Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Vemula Sivaji vs Kommana Siva Sai Kumar Nani on 20 June, 2025
1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
M.A.C.M.A.No.1510 of 2017
JUDGMENT:
I. Introduction:-
1. [i] National Insurance Company Ltd., the 2nd respondent before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- VIII Additional District Judge, Chittoor [for short "MACT"], in M.V.O.P.No.47 of 2014, feeling aggrieved by the Award and Decree dated 10.01.2017 passed therein, filed the present appeal.
[ii] The 1st respondent herein is the claimant and the 2 nd and 3rd respondents herein are the owner and driver of the vehicle bearing No.AP 03 AA 5224 [for short the 'offending vehicle'] and the appellant herein is the Insurance Company with which the offending vehicle was insured.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties will be herein after referred to as the claimant and the respondents, with reference to their status before the learned MACT, as and how they are arrayed in the impugned proceedings. II. Case of the claimant in brief:
3. [i] Claimant suffered accident on 18.01.2012 on Chittoor - Puttur road, near Ramanaidupalle village, G.D. Nellore Mandal, within the limits of G.D.Nellore Police Station.
[ii] By the date of the accident, the claimant was studying II year B.Tech., at ChandraSekharendra Saraswathi Viswa Maha Vidyalaya, 2 Kancheepuram, Tamil Nadu and aged about '19' years. While the claimant was travelling on a motor Cycle Bajaj Pulsar bearing No.KA 01 EH 5945, the 3rd respondent, driver of the offending vehicle/ Indica Car bearing No.AP 03 AA 5224, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motor cycle of the claimant from rear side. Whereby the claimant fell down and sustained multiple bleeding injures and fractures. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to CMC Hospital, Vellore, from there he was taken to Sri Ramachandra Medical Center, Chennai. He has undergone initially treatment at CMC Hospital and after shifting to Sri Ramachandra Medical Center, Chennai undergone operation on 15.02.2012 to D7-D9, D10 pedicle screw fixation and instrumented stabilization for D8 and D9 wedge compression of the vertebral body fractures. Doctors have diagnosed of deep vein thrombosis of the right lower limb. Due to critical injury on his head, the claimant was in ICU Unit for 15 days.
[iii] He has spent more than Rs.10,00,000/- for his treatment, surgery and medicines etc., taken the treatment from 18.01.2012 to 24.02.2012 as in-patient at first instances and again he was admitted on 14.03.2012 and visited on 16.03.2012. Even after discharge he is continuously taking treatment as outpatient as advised by the doctors. Due to the accident, he has sustained multiple injuries. Though he has taken treatment, unable to concentrate on his studies. He has to take medicines throughout the life. Even after discharge, as per doctors' advice, he has 3 continuously taken treatment and visited as outpatient even on 25.10.2013. For about 16 times he has attended the Hospitals, for investigation etc. Although the clamant is survived, there is no scope for complete recovery. During treatment he has struggled for survival. He cannot travel long distances, he has to use spinal belt for his journeys. He cannot sit or stand for long time. He is not fit for driving any vehicle.
[iv] The disability of the claimant is assessed at 55%. The claimant is getting headache, giddiness, defective memory, anger, inability to concentrate on studies etc. The disability is permanent in nature. The misery is inexplicable.
[v] The negligence of the 3rd respondent-driver of the offending vehicle, is the sole cause for the accident. The offending vehicle is owned by the 1st respondent and insured with 2nd respondent. Therefore, all the respondents are liable to pay just and reasonable compensation.
4. The 3rd respondent-driver of the offending vehicle remained ex parte. 1st and 2nd respondents contested the case.
III. Case of the respondents 1 and 2:- Common Defence: 5. [i] The nature, manner and effect of the accident as well as
negligence of the 3rd respondent-driver of the offending vehicle are denied. Equally, age, occupation and income , nature and effect of injuries, disability 4 etc., pleaded by the claimant and quantum of compensation claimed are all denied. The claimant is put to strict proof of all the allegations. The negligence of the claimant in driving the motor cycle is the cause for the accident and claim petition is fit to be dismissed. Specific plea of the 1 st respondent:-
[ii] Valid and effective Policy issued by the 2nd respondent was in force as on the date of accident i.e., 18.01.2012. The Insurance Policy was covering the period for 13.12.2011 to 28.2.2012. Therefore, the liability if any is that of Insurance Company to pay compensation.
Specific Case of the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company:-
6. The owner of the offending vehicle, who is the insured, should have send the information of accident immediately. The owner of the offending vehicle admitted the accident in his written statement. The 1st respondent/ owner of the offending vehicle and the claimant colluded, and planted the offending vehicle. There is violation of conditions of the Insurance Policy.
