1 MACMA NO’S.352/2022 & 4/2024 VS,J. APHC010313052022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 352/2022 AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 4/2023 1. MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 352/2022 Between: 1. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, UPSTAIRS C/O GOPAL AUTO STORES.MARUTHI NAGAR, NEAR RTC BUS STAND, KADAPA ...APPELLANT AND 1. JUTURU SHARAN KUMAR CHARAN KUMAR, S/O. MURALI KRISHNA, AGED 28 YEARS, HINDU, BUSINESS, RESIDENT OF D.NO.2/110, AMMAVARISHALA STREET, PEDDA CHEPPALI VILLAGE, KAMALAPURAM MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT-516 289 2. K GANGA SUDHARSHAN REDDY, S/O K.RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, HINDU, PRESENT OWNER OF THE LORRY BEARING NO.AP 04 TT 3389, RESIDING AT D.NO.2-127-D9, MAHESWARA NAGAR, YERRAGUNTLA TOWN AND MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT 3. R VENKATA KONDA REDDY, S/O R.GOVINDA REDDY, AGE NOT KNOWN, BUT MAJOR, HINDU, PREVIOUS OWNER OF THE LORRY BEARING NO.AP 04 TT 3389, R/O A-28, ICL COMPANY, YERRAGUNTLA, KADAPA DISTRICT. 4. KORRAPATI MAHABOOB BASHA, S/O MAHABOOB SAHEB, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, MUSLIM, DRIVER OF THE LORRY BEARING NO,AP 04 TT 3389, RESIDING AT DATHAPURAM VILLAGE, KONDAPURAM MANDAL, Y S.R.KADAPA DISTRICT. (RESPONDENT NO.4 IS NOT NECESSARY PARTY) ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 MACMA NO’S.352/2022 & 4/2024 VS,J. 2. MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 4/2023 Between: 1. JUTUR SHARAN KUMAR @ CHARAN KUMAR, S/O. MURALI KRISHNA AGED 32 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 2/110, AMMAVARISHALA STRET, PEDDACHEPPALI, VILLAGE, KAMALAPURAM MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT). ...APPELLANT AND 1. K GANGA SUDHARSHAN REDDY, S/O. K. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O. DO.NO.2/127-D9, MAHESWARA NAGAR, YERRAGUNTLA TOWN AND MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 2. R VENKATA KONDA REDDY, S/O. R. GOVINDA REDDY, DO.NO.A- 28, ICL COMPANY, YERRAGUNTLA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 3. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, REP. BY ITS MANAGER LEGAL, BRANCH OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, HERO SHOWROOM COMPLEX, OPP.RTC BUS STAND, KADAPA TOWN, YSR KADAPA 4. KORRAPTI MAHABOOB BASHA, S/O. MAHABOOB SAHEB, R/O. DHATHAPURAM VILLAGE, KONDAPURAM MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant in MACMA No.352 of 2022 and Respondent in MACMA No.4 of 2023: 1. A JAYANTHI Counsel for the Respondent(S) in MACMA No.352 of 2022 and Appellant in MACMA No.4 of 2023: 1. DHANUNJAYA REDDY K The Court made the following: 3 MACMA NO’S.352/2022 & 4/2024 VS,J. THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 352/2022 AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 4/2023 COMMON JUDGMENT: 1. The Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (for short MACMA) No.352 of 2022 has been preferred by the Appellant/ Respondent No.3 – Shriram General Insurance Company Limited., represented by its Manager (Legal), Branch Office at 2nd floor, Hero Showroom Complex, opposite to RTC bus Stand, Kadapa Town, YSR Kadapa District, challenging award passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short MACT) –cum- Principal District Judge, Kadapa in M.V.O.P.No.456 of 2018 dated 14.02.2022, wherein the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.14,41,545/- as against the claim of Rs.20,00,000/-. MACMA No.4 of 2023 has been preferred by the appellant/Petitioner seeking enhancement 2. Since both the appeals are preferred challenging the same award passed by the Chairman, Motor accidents Claims Tribunal –cum- Principal District Judge, Kadapa in M.V.O.P.No.456 of 2018 dated 14.02.2022, this Court feels it appropriate to pass a common Judgment in both the appeals. 4 MACMA NO’S.352/2022 & 4/2024 VS,J. For the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion, the parties herein- after are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal i.e., Appellant in MACMA No.352 of 2022 and Respondent No.2 in MACMA No.4 of 2023 as Respondent No.2; and Respondent No.1 in MACMA No.352 of 2022 and appellant in MACMA No.4 of 2023 as petitioner; Respondents No.2 to 4 in MACT No.352 of 2022 and Respondents No.1, 2 and 4 in MACMA No.4 of 2023 as respondents No.1, 2 and 4. 