APHC010874192015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: Between: 1. D KASAIAH KURNOOL DIST, 1. MD PAYAZ ALI ANANTHAPUR AND 2 OTHERS, ANANTHAPUR 2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, HYDERABAD 3. APSRTC, KURNOOL Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased to aggrieved by the order and decree passed in MV OP NO.103/2013 on the file of the MACT Nandyal, dt.27.02.2013 IA NO: 3 OF 2016(MACMAMP 1473 OF 2016 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 63 days in representing the MACMA SR 42220 unto pass IA NO: 4 OF 2016(MACMAMP 1474 OF 2016 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 904 days in filing the IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 234 D KASAIAH KURNOOL DIST, - ...APPELLANT AND MD PAYAZ ALI ANANTHAPUR AND 2 OTHERS, ANANTHAPUR UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, HYDERABAD ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be aggrieved by the order and decree passed in MV OP NO.103/2013 on the file of the MACT-CUm-Vth Additional District Judge, Kurnool at NO: 3 OF 2016(MACMAMP 1473 OF 2016 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 63 days in representing the MACMA SR 42220 IA NO: 4 OF 2016(MACMAMP 1474 OF 2016 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 904 days in filing the appeal against at the order and IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3548] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA 234/2026 ...APPELLANT MD PAYAZ ALI ANANTHAPUR AND 2 OTHERS, ANANTHAPUR UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, HYDERABAD ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be aggrieved by the order and decree passed in MV OP NO.103/2013 Vth Additional District Judge, Kurnool at 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 63 days in representing the MACMA SR 42220/2015, 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 appeal against at the order and 2 decree passed in MV OP NO.103/2009 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Vth Additional District Judge [FTC] at Nandyal, dt.27.02.2013 and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2017(MACMAMP 7222 OF 2017 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 Counsel for the Appellant: 1. NUTHALAPATI KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SRINIVASA RAO VUTLA 2. TENNETI PRABHU DASU 3. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) The Court made the following: 3 JUDGMENT:- Heard, Mr. Nuthalapati Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the appellant; Mr. Srinivasa Rao Vutla, learned counsel for respondent No.2/The United India Insurance Co. Ltd.; and Ms. D. Madhavi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Aravala Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC/respondent No.3. 2. The present appeal is filed by the appellant being dissatisfied with the Order and Decree, dated 27.02.2013 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Kurnool at Nandyal, in M.V.O.P. No.103 of 2009, in not awarding compensation under the heads of attendant charges, transportation, and nutrition. The Claim Petition was filed under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 r/w Rule 455 of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, claiming compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by the petitioner in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 04.06.2006. 3. The parties are referred to as arrayed in the present appeal. 4. Mr. Nuthalapati Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the appellant, advanced his arguments stating that the present appeal is filed on a limited grievance and vehemently contended that the Tribunal has erroneously failed to award compensation under the heads of transportation, additional charges, attendant charges, and nutrition. 4 5. In response to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant, Mr. Srinivasa Rao Vutla, learned counsel for the United India Insurance Company Limited, Malakpet Branch, Hyderabad, submitted that the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation, taking into consideration the evidence of P.W.2 and asserted that the order of the Tribunal needs no interference and that the appeal is liable to be rejected. 6. Mr. Aravala Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing for APSRTC, i.e., respondent No.3, also vehemently contended that the Tribunal has taken into consideration the evidence adduced by the petitioner as well as by the respondents and rightly awarded compensation as per the pleadings in the Original Petition. He further argued that the order of the Tribunal does not require any interference and that the appeal is totally misconceived, as the appellant is now seeking relief/compensation which was not sought in the Original Petition, and, therefore, requested dismissal of the appeal. 7. Based on the aforesaid pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the petitioner D. Kasaiah sustained injuries in the motor accident involving Lorry bearing No. AP-02-T- 9477 due to rash and negligent driving by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom? 3. To what relief? 5 8. Apropos to the limited grievance of the appellant before this Court seeking compensation towards Attendant Charges, Special Diet & Transportation during the period of treatment, Mr. Nuthalapati Krishna Murthy, learned counsel relied upon the following judgments of the Apex Court: 1) Jitendra vs Sadiya and others (2025 INSC 166) 2) Kelvin vs. P. Sreemani Devi and others (2025 INSC 1028) 3) R. Logesh Kumar vs P.Balasubramiam and another (2025 INSC 1392) 9. This Court feels it not necessary to venture into other aspects as to the correctness of the Award and Decree passed by the Tribunal and in view of the same, the Tribunal, answering to the extent of the issues framed is legally valid and needs no interference. 10. Now, this Court is called upon to decide as to whether the contentions of the appellant’s counsel can be granted and, in order to adjudicate, this Court is determined to frame the following issue: Whether the claimant is entitled to attendant charges, transportation charges, and nutrition during the period of treatment for the injuries sustained? 