APHC010415942022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 306/2022 Between: 1. PEDDA ACHAMMAGARI RAMESH, AGED 32 YRS S/O GANGANNA, RIO KUTAGULLA, KADIRI MUNICIPALITY ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT ...APPELLANT AND 1. GALI DAYANANDA, S/O RAMANNA R/O. D.NO. 26-31, M.C.PALEM, NEW PET PALAMANERU TOWN, CHITTOOR DISTRICT (OWNER OF EICHER VAN BEARING NO. APO3TA3897) 2. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, REP BY ITS MANAGER LEGAL, E-8, EPIP_RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SITAPURA, JAIPUR-302022, RAJASTHAN (INSURER OF THE EICHER VAN BEARING NO. APO3TA3879) 3. RAMPALLI LOKESH, AGED 32 YRS S/O VENKATAPPA, R/O KALLEPALLI VILLAGE GANGAVARAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT (DRIVER OF EICHER VAN BEARING AP 03 TA 3879) ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Courtbegs to prefer this Memorandum of Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the judgment and decree of the Chairman Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal Cum District Judge. Anantapur dated 14.02.2022 passed in O.P.No. 81e of 2015 2 VS,J MACMA No.306 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 in 62 days in filing of the present M.A.C.M.A. and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. HARISH KUMAR RASINENI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GUDI SRINIVASU 2. The Court made the following: 3 VS,J MACMA No.306 of 2022 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the claimant, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 14.02.2022 passed in M.V.O.P. No.81 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Ananthapuramu, wherein the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs.1,95,141/- as against the claim of Rs.6,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant in a motor vehicle accident dated 20.12.2013. 02. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 03. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows: a) On 20.12.2013 at about 8:00 PM, the petitioner along with another person was proceeding on a motorcycle bearing No. AP 02 N 8703 from Tanakallu village towards his village, slowly on the extreme left side of the road. When they reached near Kummarollapalli Cross, opposite a Dargah, an Eicher Van bearing No. AP 03 TA 3879, driven in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, lost control and dashed against the motorcycle. As a result, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries including fracture of the right forearm and multiple injuries over the body. He was initially treated at Area Hospital, Kadiri, and later shifted to Sainath Hospital, Kadiri, where he underwent surgery involving insertion of steel plates and rods. He remained as an inpatient for one month and continued treatment thereafter. A case in 4 VS,J MACMA No.306 of 2022 Crime No.268 of 2013 of Kadiri Town Police Station under Section 337 of IPC was registered against the driver of the crime Eicher van. b) It was contended before the Tribunal that he incurred medical expenses of about Rs.30,000/- and requires further surgery, which is estimated to cost approximately Rs.20,000/-. It was further stated that he suffered 40% permanent disability, as certified by the Medical Board. At the time of the accident, he was aged about 25 years and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by doing agricultural work and coolie labour. On account of the injuries sustained in the accident and the subsequent disability, he sought compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- against the owner, driver, and insurer of the offending vehicle. 04. Before the Tribunal, respondent Nos.1 and 3 remained exparte. 05. Respondent No.2–Insurance Company filed its written statement denying the material averments of the claim petition, including the manner of the accident, nature of injuries, treatment taken, expenditure incurred, and the alleged disability. It disputed its liability on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident and thereby violated the provisions of Section 3(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. It was further contended that the owner of the vehicle willfully entrusted the vehicle to an unlicensed driver, in contravention of Section 5 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and therefore, the insurer is not liable to indemnify. The 5 VS,J MACMA No.306 of 2022 Insurance Company also disputed the manner of the accident, contending that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the motorcycle rider, who was allegedly carrying more than one pillion rider, lost control of the vehicle, and drove on the wrong side. It was further contended that the rider did not possess a valid driving licence and the motorcycle was not insured. It was also pleaded that the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, I.e, the owner, driver, and insurer of the motorcycle. The claim was stated to be excessive and exaggerated. Upon amendment of the claim petition enhancing the compensation from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.6,00,000/-, respondent No.2 filed an additional written statement contending that the enhanced claim is highly excessive. It was further contended that the alleged disability of 40% has no nexus with the injuries sustained in the accident and cannot be relied upon for awarding compensation. On these grounds, the Insurance Company sought dismissal of the claim petition. 06. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether the pleaded accident dated 20.12.2013 has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of car bearing No.AP 03 TA 3879 (crime vehicle) by 3rd respondent and whether the petitioner Pedda Achammagari Ramesh sustained injuries due to the said accident? 2. Whether the crime vehicle was owned by 1st respondent ad insured with the 2nd respondent as on the date of accident? 3. Whether the petition is bad for nonjoinder of necessary party? 4. Whether there are any violations of conditions of policy? 6 VS,J MACMA No.306 of 2022 5. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation and if so, to what amount and from which respondent? 6. To what relief?” 07. On behalf of the petitioner, he examined himself as P.W.1; and examined Dr.A.Jagannath as P.W.2 and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked.On behalf of respondent No.2, its Legal Executive was examined as R.W.1 and P.C. Amaravani, Senior Assistant in the RTO Office was examined as R.W.2. Ex.B1/ insurance policy and Exs.X1 and X2 were marked on their behalf. 