3. Brief averments of the claim petition in MVOP No.456 of 2018 are that: on 15.02.2018 evening one K.Nagarjuna and his brother-in-law on one motorcycle and one K.Sudheer Kumar and the Petitioner herein on another motorcycle, went to Yerraguntla on their personal work. After completion of their work at Yerraguntla, they were proceeding to their village on their respective motorcycles. K.Sudheer Kumar was riding the motorcycle and the Petitioner was the pillion rider. The said K.Sudheer Kumar was riding the motorcycle ahead of the motorcycle of K.Nagarjuna. At 6.15 p.m., when they reached near Surya Lorry Transport parking yard situated in Kadapa road, the Respondent No.1's lorry bearing No.AP04 TT 3389 (crime vehicle) driven by Respondent No.4 - driver of the lorry, rashly and negligently, without giving any signals, without observing the traffic on the road, suddenly took the lorry in reverse, in a rash and negligent manner, with high speed and dashed against the motorcycle, on which the Petitioner was a pillion rider. As a result, the rider of the motorcycle K.Sudheer Kumar sustained serious head injuries and died on the spot. 5 MACMA NO’S.352/2022 & 4/2024 VS,J. i. The Petitioner sustained serious injuries on his left knee as he fell down from the motorcycle, fractures to his ribs 1 to 6 on the right side, on the right clavicle and other parts of the body. He was shifted to Government Hospital at Proddatur. From there, for better treatment, on 16.12.2018 he was shifted to Gowri Gopal Hospital, Kurnool. He was as in-patient till 21.02.2018 and shifted to Ward and was finally discharged on 27.02.2018. He underwent surgeries at the fractured areas. The injuries were not healed. He was again admitted in M.M Hospital, Kadapa, surgery was conducted. He was there as an in-patient up-to 07.03.2018. For follow up treatment, the Petitioner visited M.M Hospital, Kadapa, thrice. He has taken physiotherapy. He has taken treatment under private Orthopedic Surgeons at Kadapa. Petitioner spent Rs.3,00,000/- towards treatment. Rs.50,000/- towards physiotherapy, Rs.30,000/- towards transportation charges, follow-up treatment and other incidental expenditure. A crime was registered against Respondent No.4 by the Police, Investigated and charge sheet was filed. ii. Prior to the accident, the Petitioner was running a general store by name Juturu General Stores at his village, running a photocopier centre and Internet cafe also. He got a license to do business in crackers. In all, the Petitioner was earning Rs.50,000/- per month. iii. Due to the accident, he is unable to sit cross legged, facing difficulty to attend natural calls, he cannot lift even small weights, he lost grip over his right hand, and he is suffering with breathing problems and not able to attend 6 MACMA NO’S.352/2022 & 4/2024 VS,J. his work properly. He became permanently disabled. He was unable to sit in general and the disability affected the marital life of the Petitioner also. iv. Respondent No.3 is the Insurer of the Crime vehicle, Respondent No.1 is the owner, Respondent No.2 is previous owner and Respondent No.4 is the driver of the crime vehicle, for the negligent driving of Respondent No.4, all the Respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- to the petitioner. 4. Respondent No.3 - Insurance Company filed written statement, denied the manner of accident and also denied that Respondent No.4 was rash and negligent in his driving and was having a valid and effective driving license. It admitted that an insurance policy was given on the crime vehicle, the liability of Respondent No.3 is subject to conditions of Insurance policy such as breach of obligations under M.V Rules and the insurance policy. It is the rider of the motorcycle was not having valid driving license who drove the two-wheeler in a rash and negligent manner but not Respondent No.4. The rider of the motorcycle dashed against the rear side of the lorry, did not maintain 15 feet of distance against the lorry. Petitioners foisted a false case against Respondent No.4. Two vehicles were involved in the accident i.e., crime vehicle and two-wheeler. The petition is bad for non-joinder of proper and necessary parties i.e., owner and insurer of the motor cycle. Respondent No.3 denied the age and occupation of the Petitioner that he was earning Rs.50,000/- per month by running General Store, Crackers business, 7 MACMA NO’S.352/2022 & 4/2024 VS,J. Photocopier center and Internet café as he did not file any documents relating to Photocopier centre, General stores and Internet café, except Crackers business. The Petitioner is wrongly claiming income. Respondent No.3 denied that the Petitioner was suffered with permanent disability. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been settled for trial by the Tribunal: 1) Whether the Petitioner sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 15.02.2018 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Lorry bearing No.AP04-TT-3389? 2) Whether the Petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? 3) To what relief? 6. To prove the case of the Petitioner P.W.1 to P.W.5 were examined and got marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.18. On behalf of Respondents R.W.1, R.W.2 were examined and Ex.B.1 – Insurance policy copy marked. 7. Upon hearing both counsel, upon perusing the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence placed on record by both parties, the tribunal allowed the claim petition partly by awarding Rs.14,41,545/- as compensation together with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% p.a from the date of 8 MACMA NO’S.352/2022 & 4/2024 VS,J. petition till the date of realization, directing respondents No.1 to 4 to deposit said amount within three (03) months from the date of award. 8. Being aggrieved by the said Award, the 3rd respondent insurance company has preferred the present appeal on the ground that the tribunal erred in granting compensation of Rs.14,41,545/- by taking the income of the injured as Rs.15,000/- per month, without any proof and evidence, though injured was doing crackers business which is only seasonal business and also erred in granting disability at the rate of 30% which is high; that the tribunal ought to have held that the MVOP is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties i.e., owner and insurer of the motor cycle, the Tribunal ought to have considered the evidence of R.W.2 – driver of crime vehicle and ought to have held that the accident occurred due to negligent riding of the rider of two wheeler and ought to have apportioned the liability on both the vehicles equally at-least. Hence, prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the order and decree dated 1402.2022 in MVOP No.456 of 2018 passed by the Chairman, MACT –cum- Principal District Judge, Kadapa and to dismiss the MVOP No.456 of 2018. MACMA No.4 of 2023 has been preferred by the appellant/ petitioner on the grounds that the tribunal ought to have awarded the compensation as claimed by the appellant in view of the injuries sustained by him, ought to have considered the total income of the appellant, that the tribunal failed to consider other income sources of the appellant and award on the basis, the 9 MACMA NO’S.352/2022 & 4/2024 VS,J. tribunal failed to award for future earning of the appellant and granted less rate of interest. Hence, now the appellant prayed to allow the appeal by awarding Rs.20,00,000/- as claimed in the claim petition. 9. Heard learned counsel for both parties in both the appeals, perused the material in record. 10. Now the point for determination is – Whether the order/award passed by the Tribunal needs any interference? 11. POINT: Considering the evidence of P.W.1, coupled with Ex.A.1 F.I.R., Ex.A.3 copy of the Charge sheet, the Tribunal concluded that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.4. 12. As per evidence of P.W.1 on 15.02.2018 evening one K.Nagarjuna and his Brother-in-law were travelling on one motor cycle and one K.Sudheer Kumar and the claimant on another motor cycle, went to Yerraguntla on their personal work. After completion of their work at Yerraguntla, they were proceeding to their native place on their respective motorcycles. At 6.15 P.M when they reached near Surya Lorry Transport parking yard situated in Kadapa road, 1st respondent‟s lorry bearing No.AP04 TT 3389 (crime vehicle) driven by Respondent No.4 – driver of the lorry in a rash and negligent manner, without giving any signals, without observing the traffic on the road, suddenly took the lorry in reverse, in a rash and negligent manner, with high speed and dashed against the motor cycle, on which he 10 MACMA NO’S.352/2022 & 4/2024 VS,J. petitioner was a pillion rider. Because of the said accident, the claimant sustained serious injuries on his left knee as he fell down from the motor cycle, sustained fractures to his ribs on the right side, fracture on the right clavicle and other parts of the body. He was shifted to Government Hospital at Proddatur, from there, for better treatment, he was shifted to Gowri Gopal Hospital, Kurnool, on 16.02.2018 he underwent surgeries for all the fractures sustained in the said accident and he was finally discharged on 27.02.2018, again he was admitted in M.M. Hospital, Kadapa on 27.02.2018, wherein a surgery was conducted on him on 28.02.2018 and he was there as inpatient up-to 07.03.2018. 