APHC010130452023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 134/2023 Between: 1. PEDAKONDAIAHGARI BABU @CHIGICHERLA BABU, S/0 VENKATARAMUDU ,AGE 37,OCCU.CARPENTER MEDAPURAM VILLAGE , CHENNEKOTHA PALLI MANDAL ,ANANTAPUR DIST ...APPELLANT AND 1. SHAIK CHAND BASHA, S/0 SHAIK GAFOOR SAB , MAJOR ,OWNER OF THE VAN BEARING NO AP 02 -TA-9277 DNO 1-2-436,RANI NAGAR ,ANANTAPUR 2. NEW INDIA ASSURAME CO LTD, REP BY IT'S DIVISONAL MANAGER ,ANANTAPURAMU 3. N VENKATRAMI REDDY, S/O N.RAMI REDDY D. NO 232,ERAGARAJUPALLI , KOTHA PALLI POST ,PUTTAPARTHY MANDAL , SATYA SAI PUTTAPARHY DIST ,A.P ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased toappellant begs to prefer this Memorandum of Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous appeal against the Judgment and Decree of the Motor vehiclts accidents claims tribunal IVth Addl Distict Judge ,Anantapurait' u Having aggrieved by the order Dt 8-4-2021 passed- in MVOP 1 zt7/ 2017 IA NO: 1 OF 2023 2 VS,J MACMA No.134 of 2023 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 may be pleased to condone the delay 289 of days in filing the appeal before the Honourable High court and pass such Counsel for the Appellant: 1. G VENKATESULU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K SUBRAHMANYAM 2. The Court made the following: 3 VS,J MACMA No.134 of 2023 JUDGMENT: The Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred by the appellant/claimant challenging the order and decree dated 08.04.2021 passed in M.V.O.P.No.147 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu, wherein the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.3,48,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Forty Eight Thousand only), as against the claim of Rs.6,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by claimant in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 26.12.2016. 02. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 03. The case of the claimants, in brief, is as follows: a) On 26.12.2016 at about 6.00 a.m., while the petitioner was travelling in an auto bearing No.AP-02-X-2865 to Dharmavaram, and when it reached near Y-Junction, Yerraguntla, a Van bearing No.AP-02-TA-9277, coming from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the auto. As a result, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and was initially shifted to Government Hospital, Dharmavaram, and thereafter to YSR Hospital, Anantapuramu for better treatment. A case in Crime No.354 of 2016 was registered by the Dharmavaram Police against the driver of the said van. 4 VS,J MACMA No.134 of 2023 b) The petitioner contended that he was aged about 31 years, hale and healthy and was earning Rs.9,000/- per month as a carpenter. Due to the accident, he suffered permanent disability despite incurring medical expenses of about Rs.1,00,000/-. Hence, he claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- against the respondents. 04. Respondents No.1 and 3 filed a counter denying the allegations and contended that the van was insured with the 2nd respondent under a valid policy covering the period from 23.06.2016 to 22.06.2017, and that the driver possessed a valid driving licence. They further contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the auto driver and that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, namely, the owner, driver, and insurer of the auto. 05. The 2nd respondent/insurance company filed a separate counter denying the material allegations and contended that the claim of income is not supported by any documentary evidence, that there was no valid registration certificate for the van, and that the compensation claimed is excessive. 06. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether the petitioner Pedakondaiahgari Babu @ Chigicherla Babu received injuries in motor vehicle accident occurred on 26.12.2016 at about 6.00 a.m. near Y-Junction, Yerraguntla, Dharmavaram, due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Crime Van bearing No.AP-02-TA-9277? 5 VS,J MACMA No.134 of 2023 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to receive compensation, if so to what extent and from whom? Which of the respondent? 3. To what relief? 07. On behalf of the petitioner, P.W.s 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent/insurance company, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked. 08. After hearing both parties and upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition, awarding a compensation of Rs.3,48,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till realization. