1 Date of reserved for Judgment :06.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement :01.05.2026 Date of uploading :04.05.2026 APHC010649612013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3520] FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 345/2013 Between: 1. SMT.B.PARVATHAMMA, W/O.B.YELLAPPA OCC: MILK VENDOR R/O.KADIREPALLI, AGLI [M], ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1. K SIVASANKARAIAH ANR, S/O.K.VENKATESAIAH, HINDU AGED: MAJOR R/O.4-401, MADAKASIRA, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REP BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER O/O.DIVISIONAL OFFICE: HINDUPUR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. [INSURER OF BUS BEARING NO.ATA 3191] ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Court Counsel for the Appellant: 1. P NARAHARI BABU 2 Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. . 2. T V P SAI VIHARI The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA M.A.C.M.A.No.345 of 2013 JUDGMENT: Introductory: 1. Claimant in O.P.NO.249 of 2010 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Hindupur (for short “the learned MACT”), feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the award and decree dated 30.11.2012 awarding a compensation of Rs.42,000/- as against the claim made for Rs.1,00,000/-, against the respondent No.1 alone, filed the present appeal questioning the dismissal against Respondent No.2 and also the adequacy of compensation awarded. 2. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the bus bearing No.ATA 3191 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”), remained ex parte before the learned MACT and respondent No.2 is the insurer. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as “the petitioner” and “the respondents” as and how they are arrayed before the learned MACT. Case of the petitioner: 4. The petitioner was travelling in bus / offending vehicle on 19.08.2000 to go to Sira and at about 07:30 p.m. the driver of the offending vehicle drove it in a rash and negligent manner on Agali-Sira road and the front wheel of the bus got 4 removed, whereby the accident occurred and the petitioner sustained grievous injures. Immediately, the petitioner was shifted to Community Hospital, Madakasira, for treatment. She received fracture injury to her left clavicle and contusion injury on her left knee and her three teeth were removed. Petitioner was earning Rs.200/- per day by doing daily milk vending business. She became disabled due to the accident and is entitled for compensation. Case of respondent No.2 / Insurance Company: 5. The claimant shall prove the pleaded accident, negligence, injuries, entitlement for compensation, compliance of policy conditions, including want of driving licence to the driver of the offending vehicle and that the accident occurred due to the mechanical defect. Therefore, the respondent Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. Findings of the learned MACT: 6. The learned MACT believed the accident and negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and also rejected the objection as to want of driving licence to the driver of the offending vehicle. By referring to the injuries, wound certificate and injuries thereunder and two among them are being grievous and one simple, found the entitlement of claimant for compensation under the head of pain and suffering at Rs.22,000/-, Rs.15,000/- towards disability and Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenses. In all, awarded a compensation of Rs.42,000/-. 5 7. However, with regard to the liability, found that the MVI report is not containing complete policy particulars, particularly with regard to the validity period. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable and dismissed the application against the Insurance Company while fastening the liability against respondent No.1, the owner of the offending vehicle alone. Arguments and grounds in the appeal: For the appellant: 8(i). Dismissal of claim against the Insurance Company is not correct. (ii). The Insurance Policy details are mentioned in the MVI report and they are sufficient. The petitioner is a third party and the owner of the offending vehicle remained ex parte. Therefore, the burden is on the Insurance Company to show want of policy. Hence dismissal is unjustified. (iii). The injuries sustained by the petitioner are grave in nature and the compensation awarded is unjust and inadequate. (iv). The claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation and against both the respondents. Arguments for respondent- Insurance Company: 9(i). Dismissal of claim against Insurance Company is justified. (ii). There are no grounds to interfere. 10. Heard both sides. Perused the record. Thoughtful consideration is given to the arguments advanced by both sides. 6 11. Points that arise for determination in this appeal are: 1) Whether the dismissal of claim against Respondent No.2 is proper? 2) Whether the quantum of compensation awarded at Rs.42,000/- is just and adequate? 3) What is the result of the appeal? Point No.1: 12. Certified copy of Ex.A4 vide column No.10 is indicating the insurance policy particulars as follows: No. of Insurance Policy / Insurance Certificate and date of validity of the insurance policy / insurance certificate. New India Insurance Co. Ltd., Hindupur. D.O.No.610700. HRO.N.A.75515 R.P.No.31-26084. 