13. P.W.2 is the Doctor who is one of the District Medical Board members, who issued Ex.A.6 – disability certificate. He deposed that the claimant suffered from old fracture clavicle right side, mal-united old fracture right side multiple ribs, mal-united with pneumothoraz and old fracture fibula left side mal-united with soft tissue injury to left knee, resulting in painful restricted movements, loss of terminal 30%, not able to sit and squat on the floor and taking turns and climbing up and down. 14. P.W.3 – who is Orthopedic surgeon deposed that the claimant was admitted in their hospital on 16.02.2018 for the fracture to the clavicle right side, multiple rib fractures right side with haemothorax and fracture to fibula left side with open wound. He was admitted in ICU and treated conservatively. On 20.02.2018 surgery was done on the left knee. On 11 MACMA NO’S.352/2022 & 4/2024 VS,J. 21.02.2018 he was discharged from ICU and shifted to the general ward. Daily dressing was done and was discharged on 27.02.2018. However, in cross examination P.W.3 has categorically deposed that he did not mention any operation in the discharge summary. External wounds are healed now. Petitioner will not suffer in future with these injures. As per Ex.A.2 there are two injuries only. 15. P.W.4 who is Administrative Officer –cum- Billing Manager of Gowri Gopal Hospital, Kurnool, also deposed on similar lines and during his cross examination, he admitted about issuance of Ex.A.14 – medical bills by his hospital. 16. P.W.5 is a Consultant Plastic Surgeon and visiting consultant at M.M Hospital and other hospitals at Kadapa. Though in his chief examination he has deposed that the claimant was admitted in M.M Hospital on his reference on 27.02.2018 with complaints of post-traumatic wound on his left knee sustained in a road traffic accident, surgery was done on 28.02.2018 and he was discharged on 07.03.2018, in his cross examination he categorically deposed that in Ex.A.5 – discharge summary issued by M.M Hospital, Kadapa, the date of surgery column was kept blank. However, the Court below relying on the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.5 awarded an amount of Rs.14,41,545/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the said accident. Admittedly, the accident took place on 15.02.2018 near Surya Lorry Transport parking yard on Kadapa road from where he was shifted to 12 MACMA NO’S.352/2022 & 4/2024 VS,J. Government Hospital, Proddature for treatment, on 16.02.2018 again he was shifted to Gowri Gopal Hospital, Kurnool, on the same day i.e., on 16.02.2018 and he underwent treatment till 27.02.2018. The claimant got examined P.W.3 and P.W.4 in support of his case to prove that he was admitted in Gowri Gopal Hospital at Kurnool and was treated there from 16.02.2018 to 27.02.2018 and also underwent two surgeries in the said hospital. However, P.W.3 though admitted that the petitioner was admitted in his hospital on 16.02.2018 for the said fracture, during the course of his cross examination he deposed that he did not mention any operation in the discharge summary and also that the external wounds were healed and that the claimant will not suffer in future with these injuries. P.W.4 who is Administrative officer –cum- Billing Manager of Gowri Gopal Hospital, Kurnool who was examined in support of Ex.A.14 which is essentiality certificate issued by the said hospital. Both P.W.3 and P.W.5 have categorically deposed that they have not mentioned about conducting any surgery on the claimant on the particular dates mentioned in their chief examination or as stated by P.W.1 i.e., claimant. When the claimant was discharged from Gowri Gopal Hospital on 27.02.2018 after recovering from the said injuries, the question of once again admitting and consulting M.M Hospital on the same day situated at Kadapa i.e., 27.02.2018 does not arise. When the evidence of P.W.5 is specific that no surgery was done on the claimant and as per Ex.A.5 the date of surgery column was kept blank, this court is unable to believe the evidence of P.W.5 who was examined in support of the surgery done on 28.02.2018. As such, 13 MACMA NO’S.352/2022 & 4/2024 VS,J. Ex.A.17 medical bills to a tune of Rs.37,902/- and Ex.A.18 to a tune of Rs.36,000/- which were issued by M.M Hospital at Kadapa are created to be suspicious and are disbelieved. 