08. After hearing both parties and considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition. The operative portion of the order reads as follows: “In the result, the petition is partly allowed with proportionate costs awarding compensation of Rs.1,95,141/- (Rupees one lakh ninety five thousand one hundred and forty one only) to the petitioner with simple interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition i.e., 26.02.2015 till the date of realization recoverable by the petitioner from respondents No.1 to 3 jointly and severally. Out of the compensation so awarded, petitioner is permitted to withdraw Rs.1,45,141 (Rupees one lakh forty five thousand one hundred and forty one only) with costs and entire interest on the compensation and the remaining compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) shall be invested in a fixed deposit in his name in any nationalized bank of his choice for a period of three years and thereafter he is permitted to withdraw his balance compensation amount along with accrued interest thereon. Time for deposit is two months. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/-. In case, the claimant is granted exemption from payment of Court fee payable on the claim amount, he shall now pay the said court fee in accordance with the procedure. Office is directed to prepare decree after payment of Court fee, if he is exempted from payment of the same.” 7 VS,J MACMA No.306 of 2022 09. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioner preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking enhancement, contending that the compensation awarded is inadequate. It is submitted that the Tribunal erred in assessing the permanent disability at 2.32% to the whole body, ignoring the Medical Board’s assessment of 40% disability to the right upper limb. The petitioner, being an agricultural labourer and coolie, depends on physical work, and the injury to his right arm has substantially affected his earning capacity. It is further contended that the Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the evidence relating to the nature of injuries, prolonged treatment, and the necessity of future surgery. The amounts awarded under various heads, including loss of earnings, pain and suffering, medical expenses, and future treatment, are stated to be inadequate. Hence, the petitioner seeks enhancement of compensation by appropriately assessing the loss of earning capacity and awarding just compensation under all relevant heads. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents herein 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?” 8 VS,J MACMA No.306 of 2022 POINT: 13. With regard to Issue No.1, the claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and deposed in detail about the manner in which the accident occurred and the injuries sustained by him. He stated that on 20.12.2013 at about 8:00 p.m., while he and another person were proceeding on a motorcycle bearing No.AP 02 N 8703 from Tanakallu Village towards his village, on the extreme left side of the road, an Eicher van bearing No.AP 03 TA 3879, coming from the Ananthapur side, was driven in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, lost control, and dashed against the motorcycle. As a result of the said accident, the petitioner sustained a fracture of the right forearm and multiple grievous injuries over his body. He further deposed that he was initially treated at Area Hospital, Kadiri, and subsequently shifted to Sainath Hospital, Kadiri, where he underwent surgery to his right hand with insertion of steel plates and rods, and remained as an inpatient for about one month, followed by further treatment. In the absence of any cogent evidence to discredit the testimony of P.W.1, and having regard to Ex.A1–FIR and Ex.A3–charge sheet, wherein the police have attributed negligence to the driver of the offending vehicle, this Court finds no reason to differ from the finding of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the finding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle is confirmed. 14. Now coming to the quantum, the claimant was aged about 23 years as on the date of accident and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by doing cultivation and attending coolie works. In the absence of documentary 9 VS,J MACMA No.306 of 2022 evidence to prove that he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month, the Tribunal assessed the notional income of the claimant at Rs.9,000/- per month. However, as the accident took place on 20.12.2013 and as per the minimum wages applicable in the year 2013, the wages payable to an unskilled coolie is Rs.162/- per day. If the same is considered, the monthly income of the claimant would come to Rs.4,860/-. This Court deems it appropriate to round it off and fix it at Rs.5,000/- per month. Accordingly, the monthly income of the claimant is thus reduced from Rs.9,000/- to Rs.5,000/-. After applying the appropriate multiplier of ‘18’ applicable to the age group of 23 years, the loss of income comes to Rs.10,80,000/- (Rs.5,000 × 18 × 12). As per the evidence of P.W.2, who is a member of the District Medical Board, he along with other members of the Medical Board, Ananthapuramu, examined the petitioner and issued Ex.A4 disability certificate. As per the said certificate, the disability is assessed at 40% due to post traumatic sequelae due to RTA on 20.12.2013 with fracture of both bones of the right forearm distal end. In spite of the said evidence, the Tribunal, relying upon various judgments, assessed the permanent disability of the whole body of the claimant at 2.32%. The Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of judgments has held that once a disability certificate is issued by the Medical Board, the same need not be reassessed by the Tribunal. Considering the same, this Court is of the opinion that the claimant is entitled to be assessed at 40% disability, which comes to Rs.4,32,000/- (Rs.10,80,000 × 40%). Apart from the same, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards injuries, shock, pain and suffering and Rs.5,000/- 10 VS,J MACMA No.306 of 2022 towards extra nourishment, attendant, transport, incidental charges, which are found to be just and proper and needs no interference. 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 Compensation towards injuries, shock, pain and suffering Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.1,00,000/- Compensation towards loss of earnings for three months Rs.27,000/- (Rs.9000 X 3) Rs.15,000/- (Rs.5000 X 3) Compensation towards extra nourishment, attendant, transport, incidental charges Rs.5,000/- Rs.5,000/- Permanent disability Rs.63,141/- Rs.4,32,000/- Total Rs.1,95,141/- Rs.5,52,000/- 16. Accordingly, the civil miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed. The order dated 14.02.2022 in M.V.O.P.No.81 of 2015 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- District Judge, Ananthapuramu, is modified by enhancing the compensation awarded to the appellant/petitioner from Rs.1,95,141/- to Rs.5,52,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the total compensation from the date of petition till the date of realization. There shall be no order as to costs. 11 VS,J MACMA No.306 of 2022 As a sequel, pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date: 17.03.2026 KGR