11. As seen from the record, there is no dispute regarding the accident that occurred on 04.06.2006, which was a case of head-on collision between the two vehicles involved. The Tribunal has rightly opined that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles, namely, the lorry bearing No. AP-02-T-9477 and the APSRTC bus bearing No. AP-11- 6 Z-899. There is also no dispute regarding the lodging of complaint pursuant to which the FIR was registered and marked as Ex.A7 and Ex.A3, being the certified copy of C.C. No.340 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Wanaparthy. 12. In view of the discussion above, the only ground on which the appeal is filed, as contended by the appellant, is that the Tribunal has erred in not awarding compensation under the heads of transportation, attendant charges, and nutrition. 13. In support of the said claim, the learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jitendra vs. Sadiya and others (1st cited supra), wherein at Para Nos.11 & 12, it was held as follows: 11. Adverting to the facts at hand, the minimum wage prevalent in the area for unskilled workers was Rs.6850/-, annexed as Annexure P1. In view of the above exposition of this Court, we are inclined to accept this submission of the Appellant. On the aspect of his functional disability, this Court recognises that due to the amputation of his right hand, his ability to work as a labourer would be significantly hampered. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to increase the percentage of functional disability to 80%. 12. As a result of the discussion above, the compensation now payable to the Claimant-Appellant is itemized as under: 7 FINAL COMPENSATION Compensation Heads Amount Awarded In Accordance with: Attendant Charges Special Diet & Transporation 6850 x 17 = Rs.1,16,450/- Rs.40,000/- Sidram v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Ltd. MANU/SC/1493/2022:20 22:INSC:1204 (2023) 3 SCC 439 Para 89 14. As seen from the above, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has awarded compensation towards attendant charges, nutrition, etc. 15. The learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kelvin vs. P. Sreemani Devi and others (2nd cited supra) and drew the attention of this Court to Para No.12, which reads as follows: 12. The Claims Tribunal was pleased to award an amount of Rs. 3 lacs towards pain and suffering to the family members of the claimant. This was done after relying upon the decision of the Division Bench of Madras High Court in Dhamodaran (deceased) and Ors. v. Bhaskar Sekar and Anr. (C.M.A. Nos. 1646 of 2015 and 1301 of 2017 dated 19.12.2018). The High Court however was pleased to set aside the grant of compensation under this head, again without assigning any reason. When the Claims Tribunal had awarded compensation under the head of pain and suffering of family members by relying upon the judgment of the High Court, another co-ordinate Bench of the same High Court could not have ignored the said judgment while setting aside the grant of such compensation by the Claims Tribunal. We do not find any reason whatsoever to 8 deny the claimant the grant of compensation under this head. Accordingly, the compensation of Rs. 3 lacs towards pain and suffering of family members stands restored. 16. From the above, it is evident that the Hon’ble Supreme Court awarded compensation to the respective family members towards pain and suffering. 17. The learned counsel for the appellant further relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R. Logesh Kumar vs. P. Balasubramaniam and another (3rd cited supra), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court at paragraph No.2 awarded Rs.30,000/- under the head of pain and suffering. 18. From the above judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant, it is clear that compensation under the heads of attendant charges and nutrition can be awarded in appropriate cases. This Court is of the view that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not fair and just in this regard. 19. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the opinion that the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant require consideration. Accordingly, compensation is liable to be awarded under the heads of attendant charges and nutrition. On a pointed query by this Court regarding the family members dependent on the appellant, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there are four members. In view of the same, the said family members are also entitled to compensation towards pain and suffering at Rs.10,000/- each. Further, as the 9 Tribunal was silent on the head of nutrition, this Court deems it appropriate to award a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards nutrition. 20. It is elicited during the examination of P.W.2, Doctor, who performed surgery to the claimant in Harsha Orthopedic hospital at Nandyal, that the claimant was hospitalized for ten days i.e., from 24.11.2006 to 04.12.2006. However, the impugned order is silent regarding awarding of compensation towards attendant charges. 21. As outlined earlier, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly provides that the attendant charges were also awarded to the claimant in such cases and there is no reason for this Court to deviate from the said principle. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to award compensation of Rs.25000/- under the head of attendant charges i.e., Rs.2500/- per day (Rs.2500/- X 10 days). 22. In the result, the Order and Decree, dated 27.02.2013, in M.V.O.P. No.103 of 2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Kurnool, is modified to the extent indicated above by awarding an additional amount of Rs.40,000/- towards pain and suffering to the four family members. The claimant is also awarded an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards attendant charges and Rs.15,000/- towards nutrition. The rest of the conditions remain unchanged. 23. Accordingly, the Motor Accidents Claims Miscellaneous Appeal is partly-allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. 10 As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA Dt: 16.02.2026 PNS