Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The Apsrtc, Rep By Its M.D., Vijayawada vs Urjaa Appa Rao, Srikakulam Dist Anr on 14 August, 2025
1
APHC010059042017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3520]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 605/2017
Between:
1. THE APSRTC, REP BY ITS M.D., VIJAYAWADA, REP BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR RTC CROSS ROADS, MUSHEERABAD
HYDERABAD NOW AT VIJAYAWADA
...APPELLANT
AND
1. URJAA APPA RAO SRIKAKULAM DIST ANR, S/O LATE
NARAYANA,PRIVATE ELECTRICIAN PEDDALA VEEDHI, DOOR
NO.2-21-22,
22, GAJUVADA VILLAGE, PATHAPATNAM MANDAL
SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.
2. DAKARAPU SOMBABU, S/O LATE APPANNA RTC BUS DRIVER
AP-11-Z-2319
2319 RESIDENT OF OPP TO KGH OP GATE
KOTHASALIPETA, MAHARANIPETA VISAKHAPA
VISAKHAPATNAM
...RESPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. VINOD KUMAR TARLADA (SC FOR APSRTC)
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. PHANI BABU YALAMANCHILI
The Court made the following:
2
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
M.A.C.M.A.No.605 of 2017
JUDGMENT:
Introduction:-
1. Challenge in this appeal is against the order and decree dated 27.09.2016 passed in M.V.O.P.No.188 of 2012 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Family Court-cum- III Additional District Judge , Srikakulam [for short 'learned MACT'], whereunder a claim made for awarding compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- by the claimant who is respondent No.1 herein, for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident, was allowed awarding Rs.9,00,000/- as compensation. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the APSRTC- the2nd respondent before the learned MACT, has filed the present appeal.
2. The 2nd respondent herein, arrayed as the 1st respondent before the learned MACT, who is the driver of the offending vehicle, remained ex parte.
3. For the sake of convenience, parties will be herein after referred to as the claimant and the respondents, as and how they are arrayed before the impugned proceedings.
Case of the claimant, in brief:
4. [i] On 08.08.2011 claimant boarded APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 2319 at Tekkali, [for short the 'offending vehicle'], for travelling, to his 3 village Ganguvada and when he was about to get down from the bus at Ganguvada, the driver of the bus suddenly moved the same without signals of the conductor, with the result, the petitioner/claimant fell on the road, and wheels of the bus ran over his left leg and other parts of the body, causing severe injuries. Claimant was shifted to C.H.C. Pathapatnam, from there he was referred to K.G.H. Visakhapatnam for better treatment.
[ii] A case in Cr.No.74 of 2011 was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle for the offence under Section 338 IPC and subsequently charge sheet was laid against the driver.
[iii] The claimant suffered compound fracture and amputation upto to knee level. He was in-patient for 45 days, incurred expenditure of Rs.1,50,000/- for treatment and medicines, spent Rs.20,000/- for travelling and other incidental expenditure.
[iv] The claimant was attending electrical works as Lineman after retirement by employing young boys for his assistance. He was earning Rs.10,000/- per month apart from pension, by attending electrical works.
[v] He has suffered 70% permanent disability and unable to attend any work. Hence, entitled for just and reasonable compensation and the respondents are liable to pay the same, as the driver of the offending vehicle was negligent and the 2nd respondent/appellant is the owner of the vehicle and employer of the 1st respondent/driver. 4 The case of the 2nd respondent:-
5. [i] Claimant is an illiterate person; hurriedly jumped from the running bus, responsible for the accident.
[ii] The claimant shall prove the negligence, age, occupation, income, disability and medical expenditure incurred, etc.
6. Learned MACT after considering the evidence of claimant as PW1, Doctor-PW.2, and the documents vide Ex.A1 to A51, held issues relating to negligence against the driver of the offending vehicle and quantified the entitlement of the claimant for compensation, as follows:-
Head of compensation Amount
Loss of earning capacity and future Rs.5,88,000/-
prospects of income:
[[10,000/- x 70/100] x 12 x 7]
Medical expenses as per Bills Rs.36,000/-
Rs.35,886/- (rounded off to Rs.36,000/)-
Treatment underwent by the petitioner Rs.20,000/-
for a period of 45 days.
