1 MACMA NO. 461 OF 2022 VS,J. APHC010495242022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 461/2022 Between: 1. PESALA MURALI MOHAN REDDY, S/O.PESALA MALLA REDDY AGED 53 YEARS, OCC.AGRICULTURE, R/O.DOOR NO.5/30-A, PESALAVANDLPALLI (V) GANGANAPALLI POST, PENDLIMARRI MANDAL YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH ...APPELLANT AND 1. SHAIK KHALEED AHAMMED, S/O.S.ALI HUSSAIN AGED MAJOR, OCC.OWNER OF THE EICHER LORRY BEARING NO.AP 04 TU 7697, R/O.DOOR NO.4/125 LAKKIREDDYPALLI VILLAGE TOWN AND MANDAL YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 2. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REP.BY ITS MANAGER, BRANCH OFFICE AT 2ND FLOOR, SRI GOPAL AUTO STORES MARUTHINAGAR, NEAR RTC BUS STAND KADAPA CITY, YSR DISTRICT, AP 3. S ABDUL RASHEED, S/O.YAKUB SAHEB AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, OCC.DRIVER OF LORRY BEARING NO.AP 04 TU 7697, RESIDING AT DOOR NO.28-288/3 E-CROSS, RAMNAGAR COLONY, CHITTOOR TOWN AND DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant: 1. D KODANDARAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. A JAYANTHI 2. The Court made the following: 2 MACMA NO. 461 OF 2022 VS,J. THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 461/2022 J U D G M E N T: 1. This Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (for short MACMA) has been preferred by the Appellant-claimant seeking enhancement of compensation amount challenging the Order and Decree dated 24.05.2022 in M.V.O.P.No.100 of 2018 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal –cum- Judge, Family Court –cum- VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa, awarding compensation of Rs.4,19,600/- as against the claim of Rs.7,50,000/-. For the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal i.e., Appellant as Petitioner and Respondents as Respondents. 2. The brief averments of the petition in MVOP No.100 of 2018 are that – the Petitioner being injured filed claim petition under Sec.166 (2) of Motor Vehicle Act, r/w Rules 475, 476 of Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules, claiming compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- from the respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally together with interest and costs, for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident. The petitioner and other farmers used to raise flower gardens (chamanthi flowers) in their respective lands and used to transport the same to Madras, 3 MACMA NO. 461 OF 2022 VS,J. Bangalore etc.,. While so, on 26.11.2017 the petitioner and one G.Subba Reddy, D.Pedda Subha Reddy and Dasari Subbarayudu engaged 1st respondent’s lorry bearing No.AP04 TU 7697 for transport of their respective flowers to Chennai.The petitioner loaded 10 baskets of flowers, each basket 40 kgs which comes to 400 kgs of Chamanthi flowers in the said lorry and all the four persons occupied seats in the cabin of the lorry and were travelling as owners of goods to Chennai to sell the flowers. i. On 26.11.2017 at 10.30 P.M., when they reached near Karakambadi Railway Gate, 3rd respondent being driver of the lorry, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner lost control over steering, as a result, the lorry fell beyond the road, due to which, the petitioner sustained segmental fracture to left femur and bleeding laceration at right ankle. The entire load of flowers also scattered from the lorry and became unfit for use. He sustained loss of flowers worth Rs.56,000/-. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Purna’s Remedy Hospitals, Tirupathi, wherein he underwent surgery to his left femur segmental fracture and interlocking of nail was done and discharged on 05.12.2017 and the Doctors advised him to take complete bed rest for three months. Due to the accident, the petitioner is suffering severe pain, inconvenience, lost of amenities, unable to squat, unable to sit in natural position and attend calls of nature and he also unable to lift and carry weights being a farmer and now on account of several complications, he is unable to discharge his previous duties and that he 4 MACMA NO. 461 OF 2022 VS,J. used to raise flower gardens in his Ac.5.25 cents and was earning Rs.3,00,000/- to Rs.3,50,000/- per year excluding all expenses and prior to the date of accident, he owned bulls and cart and used to attend personally all works. ii. 1st respondent’s Eicher lorry was insured with 2nd respondent insurance company with package lorry policy covering the risk of owner of goods or his representative automatically under Sec.147 of M.V. Act and Respondent No.3 as its driver and caused the accident, hence, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner. 3. Respondents 1 and 3 remained ex-parte. 