13. Counter filed for respondent No.2 / Insurance Company before the learned MACT is simply stating that “the petitioner shall be put to strict proof of the insurance coverage to the accident vehicle. The liability of this respondent is only contractual one and their liability is subject to proof of the insurance coverage to the accident vehicle. The insurance policy No. mentioned in column No.17 of the petition is not correct and the petitioner shall be put to strict proof of it”. 14. The efforts made by the Insurance Company, like calling for the policy particulars from the owner etc., are not found. Much importance is given by the learned MACT to the evidence of R.W.1. The evidence of R.W.1 D.B. Poulaiah, 7 Administrative Officer, New India Assurance Company is to the effect that the offending vehicle was not insured with Respondent No.2 / Insurance Company and that policy details mentioned in column No.17 of the petition and M.V.I. report-Ex.A.4 are incorrect. 15. Reasoning of the learned MACT is that as per Ex.A4-M.V.I Report, the offending vehicle was insured with New India Insurance Company Limited, Hindpur, and the particulars of the Division Office as D.No.10786/85. Whereas, as per M.V.I. Report, the Insurance office D.O.No.610700, HRO.N.A.75515, R.P. No.31-26084. The number mentioned in the claim petition, extracted by the learned MACT and the number mentioned in Ex.A4 column No.17 are same. viz. D.No.610700 HRO.N.A.75515, R.P.No.31-26084. Whereas, the number mentioned in the order is D.O.No.610700, HRO.N.A.75515, R.P.No.31-26081. Either in the counter or in the evidence of R.W.1, there is no specific reference to the code number of the office and comparative code numbers with reference to the MVI report in the pleading. Further, the efforts like whether summoning the RTA to confront Ex.A4 and the basis for entries in Ex.A4 or to summon the owner of the offending vehicle/respondent No.1 or at least giving notice to respondent No.1 to produce the policy particulars, are missing from the end of the Insurance Company. 16. It appears that an attempt made to fish for something during arguments gained the attention and nod of the Court without legally acceptable pleading or 8 evidence. Therefore, this Court finds that the exoneration of Respondent No.2 from liability is not acceptable. Further, the code number mentioned in Ex.A4 and also in column No.17 in the petition belongs to which office, at least, is not whispered and there is no specific denial that no such code number exists for the respondent Insurance Company. Petitioner being third party, they can rely on the official records of Police for the details of Insurance Company, owner etc. The objective of social welfare legislation, Motor Vehicles Act, is apparently ignored and empathetical concern, particularly as to the difficulties of the claimant, are not taken note by the learned MACT. 17. It is also relevant to note that, as per the provisions of A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules and as per general established procedure, the record maintained by the Police in discharge of their official functions can be relied on, and in this context, it is relevant to note statutory and precedential guidance, which are as follows: Statutory Guidance: 18(i). As per Section 176 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the State Governments are entitled to make rules for the purpose of carrying effect to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. (ii). In relation to claims before the learned MACT, Rule 455 to Rule 476 of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, vide Chapter No.11 provides comprehensive guidance. As per Rule 476 of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, the claims 9 Tribunal shall proceed to award the claim basing on the registration certificate of the vehicle, insurance policy, copy of FIR and Post- mortem certificate etc. 20. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court finds that respondent No.2 is also liable to pay the compensation. Point framed is answered accordingly. Point No.2: Precedential Guidance: 21. A reference to parameters, for quantifying the compensation under various heads, addressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court is found necessary, to have standard base in the process of quantifying the compensation, to which the claimant is entitled. (i) With regard to awarding just and reasonable quantum of compensation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Baby Sakshi Greola vs. Manzoor Ahmad Simon and Anr.1, arising out of SLP(c).No.10996 of 2018 on 11.12.2024, considered the scope and powers of the Tribunal in awarding just and compensation within the meaning of Act, after marshaling entire case law, more particularly with reference to the earlier observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court made in Kajal V. Jagadish Chand and Ors.2, referred to various 12025 AIAR (Civil) 1 22020 (04) SCC 413 10 heads under which, compensation can be awarded, in injuries cases vide paragraph No.52, the heads are as follows:- S. No. Head Amount (In ₹) 1. Medicines and Medical Treatment xxxxx 2. Loss of Earning Capacity due to Disability xxxxx 3. Pain and Suffering xxxxx 4. Future Treatment xxxxx 5. Attendant Charges xxxxx 6. Loss of Amenities of Life xxxxx 7. Loss of Future Prospect xxxxx 8. Special Education Expenditure xxxxx 9. Conveyance and Special Diet xxxxx 10. Loss of Marriage Prospects xxxxxx _________ Total Rs. … xxxxxx _________ (ii). Hon’ble Apex Court in Yadava Kumar Vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited and Anr.,3 vide para No.10, by referring to Sunil Kumar Vs. Ram Singh Gaud4,as to application of multiplier method in case of injuries while calculating loss of future earnings, in