There was (08) months delay in lodging the F.I.R. for the accident. Therefore, the Insurance Company cannot be made liable.
7. On the strength of pleadings, learned MACT settled the following issues for trial:
1) Whether the accident that occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Car bearing No.AP 03 AA 5224 of R1? Or the rider of Motor cycle bearing NO. KA 01 EH 5945?5
2) Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
3) Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
4) To what relief?
IV. Evidence before the learned MACT:
8. Documentary evidence:-
Sl.No. Marked Description Remarks
as
01. Ex.A1 Certified copy of Wound Certificate issued by
Ramachandra Hospital, Chennai
For the
02. Ex.A2 Charge sheet Claimant/
03. Ex.A3 Discharge Summary issued by the Christian petitioner
medical College, Vellore.
04. Ex.A4 Medical Bills issued by the Christian medical
College, Vellore.
05. Ex.A5 Ambulance bills issued by Christian medical
College, Vellore.
06. Ex.A6 Discharge Summary issued by Ramachanda
Hospital, Chennai for the period from
18.01.2012 to 24.02.2012.
07. Ex.A7 Discharge summary issued by Ramachandra
Hospital, for the period from 14.03.2012 to 16.03.2012.
08. Ex.A8 Inpatient bill issued by Ramachandra Hospital
09. Ex.A9 Inpatient bill issued by Ramachandra Hospital
10. Ex.A10 5-Nutrition foods receipts issued by Ramachandra Hospital.
11. Ex.A11 154 Pharmacy bills issued by Ramachandra 6 Hospital.
12. Ex.A12 19--Xrays issued by Ramachandra Hospital
13. Ex.A13 5-Xrays issued by Ramachandra Hospital.
14. Ex.A14 8-CT Scan reports issued by Ramachandra Hospital.
15. Ex.A15 3-ECG reports issued by Ramachandra Hospital.
16. Ex.A16 5-Radiology and imaging sciences investigation reports
17. Ex.A17 Outpatient prescriptions plus 16 cash bills.
18. Ex.A18 Permanent disability certificate.
19. Ex.A19 Certificate issued by Chandrasekhara Saraswathi Visva Maha vidayalaya Engineering College, Kancheepuram
20. Ex.A20 11-Pharmacy and service bills issued by Ramachandra Hospitals
21. Ex.A21 17-Private Pharmacy Bills
22. Ex.A22 Receipt issued by Kalam Travels.
23. Ex.A23 The Spine belt cash receipt issued by Ramachandra Hospital.
24. Ex.B1 Attested copy of Insurance Policy For the Respondents
25. Ex.B2 Office Copy of legal notice dated 30.12.2014.
26. Ex.B3 Reply notice 19.01.2015
27. Ex.B4 Office copy of rejoinder notice dt.20.1.2015.
28. Ex.X1 Outpatient prescriptions and Bills
29. Ex.X2 Doppler report
30. Ex.X3 EEG report
31. Ex.X4 EEG report
32. Ex.X5 X-ray 7
9. ORAL EVIDENCE:
Sl.No. Name of the Examined Remarks
Witness as
1. M.Mothi Kiran PW.1 Claimant/injured
2. Dr.K.Selva Kumar PW.2 Doctor, who treated the
claimant/injured
3. Dr.A.Sudhakar PW.3 Doctor, who attended the follow
up treatment for the claimant.
4. R.Ravindra Prasad RW.1 Assistant Manager of Insurance
Co./ 2nd respondent
10. Claimant was examined as PW.1. He has reiterated his pleadings about the accident, injuries suffered, treatment taken, disability etc.. One Dr.K.Selva Kumar working as Professor, Department of Neuro Surgery at Sri Ramachandra Medical College, Chennai was examined as PW.2. One Dr.A.Sudhakar Reddy, working as Neuro Surgeon in SVRRGG Hospital, Triupati was examined as PW.3, who attended the follow-up treatment for the claimant. RW.1 is the Assistant Managing Officer of the 2nd respondent, Chittoor Branch Office.
V. Findings of the learned MACT:-
A. On Negligence:-
11. [i]. Claimant as an eye-witness to the accident, examined as PW.1. He has stated about the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. Ex.A2 is the Charge sheet laid against the driver of the offending vehicle/3rd respondent. Suggestions given by the respondents 1 and 2 are 8 not of any use, particularly with regard to the absence of the negligence and the ignorance of the PW.1 about the name of driver of the crime vehicle at the time of giving of the report, is in consequential.
