Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
L. Rajesh Aja, Chittoor Dist. vs E. Raghavendra, Chittoor Dist. Another on 1 August, 2025
1
APHC010647342012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3520]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 872/2012
Between:
1. L. RAJESH @ AJA, CHITTOOR DIST., S/O LATE GANGADHAR R/O
KRANTHI STREET, VADAMALAPETA POST AND MANDAL, CHITTOOR
DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
AND
1. E RAGHAVENDRA CHITTOOR DIST ANOTHER, S/O S. AMPATH
KUMAR R/O D.NO. 8-40, SAMAJAM STREET, TIRUCHANUR VILLAGE
AND POST, TIRUPATI RURAL MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.
2. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD, REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED
SIGNATORY, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT D.NO. 19-2-27, D.R. MAHAL
ROAD, VIJAYA BHARATHI COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, TIRUPATHI
TOWN, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. P JAGADISH CHANDRA PRASAD
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. RAMACHANDRAREDDY GADI
2
2. D RAVI KIRAN
3. .
The Court made the following:
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
M.A.C.M.A.No.872 of 2012
JUDGMENT:
1. Challenge in this appeal is against the order and decree dated 05.08.2010 passed in M.V.O.P.No.84 of 2009 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Tirupati (for short "the MACT"). The claimant is the appellant herein.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the quantum of compensation of Rs.1,07,000/- awarded as against the claim made for Rs.3,00,000/-, the present appeal is filed.
3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein are the owner and the Insurance Company of the Tata Indica Car bearing Registration No.AP 03 AB 2948 (hereinafter referred to as "the offending vehicle"). Case of the Claimant:
4(i). On 09.12.2007 at about 08:30 am, while the claimant was riding the Suzuki motorcycle bearing No.AP 03 AC TR 3186 along with his friends, the offending vehicle came in a rash and negligent manner in the opposite direction and dashed the motorcycle, whereby the accident occurred, and the claimant sustained a laceration over right knee, abrasion over the right leg, laceration over the right leg resulting in a fracture of the lower shaft of the tibia and fibula and abrasion over the right foot.4
4(ii). In Vadamalapet Police Station, a case in Crime No.54 of 2007 for the offence under Section 338 IPC was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle and subsequently charge sheet was laid against him. By the date of accident, the claimant was aged about 25 years, hale and healthy, attending welding work and earning not less than Rs.200/- per day. He has suffered four injuries:
1) A laceration over the right knee
2) Abrasion over the right leg
3) Laceration over the right leg
4) Abrasion over the right foot 4(iii). The claimant spent Rs.50,000/- towards his treatment apart from treatment at SVRRGG Hospital, Tirupati. Later, the claimant took treatment at Prasanth Hospital, Tiruapti from 09.12.2017 to 19.12.2017 and again he was admitted on 28.08.2008 and discharged on 08.09.2008, undergone two operations in that hospital. He is suffering disability. Hence, he is entitled for reasonable compensation.
5. Respondent No.1, owner of the offending vehicle, did not contest the case. Case of Respondent-Insurance Company:-
6(i). Ownership of respondent No.1 over the offending vehicle and issuance of the policy are correct. But, the policy is covering the period from 08.12.2017 to 07.12.2008 only.5
6(ii). The driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence. The claimant is put to strict proof of all the allegations made. The negligence of the rider of the motorcycle cannot be ignored and the motorcycle on which the claimant was travelling cannot be used as there was no complete registration. It was due for registration. Three persons were travelling in the vehicle. Therefore, there was over load and contributory negligence on the part of the injured claimant.
7. On the strength of pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial by the learned MACT:
(i) Whether the pleaded accident occurred and if so was it due to fault of the driver of the Tata Indica Car bearing R.No.AP 03 AB 2948 of first respondent?
(ii) Whether the Tata Indica Car in question belongs to Respondent No.1 and stood insured with R.2 insurance company by the date of accident and if so whether the policy covers the risk of the petitioner?
(iii) Whether the petitioner suffered injuries and entitled to compensation and if so to what amount and from which of the respondents?
(iv)To what relief?