4. 2ndrespondent/insurance company filed written statement, denied the averments of the petition and contended that the petitioner must prove his age, income and manner in which the accident occurred and his expenditure towards medical treatment and submitted that the policy was issued in the name of Khaleel Ahammed Shaik for the vehicle Eicher lorry bearing No.AP04 TU 7697 under goods carrying commercial package policy valid from 11.05.2017 to 10.05.2018, subject to terms and conditions of the policy and that the petitioner has to prove that the registered owner i.e. 1strespondent used the vehicle without any breach of permit and traffic rules as per the M.V Rules and the crime vehicle possessed valid fitness certificate at the time of accident. As per policy and R.C., the seating capacity of the offending vehicle is 3 in all, but at the time of accident, 5 MACMA NO. 461 OF 2022 VS,J. five persons including driver travelled in the said offending vehicle and that the amount claimed by the petitioner is excessive and exorbitant and hence, prayed to dismiss the petition, with costs. 5. Basing on the above pleadings of both parties, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal for trial: 1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry bearing No.AP04 TU 7697? 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? And 3) To what relief? 6. During Enquiry/Trial, the petitioner - Pesala Murali Mohan Reddy got examined as P.W.1, the Doctor who treated the Petitioner by name Dr. J.Nagesh, got examine as P.W.2 and also got marked Ex.A.1: Attested copy of F.I.R., in Cr.No.807/2017 of Renigunta Urban P.S, Ex.A.2: Attested copy of Wound certificate of petitioner; Ex.A.3: One colour photo of petitioner relating to the injuries; Ex.A.4: Discharge summary issued by Purnas Remedy Hospital, Tirupathi dt.28.11.2017 to 05.12.2017; Ex.A.5: Bill dt.28.11.2017 for Rs.1,600/- issued by Sri Venkateswara Institute of Medical Science, Tirupathi; Ex.A.6: Flower Merchant sale bills (9 in number); Ex.A.7: 1-B (ROR) issued by Mee- seva; Ex.A.8: AdangalPahanies issued under Mee-seva; Ex.A.9: Attested copy of 6 MACMA NO. 461 OF 2022 VS,J. charge sheet; Ex.A.10: Original discharge summary dt.10.4.2018 issued by Purnas Remedy Hospital, Tirupathi; Ex.A.11: Out-patient treatment records issued by Purnas Remedy Hospitals, Tirupathi; Ex.A.12: O.P., Treatment slip dt.31.3.2018 issued by Sri Sai Nursing Home, Kadapa; Ex.A.13: O.P., Treatment slip dt.05.05.2018 and 160.8.2018 issued by RIMS Hospital, Kadapa; Ex.A.14: Physical disability certificate issued by RIMS Hospital, Kadapa dt.11.10.2018. On behalf of contesting Respondent No.2 one D.Ramanjaneyulu examined as R.W.1 and got marked Ex.B.1: True copy of insurance policy. One Shaik Kalesha, Junior Assistant from R.T.O office, Kadapa got examined as R.W.2 and got marked Ex.X.1: Authorization letter issued by R.T.O., Kadapa; Ex.X.2: B- Register extract of vehicle bearing No.AP04 TU 7697; Ex.X.3: Extract of permit details. One A.S.Mohan Kumar, Motor Vehicle Inspector, got examined as R.W.3. 7. Upon hearing both side counsel, upon perusing the material in record, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim of the Petitioner awarding compensation of Rs.4,19,600/- together with proportionate costs and interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit, directing the respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally to pay compensation amount to the petitioner. The respondent No.2/insurance company is directed to deposit the 7 MACMA NO. 461 OF 2022 VS,J. compensation amount of Rs.4,19,600/- into the court within two (2) months from the date of this order. 8. Being aggrieved by the said Order and Judgment, the Petitioner has preferred this appeal on the grounds that – the Tribunal erred in restricting the claim of the appellant to Rs.4,19,600/- instead of Rs.7,50,000/- as claimed by the appellant. The Tribunal ought to have been taken the disability of the claimant as 35% as P.W.2 – Dr. Nagesh issued Ex.A.14 – disability certificate in the capacity of District Medical Board Member, but the Tribunal erred in taking the disability as 20% contrary to law. The Tribunal ought to have been taken the income of the appellant as Rs.25,000/- per month, ought to have been awarded Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.25,000/- towards loss of amenities of life, Rs.56,000/- towards loss of 400 KGs Chamanthi flowers. Hence, prayed to allow the appeal and to award the claim of Rs.7,50,000/- to the petitioner as claimed. 