[ii] The evidence of Rw.1, on behalf of the 2nd respondent, who is not an eye witness, is also not helpful to advance the case of the respondents. Therefore, the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle is fit to be accepted.
B. With regard to non-joinder Of owner and the Insurance Company of the motor cycle, in which the claimant was driver:-
[iii] Since it is shown that the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle is the cause for the accident and it is not shown that there is negligence on the part of the clamant, the objection of non-joinder, is fit to be ignored.
C. With regard to entitlement for compensation:-
[iv] Negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle is the cause for the accident. Vehicle is insured with the 2 nd respondent, owned by the 1st respondent, therefore, they are liable to pay compensation.
D. With regard to quantum:
[v] The documentary evidence is sufficient to believe the injuries
suffered by the claimant due to the accident, particularly covered by Exs.A3, 9 A6 and A7-Discharge Summaries, Exs.A12 and A13-X-rays, Ex.A14-C.T. Scan report and Exs.A15 and A16-Labioratory reports.
[vi] The entitlement of claimant for compensation under various heads is, for medical expenses Rs.10,000/-,for extra nourishment-
Rs.10,000/-, damages to cloths Rs.5000/-, for medical bills etc. -
Rs.5,65,200/-, for grievous injuries Rs.25,000/-. The income is taken at Rs.12,000/- per month, multiplier applicable is '18'. Therefore, the total entitlement is Rs.14,25,600/- under the head of permanent disability. In all the entitlement is for Rs.20,15,800/-.
E. With regard to liability:-
[vii] The Policy was in force as on the date of accident. As per Policy-Ex.B1-N. Nanda Kumar is the owner. Evidence of PW.1, coupled with Ex.A2-charge sheet are sufficient to believe the negligence of the driver. The 2nd respondent-Insurance Company taken no effective steps to show that name of the driver is planted. The evidence of RW.1 is not of any use. Delay in giving complaint is not fatal particularly in the context of observations of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Anela Sathyamma and Others1 and K.Rajani and Others 1 2015 ACJ 1352 10 Vs.M.Sathyanrayana Goud and another2 and that the Insurance Company is also liable to pay the compensation.
VI. Grounds/Arguments in the Appeal:
For the Appellant- Insurance Company/2nd respondent:-
12. [i] The delay in lodging the complaint is fatal but the learned MACT did not consider the same.
[ii] Mis-matching the name of the driver of the offending vehicle is ignored by the learned MACT, charge sheet is showing the name of the driver of the offending vehicle as N.Hariprakash Reddy, but as per the claim petition one Nanda Kumar is the driver-cum-owner.
[iii] Income taken at Rs.12,000/- per month for the II year Engineering Student is not proper.
[iv] The F.I.R. is not filed and suppressed. Therefore, petition is fit to be dismissed.
For the claimant/petitioner:-
13. [i] The learned MACT has addressed all the points clearly and carefully.
[ii] There cannot be charge sheet without registration of the crime and F.I.R.
[iii] Injuries suffered are grievous and having serious consequences.
2 2015 ACJ 797 11 [iv] Fixing of liability and quantification of compensation are all sustainable and there are no grounds to interfere in this appeal, except for enhancement of compensation.
14. Perused the record and thoughtful consideration given to the arguments advanced by the both sides.
15. Now the points that arise for determination in this appeal are that -
1) Whether non-filing of F.I.R. is fatal? and Whether the delay in registration of F.I.R. creates doubt over the entire occurrence of the accident and the claim made? And whether the pleaded accident is the result of the exclusive negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle? Or was there any contribution from the injured/claimant? If so, to which extent?
2) What is the just and reasonable compensation to which the claimant is entitled? And what is the liability of the respondent No.2/appellant-Insurance Company?
3) Whether the compensation of Rs.20,15,800/- awarded by the learned MACT require any modification? If so, to what tune?
4) What is the result of the appeal?
Point No.1 :-
A. Statutory Guidance:-
16. Section 176 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides that for the purpose of implementation of provisions of Section 165 to 174 of the Act, the State Government may make Rules, on various aspects, provided thereunder. For better appreciation, Section 176 of the M.V. Act, reads as under:- 12
"176. Power of State Government to make rules. - A State Government may make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of sections 165 to 174, and in particular, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:
(a) the form of application for claims for compensation and the particulars it may contain, and the fees, if any, to be paid in respect of such applications;
(b) the procedure to be followed by a Claims Tribunal in holding an inquiry under this Chapter;
(c) the powers vested in a Civil Court which may be exercised by a Claims Tribunal;
(d) the form and the manner in which and the fees (if any) on payment of which an appeal may be preferred against an award of a Claims Tribunal; and(e)any other matter which is to be, or may be, prescribed.