para 16 referring to 32010(10)SCC 341 4 2007 (14) SCC 61 11 Hardeo Kaur Vs. Rajasthan State Transport Corporation5, as to fixing of quantum of compensation with liberal approach, valuing the life and limb of individual in generous scale, in para 17 observed that :- “The High Court and the Tribunal must realize that there is a distinction between compensation and damage. The expression compensation may include a claim for damage 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.” (iii). In Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another6, the Hon’ble Apex Court summarized principles to be followed in the process of quantifying the compensation after referring to socio economic and practical aspects from which, the claimants come and the practical difficulties, the parties may face in the process of getting disability assessed and getting all certificates from either the Doctors, who treated, or from the medical boards etc. principles summarized vide para No.19 are as follows: 19. We may now summarise the principles discussed above: (i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity. 5 1992(2) SCC 567 6 2011 (1) SCC 343 12 (ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that the percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as the percentage of permanent disability). (iii) The doctor who treated an injured claimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard to the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety. (iv) The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors. (iv) In Sidram vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr.7 vide para No.40, the Hon’ble Apex Court referred to the general principles relating to compensation in injury cases and assessment of future loss of earning due to permanent disability by referring to Rajkumar’s case, and also various heads under which compensation can be awarded to a victim of a motor vehicle accident. (v) In Sidram’s case, reference is made to a case in R.D. Hattangadi V. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd.8. From the observations made therein, it can be understood that while fixing amount of compensation in cases of accident, it 7 2023 (3) SCC 439 8 1995 (1) SCC 551 13 involves some guess work, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of the disability caused. But, all these elements have to be viewed with objective standards. In assessing damages, the Court must exclude all considerations of matter which rest in awarding speculation or fancy, though conjecture to some extent is inevitable. Evidence and Analysis: 22. As per Ex.A3 wound certificate, the petitioner suffered the following injuries: 1. Swelling and deformity of the left clavicle; fracture present. Pain and tenderness present. 2. Contusion of 3’’ x 2’’ over left side of the forehead; pain and tenderness present. 3. Lower incisor teeth, about three, are lost. 4. Pain and tenderness over right knee. 23. As per the evidence, claimant as P.W.1, she took treatment at Community Hospital, Madakasira. There is no other evidence except oral evidence of petitioner and Ex.A3-wound certificate to show the effect of injuries and disability suffered by the petitioner. 24. In view of the discussion made above, the entitlement of the claimant for reasonable compensation in comparison to the compensation awarded by the learned MACT is found as follows: 14 25. For the reasons aforesaid and in view of the discussion made above, the point framed is answered in favour of the claimant, concluding that the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.65,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum and the order and decree dated 30.11.2012 passed by the learned MACT in O.P.No.249 of 2010 requires modification accordingly. Point No.2: 26. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part as follows: (i) The compensation awarded by the learned MACT in O.P.No.249 of 2010 at Rs.42,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum is Sl. No. Head Granted by the learned MACT Fixed by this Appellate Court 1. Pain and suffering Rs.22,000/- Rs.30,000/- 2. Extra nourishment -Nil- Rs.5,000/- 3. Medical expenditure/treatment Rs.5,000/- Rs.5,000/- 4. Attendant charges Rs.5,000/- 5. Transportation Rs.5,000/- 6. Loss of earning capacity due to disability during treatment Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- Total: Rs.42,000/- Rs.65,000/- Interest (per annum) 7.5% 6% 15 modified and enhanced to Rs.65,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. (ii) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 before the learned MACT are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. However, Respondent No.2/ Insurance Company is liable in view of the Insurance Policy. (iii) Time for payment/deposit of the balance amount is two months. (a) If the claimant furnishes the bank account number within 15 days from today, the Respondents shall deposit the amount directly into the bank account of the claimant and file the necessary proof before the learned MACT. (b) If the claimant fails to comply with (iii)(a) above, respondent No.2 / Insurance Company shall deposit the amount before the learned MACT and the claimant is entitled to withdraw the amount at once on deposit. (iv) There shall be no order as to costs in the appeal. 27. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeal shall stand closed. ____________________________ A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J Date:01.05.2026 Knr 16 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA M.A.C.M.A.No.345 of 2013 01.05.2026 Knr