9. Heard both counsel and perused the material in record. 10. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? 11. On perusal of the award passed by the Tribunal, it can be observed that the claimant himself got examined as P.W.1. Hence, relying upon the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.A.1 – Attested copy of FIR in Cr.No.807 of 2017 of Renigunta Urban Police Station, which shows that after due 8 MACMA NO. 461 OF 2022 VS,J. investigation, it was established that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of respondent No.3, resulting injuries to the petitioner, the Tribunal safely concluded that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of respondent No.3 resulting injuries to the petitioner. 12. Coming to the quantum of compensation awarded under the head permanent disability - Ex.A.14 is Disability Certificate issued by RIMS, Kadapa, dated 11.10.2018. The disability of the claimant assessed by the Medical Board, consisting of 3 to 7 members is 35%, as he has difficulty in squatting and he has to walk with the assistance of a walking aid, there is shortening of left leg by one inch and in support of it, P.W.2 who is one of the Board Member, who issued Ex.P.14 – disability certificate also got examined, who categorically deposed that the Medical Board has assessed the disability is at 35%. 13. In spite of the said evidence given by P.W.2 – Board Member coupled with Ex.P.4 - disability certificate, the Tribunal re-assessed the disability to the extent of 20%. Under similar circumstances, the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Prakash Chand Sharma Vs. Rambabu Saini1” has held that when disability certificate was issued by the Medical Board and one of the members of the Medical Board is examined as witness to prove the disability certificate, the Tribunal cannot reassess the disability. In view of the same, this Court is of the 1 2025 Supreme (SC) 305 9 MACMA NO. 461 OF 2022 VS,J. opinion that the Tribunal ought not to have reassessed the disability as 20% instead of 35% as mentioned in Ex.A.14 disability certificate issued by the Medical Board. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the claimant has suffered 35% disability taking into consideration Ex.A.14 disability certificate. 14. As the claimant had lands in his village, which is evident from Exs.A.7 and A.8, the Tribunal assessed the income of the claimant as Rs.10,000/- per month. Accordingly, annual income of the claimant would come to (Rs.10,000 X 12 = ) Rs.1,20,000/-. After applying the appropriate multiplier i.e. 13 for the age group of 46 to 50 years, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation 2 ”, the loss of dependency would come to (1,20,000 X 13) Rs.15,60,000/-. After considering the disability at 35%, the claimant is entitled for an amount of (Rs.15,60,000 X 35% = ) Rs.5,46,000/- for loss of earnings due to disability. 15. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards grievous injury, Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.8,000/- towards Transportation charges, Rs.20,000/- towards loss of earnings for two months, Rs.8,000/- towards attendant charges, Rs.15,000/- towards extra nourishment of food, and Rs.1,600/- towards medical bills. 2 2009 ACJ 1298 10 MACMA NO. 461 OF 2022 VS,J. 16. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under different heads and the amounts enhanced by this Court, are as follows: Sl. No. Head of the claim Compensation awarded by the Tribunal in Rs. Ps. Amounts now awarded by this Court Rs. Ps. 1. Grievous injury 25,000-00 25,000-00 2. Pain and sufferance 30,000-00 30,000-00 3. Transportation charges 8,000-00 8,000-00 4. Loss of earnings for two months 20,000-00 20,000-00 5 Attendant charges 8,000-00 8,000-00 6. Extra nourishment of food 15,000-00 15,000-00 7. Disability @ 20% = 3,12,000-00 @35% = 5,46,000-00 8. Medical Bills 1,600-00 1,600-00 Total 4,19,600-00 6,53,600-00 17. In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.4,19,600/- to Rs.6,53,600/- 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. Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA KS Dated 10.02.2026. 11 MACMA NO. 461 OF 2022 VS,J. 223 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 461/2022 DATED 10.02.2026 KS