8. Evidence before the learned MACT:
Description Remarks
Oral evidence P.W.1: L. Rajesh @ Raja Claimant
6
P.W.2: Dr. V.Sunanda Kumar Orthopaedic Surgeon Reddy in Prasanth Hospital, Tirupati.
Documentary Ex.A1:Certified copy of F.I.R.
evidence Ex.A2:Certified copy of charge
sheet.
Ex.A3:Certified copy of wound On behalf of the
certificate. petitioner(s).
Ex.A4: Bunch of 18 medical bills
for Rs.9,399/-.
Ex.A5:Surgery receipt issued by
the doctor, Prasanth hospital,
Tirupati for Rs.17,880/-
Ex.A6: Surgery receipt issued by
the doctor, Prasanth hospital,
Tirupati for Rs.17,200/-.
Ex.X1: Discharge Summary
Findings of the learned MACT:
9. F.I.R. is registered against the driver of the offending vehicle and he was charge sheeted. PW.1 is the victim-cum-eye witness. There is no contradicting evidence from the respondent side.
10. The contention of the Respondent No.2 that there was no contributory negligence and triple riding is untenable. However, contributory negligence is a matter of proof but not of assumption merely because the motorcycle was carrying more than one person as a pillion rider, there is no presumption of contributory negligence, as per the decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in a case between Karri Nagapadma Sridevi and another vs. 7 The Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Limited and others 1 and as per the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Jabalpur) in a case between Devi Singh vs. Vikram Singh and others2. Hence, the Respondents are liable to pay the compensation.
11(i). The claimant / PW.1 stated that he spent Rs.50,000/- towards treatment and P.W.2/ Doctor stated that the claimant was admitted in hospital on 09.12.2007 and operation was conducted on 10.12.2007. He was discharged on 19.12.2007. He was again admitted on 20.08.2008 and operation was conducted on 23.08.2008, for removal of nail and fixing of the fracture with orthofix was done on 30.08.2008 and discharged on 08.09.2008.
11(ii). After referring to wound certificate and other evidence of PW.1 and P.W.2, the learned MACT awarded the compensation as follows:
Pain and suffering Rs.41,000/-
(Rs.16,000/- + Rs.25,000/-)
Transportation Rs.3,000/-
Extra nourishment Rs.4,000/-
Loss of income Rs.4,000/-
Medical expenditure Rs.35,000/-
Permanent Disability Rs.20,000/-
Total Rs.1,07,000/-
1
2001 SCC OnLine AP 700 ; I (2002) ACC 453 (DB)
2
2007 SCC OnLine MP 418; 2008 ACJ 393
8
11(iii). Although the Doctor stated that there was 10% disability, since no certificate was placed, the same cannot be accepted. However, since there is difficulty in squatting and walking long distances, the claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards permanent disability.
12. Since, the claimant is appellant and as there is no appeal by the respondents, negligence, liability, etc. can be considered as out of the dispute. Argument in the appeal:
13. The learned MACT, having referred the evidence of the doctor who spoke about 10% disability, erred in not accepting the same without any valid basis, and the income was taken at very low level. The claimant is entitled for more compensation.
14. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the compensation awarded is excessive and that evidence of doctor P.W.3 is not sufficient. Proper and acceptable evidence is a disability certificate, more particularly given by the Medical Board. When the same is not placed, there can be no basis for accepting disability.
15. Answering the same, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that if the disability is less than a particular scale, the disability certificate will not be issued. The evidence of petitioner as P.W.1, supported by the doctor's evidence as to the disability affecting the claimants profession of welding, the same cannot be ignored. The learned MACT awarded Rs.20,000/- under the head of permanent 9 disability. But, the rationality in awarding such low amount is not specifically mentioned. Therefore, compensation require enhancement.
16. Learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company argued that even awarding of Rs.20,000/- is not correct and that the contributory negligence on the part of the injured claimant should have been taken into consideration.
17. The points that arise for determination in this appeal are:
1) What is the just and reasonable compensation to which the claimant / appellant is entitled and whether compensation of Rs.1,07,000/- awarded by the learned MACT require modification? If so, to what tune?
2) What is the result of the appeal?