17. In terms of provisions of Section 176 of M.V. Act, the A.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 are framed. Chapter XI of the Rules deals with the claims Tribunal and the examination, consideration and disposal of the claim applications, covered under Rule 455 to 476-A. Sub-rule (7) of Rule 476, provides that the claims Tribunal shall proceed to award the claims on the basis of material contemplated under the said provisions. Rule 476 sub-Rule(7) reads as under :-
"476. (7) Basis to award the claim :- The Claims Tribunal shall proceed to award the claim on the basis of;-
(i) Registration Certificate of the Motor Vehicle involved in the accident;
(ii) Insurance Certificate or Policy relating to the insurance of the Motor Vehicle against the Third party risk;13
(iii) Copy of First Information Report;
(iv) Post-mortem certificate or certificate of inquiry from the Medical Officer; and
(v) The nature of the treatment given by the Medical Officer who has examined the victim.
B. Precedential Guidance:- 18.. 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.
19. 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 Corporation3, 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 3 2009 (13) SCC 530 14 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.."
20. As per rule 476, one of the important material for consideration of the claim for compensation, in terms of Motor Vehicles Act, is F.I.R.. In the present case, charge sheet is filed. It is natural that F.I.R. precedes charge sheet. Charge Sheet is stronger material when compared to F.I.R. The grievance of the Insurance Company is that F.I.R. is not filed. It is relevant to note that certain entrees in Charge Sheet/Ex.A2, shows the F.I.R.No.59 of 2012 against the entry No.1 in first page of final report, filed in terms of 173 of Cr.P.C.. The date on which charge sheet is forwarded, as per column No.11 is on 14.08.2012, whereas the date of the accident is 18.01.2012. Charge sheet is also filed under Section 134 of M.V.Act, which indicates that the accused is charge sheeted for not furnishing information necessary as to the accident.
21. As per the contents of the charge sheet, the information was furnished on 01.08.2012 at 9.00 a.m., pursuant to the endorsement by the III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor in terms of Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and a case in Crime No.59 of 2012 under Section 337 and 338 of IPC r/w156(3) of Cr.P.C. was registered. It is a case of reference by the Court for registration of crime. Further, the charge sheet reflects that during the course of investigation, (05) witnesses were examined and the statements were recorded vide part-2 of Case Diary and on 14.08.202, the 15 accused was arrested on surrender. Further, the wound Certificate Ex.A1 is reflecting that the injuries are caused due to the road traffic accident and that the injured was first examined on 18.01.2012 and that the accident said to have caused on 18.01.2012. The wound certificate is issued by the Officer in the cadre of C.M.O., Dr.K.Vamsi Krishna. No steps are taken to examine the said Vamsi Krishna. The date of accident is 18.01.2012 the claimant was initially shown at C.M.C. Hospital on18.01.2012, Ex.A3 is Discharge Summary dated 18.01.2012 issued by the C.M.C. Hospital and Ex.A6 is the Discharge Summary indicating treatment at Ramachandra Hospital, Chennai from 18.01.2012 to 24.02.2012 as in-patient. Ex.A3 is Discharge Summary issued by the C.M.C. Hospital, Vellore, Department of Accident and Emergency Medicine, indicating that the history of road traffic accident. Ex.A6 also suggests that the claimant was immediately taken to Ramachandra Hospital at Chennai. It is pleaded that for over 7months, the treatment process has taken places for over 6 to 7 months.
22. In the context of the case and factual developments, non-filing of F.I.R. need not be taken as fatal as rightly opined by the learned MACT, for the following reasons:-
1) Treatment to the victim is the 1st priority, is the settled position of law.
2) Delay in F.I.R. creates doubt but does not vitiate the crime/incident itself.
3) Complaint filed before the concerned Magistrate was forwarded under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for investigation.16
4) Police in due discharge of their functions conducted investigation and filed charge sheet covered by Ex.A2/original charge sheet.
5) Written statement of 1st respondent/owner of the offending vehicle would show that "it is true the accident took place on18.01.2012 at about 5.50 a.m. on Chittoor-Puttur Road, near Ramanaidupalle village, within the limits of G.D.Nellore Police Station but not due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of this respondent." However, the 1st respondent denied the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. There is further reference to criminal record in the written statement of 1st respondent. Written statement is indicating that the negligence of the claimant as the cause for the accident when he tried to cross the road, in that scenario the driver of the offending vehicle was unable to control. Hence, the accident has occurred.