Traveling and extra nourishment food. Rs.26,000/-
Loss of amenities Rs.1,00,000/-
Mental agony, pain and suffering Rs.1,30,000/-
Total: Rs.9,00,000/-
Arguments:-
For the appellant-APSRTC
7. [i] Learned MACT erred in quantifying the compensation and the
compensation awarded at Rs.9,00,000/- with interest @9% p.a. is highly excessive.
5
[ii] Learned MACT failed in appreciating the negligence on the part of the claimant in getting down the bus.
[iii] Learned MACT failed to take note that the claimant is aged '63' years and erred in accepting his income at Rs.10,000/- without any basis.
[iv] The compensation awarded at Rs.1,30,000/- towards mental agony and pain and suffering is highly excessive.
For the claimant/petitioner:-
8. [i] The learned MACT ought to have awarded more compensation than what claimed.
[ii] The findings are well reasoned. There are no grounds to interfere except for enhancement of the compensation already awarded.
9. Perused the record and thoughtful consideration given to the arguments advanced by the both sides.
10. Now the points that arise for determination in this appeal are that -
1) Whether the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle is cause for the accident? And whether there was any negligence on the part of the claimant, as claimed by the appellant-APSRTC?
2) Whether the claimant is entitled for any compensation? If so, on what quantum and whether the compensation of Rs.9,00,000/-
awarded by the learned MACT is just and reasonable? Or require any interference? If so, to what extent?
3) What is the result of the appeal?
6Point No.1 :-
Precedential Guidance:-
11. It is relevant to note that in view of the summary nature and mode of enquiry contemplated under Motor Vehicles Act and social welfare nature of legislation the Tribunal shall have holistic view with reference to facts and circumstances of each case. It is sufficient if there is probability. The principle of standard of proof, beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied while considering a claim seeking compensation for the death or the injury on account of road accident. The touch stone of the case, the claimant shall have to establish is preponderance of probability only. The legal position to this extent is settled and consistent.
12. This Court finds it relevant to note the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court made in Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation1, which reads as under:
"15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied. For the said purpose, the High Court should have taken into consideration the respective stories set forth by both the parties.." 1
2009 (13) SCC 530 7
13. In a case between New India Assurance Company Ltd., Vs. Kethavarapu Sathyavathi and Ors.2, the Hon'ble Division Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh has referred to Section 168, 169 of M.V. Act and Rule 476(7) of A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules and also catena of decisions. The point for consideration before the Hon'ble Division Bench was that in holding an inquiry in terms of Motor Vehicles Act, what is the procedure to be followed and whether the F.I.R. can be basis for considering the claim. Observations in para 5 to 7 are as follows:
"5. Point:
Under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the Act"), the Claims Tribunal shall give the parties an opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry into the claim and make an award determining just compensation, etc. In holding any such inquiry, Section 169 of the Act mandates the Tribunal to follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit subject to rules. The Tribunal was conferred with the powers of a civil Court for the specified purposes and under Rule 476 of the Rules, the Claims Tribunal was directed to follow the procedure of summary trial as contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Tribunal was cautioned not to reject any application on the ground of any technical flaw and was also obligated to obtain whatever information necessary from the police, medical and other authorities. It is true that sub-rule (7) of Rule 476 of the Rules states that the Claims Tribunal shall proceed to award the claim on the basis of registration certificate of the motor vehicle, insurance certificate or Policy, copy of first information report, post-mortem certificate or certificate of inquiry from the medical officer and the nature of treatment given by the medical Officer.
