1298 9 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. SUJATHA M.A.C.M.A..No.237 of 2019 DATE: 18.07.2025 ARB