Point No.1:
18. Police laid charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle and the same is not in dispute. Merely because there was more than one pillion rider, there cannot be an automatic presumption of negligence on the part of the victim party viz. the proposition referred to by the learned MACT with reference to pronouncements of the Courts found fit for concurrence. More particularly, when there is positive evidence and absence of denial by proper person. It is relevant to note the nature of enquiry contemplated in terms of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 476 of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, which is summary in nature.
10
19. Further, in the light of observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bimla Devi and others vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation3 as to considering the claims for compensation in accident cases on holistic approach adopting the probability theory, the objection of contributory negligence of triple riding by the victim party, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the evidence available on record found not fit for any consideration. The contention of the Insurance Company is negatived accordingly.
20. Periodical hospitalizations at different intervals i.e. one between 09.12.2007 and 19.12.2007, the second between 20.08.2008 to 23.08.2008 and the third between 30.08.2008 and 08.09.2008 should have been taken note by the learned MACT while quantifying the compensation under non-pecuniary damages and adopting notional calculation to a reasonable quantum of compensation.
21. It is claimed that claimant was earning Rs.200/- per day by attending welding work. Removal of nail and fixing of the fracture with orthofix and implants are on record. Difficulty to sit and squat is also claimed. Total loss of income during the period of hospitalization, rest etc. can be notionally accepted for a period of at least three months and income can be taken at Rs.5,000/- per month by taking note of socio economic circumstances. Therefore, under the 3 2009 Supreme (AP) 136; 2010 (2) ALD 403; 2009 (3) ALT 260 11 head of loss of income during the period of treatment etc., an amount of Rs.15,000/- can be awarded as compensation to the claimant.
22. For the purpose of loss of income due to temporary total disability during hospitalization etc., future prospects need not be considered. However, if it is a matter of permanent disability, future prospects shall also be included. 10% disability is pleaded, but the same is not evidenced by any authenticated record. The explanation that for 10%, no disability certificate will be given is also not based on the any authentic information. Precedential Guidance as to quantification of compensation is as follows:
Precedential Guidance:
23. A reference to parameters, for quantifying the compensation under various heads, addressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court is found necessary, to have standard base in the process of quantifying the compensation, to which the claimant is entitled.
(i) With regard to awarding just and reasonable quantum of compensation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Baby Sakshi Greola vs. Manzoor Ahmad Simon and Anr.4, arising out of SLP(c).No.10996 of 2018 on 11.12.2024, considered the scope and powers of the Tribunal in awarding just and compensation within the meaning of Act, after marshaling entire case law, more particularly with reference to the earlier observations of the Hon'ble 4 2025 AIAR (Civil) 1 12 Supreme Court made in Kajal V. Jagadish Chand and Ors.5, referred to various heads under which, compensation can be awarded, in injuries cases vide paragraph No.52, the heads are as follows:-
S. No. Head Amount (In ₹)
1. Medicines and Medical Treatment xxxxx
2. Loss of Earning Capacity due to Disability xxxxx
3. Pain and Suffering xxxxx
4. Future Treatment xxxxx
5. Attendant Charges xxxxx
6. Loss of Amenities of Life xxxxx
7. Loss of Future Prospect xxxxx
8. Special Education Expenditure xxxxx
9. Conveyance and Special Diet xxxxx
10. Loss of Marriage Prospects xxxxxx
_________
Total Rs. ...xxxxxx
_________
(ii). Hon'ble Apex Court in Yadava Kumar Vs. Divisional Manager,
National Insurance Company Limited and Anr.,6 vide para No.10, by referring to Sunil Kumar Vs. Ram Singh Gaud7,as to application of multiplier method in case of injuries while calculating loss of future earnings, in para 16 referring to Hardeo Kaur Vs. Rajasthan State Transport Corporation8, as to fixing of quantum of compensation with liberal approach, valuing the life and limb of individual in generous scale, in para 17 observed that :-
"The High Court and the Tribunal must realize that there is a distinction between compensation and damage. The expression compensation may include a claim for damage but compensation is more comprehensive. Normally damages are given for an injury which is suffered, whereas compensation stands on a slightly higher footing. It is 5 2020 (04) SCC 413 6 2010(10)SCC 341 7 2007 (14) SCC 61 8 1992(2) SCC 567 13 given for the atonement of injury caused and the intention behind grant of compensation is to put back the injured party as far as possible in the same position, as if the injury has not taken place, by way of grant of pecuniary relief. Thus, in the matter of computation of compensation, the approach will be slightly more broad based than what is done in the matter of assessment of damages. At the same time it is true that there cannot be any rigid or mathematical precision in the matter of determination of compensation."