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 were held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. In default of deposit within two months from the date of the award, the amount shall carry interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition till realization. On deposit, the petitioner was permitted to withdraw 50% of the compensation, and the remaining 50% was directed to be kept in a fixed deposit in a nationalized bank for a period of one year. Any amount awarded under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act shall be deducted from the said compensation. 09. Aggrieved by the said award, the claimant preferred the present appeal contending that, though he was working as a carpenter and earning Rs.9,000/- per month at the time of the accident, the Tribunal, in the absence of documentary evidence, erroneously fixed his notional income at Rs.5,000/- 6 VS,J MACMA No.134 of 2023 per month by treating him as an agricultural coolie based on Ex.A1-FIR. It is further contended that the Tribunal failed to consider the minimum wages applicable as on the date of the accident. The claimant also submits that, despite the evidence of P.W.2 and Ex.A4-disability certificate assessing permanent disability at 50%, the Tribunal erroneously reduced the same to 30%. Hence, the claimant seeks enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 10. Heard Mr.G.Venkatesulu, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.K.Subramanyam, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent/insurance company 11. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? POINT: 12. A perusal of the impugned award passed by the Tribunal, it can be observed that, as per Ex.A2/wound certificate, the petitioner sustained two grievous injuries i.e., fracture of the shaft of the left radius and fracture of the shaft of the right femur. The evidence of P.W.2, who treated the petitioner, coupled with Ex.A4/disability certificate issued by the Medical Board shows that the permanent disability was assessed as 50% i.e., 30% for right lower limb and 20% for the left upper limb. The Tribunal, on proper appreciation, assessed the functional disability at 30%, which does not warrant interference. 7 VS,J MACMA No.134 of 2023 13. Coming to the income of the petitioner, though he claimed that he was earning Rs.9,000/- per month as a carpenter, no documentary evidence was produced in support of the same. Further, Ex.A1/F.I.R., shows his occupation as an agricultural coolie, and accordingly, the Tribunal fixed his income at Rs.5,000/- per month. However, this Court finds justification in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that, in the absence of proof of income, the notional income ought to have been assessed basing on the minimum wages prevailing at the relevant time. Moreover, as per the minimum wages applicable with effect from 01.04.2016 for agricultural labourers under the unskilled category, the daily wage is Rs.211/-. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the monthly income of the petitioner is to be assessed at Rs.6,330/- (Rs.211/- x 30). Taking the disability at 30%, the loss of monthly earning capacity comes to Rs.1,899/- (30% of Rs.6,330/-). Applying the multiplier 8169 applicable to the age group of 31 years, as per the judgment in Sarala Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 1 , the pecuniary loss is calculated at Rs.3,64,608/- (Rs.1,899 × 12 × 16). Thus, the compensation under the head of 8pecuniary loss9 is enhanced from Rs.2,88,000/- to Rs.3,64,608/-. 14. With regard to other amounts granted by the Tribunal under various heads. i.e., Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.25,000/- towards loss of future amenities due to disability and Rs.10,000/- towards medical 1 2009 ACJ 1298 8 VS,J MACMA No.134 of 2023 expenses, attendant and transport expenses, this Court finds that the said amounts are just and reasonable and no interference is warranted therewith. 15. Thus, to sum up, the amounts awarded by the Tribunal and the amounts granted in the present appeal in the light of the computations made above, are as follows: Head Amount granted by the Tribunal Amount now awarded by this Court Loss of earnings Rs.2,88,000/- Rs.3,64,608/- Pain & suffering Rs.25,000/- Rs.25,000/- Loss of future amenities Rs.25,000/- Rs.25,000/- medical expenses, attendant and transport expenses Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/- Total Rs.3,48,000/- Rs.4,24,608/- 16. Accordingly, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation to Rs.4,24,608/- from Rs.3,48,000/- with interest at 7.5% P.A. from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date: 02.03.2026 KGR