APHC010114692022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 117/2022 Between: 1. P.REDDAIAH,, S/O SUBBARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, RESIDENT OF RT PALLI, CK DINNAE MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1. T HUSSAIN SAB, S/O TIPPU SAB, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OWNER OF TATA SUMO KA 01 P 5351, RESIDING AT D.NO.55, 5TH DIVISION, SANTHE MAIDAN, RAMADAS COMPOUND, CHITRADURGA, CHITADURGA DISTRICT, KARNATAKA. 2. SHAIK MOHAMMAD RAFI, S/O SHAIK GAFOOR, 42 YEARS, DRIVER OF TATA SUMO KA 01 P 5351, D.NO. 16/486, DEVUNI KADAPA, CHOUSE NAGAR, KADAPA CITY 86 DISTRICT. 3. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, 1ST FLOOR, 39/622-748675, OPP. RTC BUS STAND, UPSTAIRS OF AP GRAMEENA BANK, RS ROAD, KADAPA (R.2 IS NOT NECESSARY) ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying the High court may be pleased to begs to present this Memorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal to this Hon'ble Court against the Order and Decree made in M.V.O.P.No. 678/2016 on the file of the 4th Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kadapa, Dt. 09.9.2021 2 VS,J MACMA No.117 of 2022 IA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 condone the delay of 81 days in filing the present M.A.C.M.A. and to pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. M S P KAMARAJU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SHAKE ABDUL AZEEM 2. The Court made the following: 3 VS,J MACMA No.117 of 2022 JUDGMENT: The present civil miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by the claimant aggrieved by the order and decree dated 09.09.2021 passed in M.V.O.P.No.678 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-IV Additional District Judge?s Court, Kadapa, wherein the Tribunal has partly allowed the said claim petition, awarding compensation of Rs.7,57,000/- to the petitioner/claimant, as against the claim of Rs.15,00,000/-, for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that occurred on 18.09.2016. 2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows: a) On 18.09.2016, while the petitioner was returning to his house from Jamalapalle Village on a motor cycle bearing No.AP04-AP5147 and when he reached near NTPC on Kadapa – Rayachoty main road, the driver of the Sumo vehicle bearing No.KA01-P-5351 coming from the Rayachoty side at high speed in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motorcycle, due to which, the petitioner was dragged for some distance and sustained serious injuries. Thereafter, he was immediately shifted to RIMS Hospital, Kadapa and as his condition became serious, he was admitted to SVIMS Hospital, Tirupati, where the petitioner was treated as an inpatient for ten days. On examination, Doctor found that the petitioner sustained serious injuries to his right temporal region and accordingly conducted surgery, during which blood clots were 4 VS,J MACMA No.117 of 2022 found in the brain. He also sustained a fracture to his right hand, for which, surgery was conducted. As a result of the said accident, the petitioner was unable to attend his day-to-day duties, as he used to do cultivation work prior to the accident. b) It is further stated that the petitioner was an agriculturist having Ac.5- 00 cents of land and he was cultivating commercial crops like turmeric, banana and betel leaves and was earning Rs.1,80,000/-per annum and contributing the same to his family. He claimed to have incurred medical expenses of Rs.2,00,000/- and lost his livelihood due to the accident. In respect of the said accident, a case was registered in Crime No.197 of 2016 of C.K. Dinne Police Station under Section 338 of IPC against the driver of the offending vehicle/2nd respondent and the said vehicle belongs to the 1st respondent and the offending vehicle is insured with the 3rd respondent. 4. Before the Tribunal, respondents No.1 and 2 remained exparte. 5. The 3rd respondent filed written statement denying the averments of the petition and contended that the petitioner is put to strict proof of the manner and mode of the accident, income and occupation and contended that the petitioner does not have a valid driving license and that his vehicle is not properly insured and that there was negligence on the part of the petitioner while driving the motorcycle. The 2nd respondent also does not have a valid driving license. It is further contended that when there was collusion between two vehicles and when the owner and insurance company which insured the 5 VS,J MACMA No.117 of 2022 motorcycle are not made as parties, the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Therefore, prays to dismiss the claim petition. 6. 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 18.09.2016 at about 8.00 p.m., due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Sumo vehicle bearing No.KA01-P-5351? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief?= 7. On behalf of the petitioner, he himself was examined as P.W.1 and also examined P.W.2 and P.W.3., who are doctors who treated the petitioner and Exs.A1 to A6 were also got marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 8. After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition against the respondents, awarding a total compensation of Rs.7,57,000/- to the petitioner with subsequent interest at 6% per annum on the said amount from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. Respondents No.1 to 3 were jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount to the petitioner. Further, the time to deposit the compensation amount was fixed as one month from the date of that order and on deposit, the petitioner was not 6 VS,J MACMA No.117 of 2022 entitled for the interest from the date of dismissal of default till the date of restoration as per orders in I.A.No.470 of 2020, dated 02.12.2020. 9. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, the petitioner preferred the present civil miscellaneous appeal, seeking enhancement of the compensation. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal awarded a meagre compensation by wrongly treating the petitioner as an agricultural coolie, by fixing his income at ₹6,000/- per month. It was further contended that though the medical evidence established 65% permanent disability along with neurological complications, the Tribunal failed to assess functional disability appropriately and failed to award towards future prospects, future medical expenses, and only granted inadequate amounts under the heads of pain and suffering, attendant charges, and transportation. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent has supported the impugned award and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 12. Now the point for consideration is: <Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable, or requires enhancement in this appeal; if so, to what extent?= 7 VS,J MACMA No.117 of 2022 POINT: 13. In any motor accident claim for injuries, compensation is awarded under two heads (1) Pecuniary damages and (2) Non-pecuniary damages. For assessing pecuniary loss, documentary proof is necessary and for non- pecuniary loss, the Tribunal has discretion to decide to arrive at a just compensation. In the case on hand, it was established from the evidence on record and as concluded by the Tribunal that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle and the claimant sustained injuries in the said accident. It was also not in dispute that respondent No.1 is the owner of the vehicle, respondent No.2 is the driver and the crime vehicle is having valid policy issued by respondent No.3 and as such all are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimant for the injuries sustained by him. 14. In the absence of any documentary evidence to prove that the claimant was cultivating a commercial crop, the Tribunal fixed the income of the claimant at Rs.6,000/- per month, and the annual income of the claimant would be Rs.72,000/-. By applying the multiplier of >15?, as per Sarla Verma and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Ans.1, for the age group of 38 years as per Ex.A4/discharge summary, the Tribunal calculated the loss of earnings of the claimant as Rs.10,80,000/-, which is just and proper. 15. Coming to the injuries sustained by the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the injuries sustained by the petitioner are 1 2009 ACJ 1298 8 VS,J MACMA No.117 of 2022 permanent in nature and functional disability would have been considered at 90%. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment reported in Sidram v. The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. 2 , wherein, under similar circumstances, where the claimant has sustained disability of 45%, the Hon?ble Apex Court has held as follows: 40. In the case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Another, (2011) 1 SCC 343, this Court has explained in the following terms the general principles relating to compensation injury cases and assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent disability: General principles relating to compensation in injury cases 10. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is, the percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be different from the percentage of permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation. 11. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanent disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terms of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find that the percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of the permanent disability, is approximately the same as the percentage of permanent disability in which case, of course, the Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination of compensation. (See for example, the decisions of this Court in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [(2010) 10 SCC 254 : 14. For example, if the left hand of a claimant is amputated, the permanent physical or functional disablement may be assessed around 60%. If the claimant was a driver or a carpenter, the actual loss of earning capacity may virtually be hundred per cent, if he is neither able to drive or do carpentry. On the other 2 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 968 9 VS,J MACMA No.117 of 2022 hand, if the claimant was a clerk in government service, the loss of his left hand may not result in loss of employment and he may still be continued as a clerk as he could perform his clerical functions; and in that event the loss of earning capacity will not be 100% as in the case of a driver or carpenter, nor 60% which is the actual physical disability, but far less. In fact, there may not be any need to award any compensation under the head of <loss of future earnings=, if the claimant continues in government service, though he may be awarded compensation under the head of loss of amenities as a consequence of losing his hand. Sometimes the injured claimant may be continued in service, but may not be found suitable for discharging the duties attached to the post or job which he was earlier holding, on account of his disability, and may therefore be shifted to some other suitable but lesser post with lesser emoluments, in which case there should be a limited award under the head of loss of future earning capacity, taking note of the reduced earning capacity. 16. The Hon?ble Supreme Court has held that the percentage of permanent disability is to be expressed by the doctors. In the present case, considering the evidence of PW12/Dr.A.Sudhakar Reddy, Neuro Surgeon at SVRRGG Hospital, Tirupati who examined the petitioner on 20.03.2020 i.e., four years after the accident and as well as the evidence of PW3 who is the doctor who conducted operation on PW1 who deposed that the petitioner is suffering with (1) post traumatic headache (2) post traumatic vertigo (3) post traumatic defective memory (4) past traumatic irritable behavior and anger and that the petitioner is unable to do his agricultural works for his livelihood, the Tribunal assessed the disability at 65%. 17. Thus, taking into consideration of partial permanent disability @ 65%, as per Ex.A5, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.7,02,000/- (Rs.10,80,000/- X 65%) towards loss of earnings. As the petitioner has failed to furnish any single bill towards his medical expenses, the Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- towards his medical expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards transport expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards attendant charges and Rs.25,000/- towards 10 VS,J MACMA No.117 of 2022 pain and suffering, in total the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.7,57,000/- with future interest @ 6% per annum with costs, which is evenhanded and does not warrant any interference. 18. In the light of the above discussion, there are no tenable grounds urged by the appellant to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal, as such, there are no merits in this appeal. 19. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed by confirming the order dated 09.09.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.678 of 2016 on the file of the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum – IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date: 20.01.2026 KGR