(iii). In Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another9, the Hon'ble Apex Court summarized principles to be followed in the process of quantifying the compensation after referring to socio economic and practical aspects from which, the claimants come and the practical difficulties, the parties may face in the process of getting disability assessed and getting all certificates from either the Doctors, who treated, or from the medical boards etc. principles summarized vide para No.19 are as follows:
19. We may now summarise the principles discussed above:
(i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity.
(ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that the percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as the percentage of permanent disability).
(iii) The doctor who treated an injured claimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard to the extent of permanent disability. The loss 9 2011 (1) SCC 343 14 of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety.
(iv) The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors.
(iv) In Sidram vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr.10 vide para No.40, the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to the general principles relating to compensation in injury cases and assessment of future loss of earning due to permanent disability by referring to Rajkumar's case, and also various heads under which compensation can be awarded to a victim of a motor vehicle accident.
(v) In Sidram's case, reference is made to a case in R.D. Hattangadi V. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd.11. From the observations made therein, it can be understood that while fixing amount of compensation in cases of accident, it involves some guess work, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of the disability caused. But, all these elements have to be viewed with objective standards. In assessing damages, the Court must exclude all considerations of matter which rest in awarding speculation or fancy, though conjecture to some extent is inevitable. 10
2023 (3) SCC 439 11 1995 (1) SCC 551 15
24. The learned MACT adopted guess work notionally and awarded compensation under the head of permanent disability at Rs.20,000/-. It is pleaded that claimant is attending welding work, which requires sitting. Difficulty stated by the claimant is endorsed by the doctor, P.W.2, that the petitioner has difficultly in squatting and walking. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the learned MACT notionally cannot be found fault. However, the same is fit to be enhanced to Rs.50,000/- on the same notional basis, considering the nature and effect of injuries, more particularly with reference to the employment of the claimant. Likewise compensation under the other heads like pain and suffering, loss of amenities, medical expenditure, extra nourishment and attendant charges requires revamp.
25. In the light of the precedential guidance and in view of the reasons and evidence referred above, the entitlement of the claimant for reasonable compensation in comparison to the compensation awarded by the learned MACT is found as follows:
Sl. Head Granted by Fixed by this
No. the learned Appellate
MACT Court
1. Pain and suffering Rs.41,000/- Rs.50,000/-
2. Transportation Rs.3,000/- Rs.10,000/-
3. Extra nourishment Rs.4,000/- Rs.15,000/-
4. Loss of income Rs.4,000/- Rs.15,000/-
5. Medical expenditure Rs.35,000/- Rs.50,000/-
16
6. Permanent disability Rs.20,000/- Rs.50,000/-
7. Attendant charges -Nil- Rs.10,000/-
8. Loss of amenities -Nil- Rs.25,000/-
Total: Rs.1,07,000 /- Rs.2,25,000/-
26. For the reasons aforesaid and in view of the discussion made above, the point framed is answered in favour of the claimant concluding that the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- and the order and decree dated 05.08.2010 passed by the learned MACT in M.V.O.P.No.84 of 2009 require modification accordingly.
Point No.2:
27. For the aforesaid reasons and in view of the findings of point No.1, Point No.2 is answered as follows:
In the result,
(i) The appeal is allowed-in-part.
(ii) The compensation awarded by the learned MACT at Rs.1,07,000/-
with interest at the rate of 6% per annum is modified and enhanced to Rs.2,25,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.
(iii) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable. But, Respondent No.2 is liable in view of the Insurance Policy.
(iv) Time for deposit of balance compensation amount is two months. 17
(v) The claimant is entitled to withdraw the amount at once on deposit.
(vi) There shall be no order as to costs, in this appeal. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeal shall stand closed.
____________________________ A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J Date:01.08.2025 Knr 18 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA M.A.C.M.A No.872 of 2012 1st August, 2025 Knr