6. The said sub-rule obviously refers to the relevant dependable criteria for assessment of the compensation, which is patently illustrative and can never be considered to be exhaustive. This Sub-rule stating the basis to award the 2 2009 Supreme (AP) 136=2010(2) ALD 403=2009(3) ALT 260 8 claim, is obviously subject to the prohibition against depending on any technical flaw and the procedure for summary trial to be followed by the Tribunal. The said sub-rule cannot travel beyond the statutory obligation imposed on the Tribunal to determine the just compensation after an inquiry, in which an opportunity of being heard is given to the parties. The judicial determination of the questions in controversy before the Tribunal in terms of Sections 168 and 169 of the Act cannot be confined to consideration of the five documents referred to in sub-rule (7) of Rule 476 of the Rules alone and exclude any other oral or documentary evidence. The procedure of summary trial under the Code of Criminal Procedure which the Tribunal shall follow under Rule 476 of the Rules itself mandates taking all such evidence as may be produced by both sides in support of their respective versions, apart from the evidence which the Court, of its own motion, causes to be produced as per Section 262 read with Sections 254 and 255 of the said Code. Sub-rule (7) to be understood in the light of the object and scheme of the Act, is a directory provision referring to some of the documents which can offer guidance to the Tribunal in discharge of its statutory duty and the word "shall" used in the said: subrule has to be necessarily understood as "may".
7. That apart, to say that the, first information report alone should be the conclusive basis for determining the manner of the accident, even in spite of the availability of other dependable evidence on record on that aspect, will be offending the plain language of the statute and if that were the purport of sub- rule (7), it cannot be considered valid, as any such delegated legislation cannot travel beyond the legislation itself."
Analysis of Evidence:-
14. Claimant is the injured and eye witness to the accident. He is examined as PW.1. Ex.A1 is F.I.R. registered against the driver of the offending vehicle and Ex.A2 is the Charge sheet laid against him. Ex.A4-
M.V.I. report is indicating the involvement of the offending vehicle. 9
15. Upon application of the probability theory, particularly in the light of the crime record and the evidence of PW.1, and in the light of the statutory and precedential guidance referred to above vide Rule 476(7) of A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules and the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bimla Devi's case, New India Assurance Company Ltd.'s case [cited 2 & 3 supra] this Court is concurring with the findings of the learned MACT, on the point regarding occurrence of the accident as attributable to the negligence of the driver of the bus.
16. It is claimed by the respondent/appellant that the criminal case is ended in acquittal vide Ex.B1. The claimant herein, i.e., Urjana Apparao is examined as PW.2 in the Criminal Case vide C.C.No.244 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of Fist Class, Pathapatnam vide Ex.B1/judgment.
17. It is pertinent to note that in the judgment/Ex.B1, it is observed that PW.2 therein, asked the conductor of the bus to stop the bus, but the conductor did not inform the same to the driver. It is also mentioned in Ex.B1 five other passengers got down from the bus and as per the observations in Ex.B1, the bus was running and it was moving slowly, when the injured got down from the bus. The acquittal was by extending benefit of doubt and it is not a clean acquittal, but it is only an honour acquittal. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is complete absence of negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. Hence, the findings of the learned MACT as to negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle found 10 fit for confirmation and concurrence. Hence, point No.1 is answered accordingly in favour of the claimant and against the 2nd respondent/appellant.
Point No.2:-
What is just and reasonable compensation, that can be awarded to the claimant?
Precedential Guidance:-
18. 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.
19. [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.3, 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 Supreme Court made in Kajal V. Jagadish Chand and Ors.4, referred to various heads under which, compensation can be awarded, in injuries cases vide paragraph No.52, the heads are as follows:- 3
2025 AIAR (Civil) 1 4 2020 (04) SCC 413 11 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.,5 vide para No.10, by referring to Sunil Kumar Vs. Ram Singh Gaud6,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 Corporation7, 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 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 5 2010(10)SCC 341 6 2007 (14) SCC 61 7 1992(2) SCC 567 12 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 Another8 vide para No.19, 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., it is observed that :-
"...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 percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as 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 the extent of permanent disability. The loss 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..."8
2011 (1) SCC 343 13
(iv) In Sidram vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr.9 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.10. 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.
Analysis of Evidence:
20. Ex.A3 is the wound certificate. Ex.A7 to A51 are the medical bills, Ex.A6 is the Disability Certificate.
21. The evidence of PW.2, Dr. Muddapu Pardha Saradhi, who treated the claimant/petitioner, is as follows:-
9
2023 (3) SCC 439 10 1995 (1) SCC 551 14 "Chief-examination:-
I am working as Assistant Professor, K.G. Hospital. Visakhapatnam since 2008. On 19-12-2011 I examined the injured i.e., Urjana Appa Rao and issued a Disability Certificate at K.G. Hospital, Visakhapatnam. The nature of the disability is permanent and it was a post traumatic below knee amputation left below limb accounting to 70% of disability. The patient was treated in K.G.H. under the orthopedic Unit-II under the supervision of Dr.M.Eswarababu.