17. Now coming to the income of the claimant, his case is that as per Ex.A.8 he was running crackers business and apart from that he was also running general store, Xerox center and internet café also but no independent witnesses were examined to that extent, except Ex.A.8 which is license issued for running crackers business. Even, as per Ex.A.8 the license is valid up-to 19.10.2017 (during Diwali festival season 2017 only). 18. In the absence of any documentary evidence to show that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month, the Tribunal ought to have considered the wages applicable as per the Minimum Wages Act of the year 2018, if the same is applied, an unskilled labour would get an amount of Rs.318/- per day. If the same is considered, the monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs.9,540/- (Rs.318 X 30). Accordingly, annual income would come to Rs.1,14,480/- (Rs.9,540 X 12). 19. As per Ex.A.6 disability certificate issued by the District Medical Board the claimant sustained 30% disability in the accident, which in fact supported by the evidence of P.W.2, who is one of the members of the medical board. Considering the age of the claimant as 24 years as on the date of the accident, for the age of group of 21-25 years, as per the decision of the 14 MACMA NO’S.352/2022 & 4/2024 VS,J. Hon‟ble Apex Court in “Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation1”, the appropriate multiplier is „18‟. After applying the appropriate multiplier, the loss of earnings would come to Rs.20,60,640/- (Rs.1,14,480 X 18). As the claimant sustained 30% of disability as per Ex.A.6, he is entitled 30% of arrived income towards loss of income due to permanent disability, which comes to Rs.6,18,192/- (Rs.20,60,640 X 30%). 20. In view of the same, this Court intends to reduce the loss of income from Rs.9,72,000/- to Rs.6,18,192/-. 21. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion that Tribunal erred in awarding Rs.90,000/- (Rs.15,000 X 6) towards loss of income for the period of treatment, therefore, the same is reduced from Rs.90,000/- to Rs.57,240/- towards loss of income during the period of treatment for 6 months. 22. The Tribunal also awarded an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards expenses relating to hospitalization charges, Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment charges, Rs.50,000/- towards Transportation charges, Rs.10,000/- towards personal attendant charges, Rs.25,000/- towards future medical expenses, Rs.2,09,545/- towards medical expenditure relying on Exs.A.7, A.14, A.17 and A.18, Rs.50,000/- towards two grievous injuries and one simple injury, which needs no interference. 1 2009 ACJ 1298 15 MACMA NO’S.352/2022 & 4/2024 VS,J. 23. In all, the claimant is entitled for Rs.10,54,977/- towards compensation for the injuries sustained by him. 24. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under different heads and the amount awarded 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. Expenses relating to hospitalization charges 25,000-00 25,000-00 2. Extra nourishment charges 10,000-00 10,000-00 3. Transportation charges 50,000-00 50,000-00 4. Personal attendant charges 10,000-00 10,000-00 5. Loss of Income 9,72,000-00 6,18,192-00 6. Loss of Income during the period of treatment for six months 90,000-00 57,240-00 7. Towards future medical expenses 25,000-00 25,000-00 7. Towards Medical bills 2,09,545-00 2,09,545-00 8. Towards pain and suffering for three injuries 50,000-00 50,000-00 Total 14,41,545-00 10,54,977-00 25. In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal vide MACMA No.352 of 2022 is partly allowed by reducing the compensation awarded by the Chairman, MACT –cum- Principal District Judge, Kadapa in M.V.O.P.No.456 of 2018, dated 14.02.2022; and in view of the order passed in MACMA No.352 of 2022 the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal vide MACMA No.4 of 2023 is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA KS Dated 10.03.2026. 16 MACMA NO’S.352/2022 & 4/2024 VS,J. 291 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 352/2022 AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 4/2023 DATED 10.03.2026 KS