As per the case sheet, the injured was admitted on 09.08.2011 and he was discharged on 21.09.2011. Surgery was conducted on 10.08.2011 in I.P. No.28206.
Cross-examination :-
It is true there is separate board constituted by the Government to issues Disability Certificate. It is true this Certificate is not issued by Medical Board. It is not true to suggest that I am not treated the patient. It is not true to suggest that I issued the certificate to help the injured. I am one of the members of the Medical Board in K.G. Hospital, Visakhapatnam. It is true I issued the Disability Certificate in individual capacity. It is not true to suggest that I am not competent to issue the certificate as I am not treated the patient. Re-examination:-
Dr.M.Eswarababu is not available presently. He is at Abudabi country.
Further cross:-
It is not true to suggest that though the injured not having 70% Disability and I issue Disability Certificate with 70% Disability to help the injured."
22. Total of medical bills calculated by the learned MACT is at Rs.36,000/-. Learned MACT has adopted the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- on a strength of self-serving statement of claimant/PW.1 alone. He claimed that he is a pensioner. The contention that there cannot be any reduction in the pension does not merit any contention, however, as per the medical record, the age of the claimant is '62' years. Then accepting the 15 income at Rs.10,000/- by attending electrical works, without any supporting evidence, can be found as excessive. Notionally the income can be accepted at Rs.6,000/-. Since the deceased is aged above '60' years, adding of future prospects does not arise.
23. The Disability Certificate under Ex.A6, issued by the Medical Board is indicating disability at 70%. The claimant suffered amputation and may have to suffer with the disability for remaining life, which may make him to incur additional expenditure for treatment etc., and to necessitate artificial limb etc., required to be taken into consideration. Multiplier '7' is applicable for the age group of the claimant. Then the loss of income comes to [Rs.6000/-x70%] Rs.4200/- per month and it comes to Rs.50,400/- per annum. Then the claimant entitled for compensation of [Rs.50,400/- x '7'] Rs.3,52,800/- under the head of loss of income. However, with regard to pain and suffering, loss of amenities, transportation, expenditure, attendant charges etc., there is need to award reasonable compensation, in tune with the precedential guidance referred above.
24. In view of the reasons and evidence referred above, the entitlement of the claimant for reasonable compensation under various heads as contemplated by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in comparison to compensation awarded by the learned MACT is as follows:
16
S.No. Head Granted by the Fixed by this
learned MACT Appellate
Court
1. Medicines and Medical Rs.36,000/- Rs.36,000/-
Treatment [Medical Expenditure]
2. Loss of earning capacity due to Rs.5,88,000/- Rs.3,52,800/-
disability [loss of future earnings]
3. Loss of Income during treatment Rs.20,000/- Rs.10,000/-
period [45 days]
4. Pain and suffering Rs.1,30,000/- Rs.1,50,000/-
5. Attendant Charges -Nil- Rs.20,000/-
6. Loss of amenities of Life and Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.1,00,000/-
discomfort
7. a) Conveyance and Rs.26,000/- Rs.50,000/-
b) special diet/ Extra
nourishment of food
Total Rs.9,00,000/- Rs.7,18,800
25. For the aforestated reasons and discussions made, it is found that the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.7,18,800/- with interest @7.5%p.a. and the impugned decree and order dated 27.09.2016 require modification to that extent. Pint No.2 is answered accordingly. Point No.3
26. In the result, appeal is partly allowed as follows:-
[i] Compensation awarded by the learned MACT at Rs.9,00,000/- with interest @9% p.a. under the impugned decree and order dated 27.09.2016 is modified to Rs.7,18,800/- with interest @7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realization. [ii] Claimant/petitioner is entitled to withdraw the compensation amount on deposit, at once.17
[iii] Time for deposit of balance compensation amount is two (02) months.
[iv] No costs in the facts and circumstances. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.
____________________________
A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J
Date: 14.08.2025
Pnr
18
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA M.A.C.M.A.No.605 of 2017 Dt. 14.08.2025 Pnr