6) The 1st respondent admitted the accident and also admitted the involvement of the driver of the offending vehicle. The 3rd respondent, driver of the offending vehicle, who is proper person to deny about the negligence and the accident, remained ex parte.
7) The tribunal should have holistic view of the matter and the material indicated under Rule 476 can be the basis to arrive at conclusion.
8) RW.1 is an official of the Insurance Company and not an eye witness to the accident.
9) What prevented the Insurance Company from examining any of the witnesses cited in the charge sheet under Ex.A2, is not even whispered.
10) Evidence of driver of the offending vehicle, which would throw some light is not placed.
11) In view of the reasons mentioned above, it can be concluded that the 2nd respondent [appellant/Insurance Company] lamentably 17 failed in placing the require information and that material available on record, both oral and documentary, is sufficient to believe occurrence of accident, and negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle.
12) To the claimant, during the cross-examination on behalf of the 1st respondent, owner of the offending vehicle, it was suggested that the claimant's negligence is the cause for the accident. There was nothing diluting the evidence of claimant as to occurrence of the accident. On behalf of the Insurance Company, during the cross-
examination, the claimant has stated that he gave report to Police on 15.06.2011, he was treated in Hospital for about 03 months, he has filed private complaint before the Magistrate Court and the same was forwarded. It was suggested to him that owner of the Car is mentioned as Nandakumar in the report of the claimant. The claimant do not know the name of the driver of the car by that time but subsequently police has entered the name as Hariprakash Reddy, that he has denied the suggestion that he was given complaint to police, mentioning that one Nandakmar is the driver of the Car. Nothing more is elicited from the cross-examination of PW.1 that the delay was unintentional and such delay contributes to doubt and reject the entire claim of the claimant.
23. Therefore, Point No.1 is answered in favour of the claimant. Summary of reasons is as follows:
18
[i] F.I.R. may be a material piece of evidence. But it cannot be said as it is the only material of which the claim has to be decided, where the circumstances and other material justify the registration of F.I.R. and its culmination into other crime record like charge sheet etc., in the particular facts and situation like in the present case, non-filing of F.I.R., is not fatal for the claim made by the petitioner.
[ii] Delay in registration of F.I.R. cannot be considered as basis to doubt the tenability of the claim and truth in the case, if the material is indicating the occurrence of the crime and involvement of the accused, injured etc., concerned. Delay can be ground to doubt but delay by itself cannot improbablise the case itself.
[iii] Considering the evidence on record, for deciding the culpability of the accused is different from considering the same for examining the entitlement of the victim for compensation in terms of social welfare legislation like M.V. Act, standard of proof necessary is only the preponderance of possibilities in contra distinction to necessity of evidence proving the guilt, beyond reasonable doubt, for culpability.
[iv] There is enough material, both oral and documentary, on record including the inferences that can be drawn from the evidence and conduct of the parties reflected in the record to conclude that the claimant is able to show the exclusive negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle 19 being the cause for the accident and absence of any contribution from the claimant.
[v] Point No.1 is decided and answered accordingly in favour of the claimant.
Point No.2:-
24. Since the claimant suffered injuries to the accident, the accident caused involvement of the offending vehicle and negligence of its driver/3 rd respondent and as ownership of the 1st respondent over the offending vehicle and the same was insured with the 2nd respondent, covering the relevant period viz., the date of accident, the entitlement for compensation and liability of respondents to pay compensation are clear, particularly in the context of the doubts objections, projected by the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company are not tenable, which have been considered and answered at length under point No.1 above.
25. The other aspect remains for consideration is quantum of compensation to which the claimant is entitled. What is just and reasonable compensation, that can be awarded to the claimant?
Precedential Guidance:-
26[i]. 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.20
(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 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 4 2025 AIAR (Civil) 1 5 2020 (04) SCC 413 6 2010(10)SCC 341 7 2007 (14) SCC 61 21 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 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 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 8 1992(2) SCC 567 9 2011 (1) SCC 343 22 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..."
(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 10 2023 (3) SCC 439 11 1995 (1) SCC 551 23 considerations of matter which rest in awarding speculation or fancy, though conjecture to some extent is inevitable.
27. Whether the compensation can be enhanced in the absence of an appeal or cross appeal by the claimant is the next question. The legal position as to powers of the Appellate Court particularly while dealing with an appeal in terms of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, where the award passed by the learned MACT under challenge at the instance of the Insurance Company (Respondents) and bar or prohibition if any to enhance the quantum of compensation and awarding just and reasonable compensation, even in the absence of any appeal or cross objections was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in a case between National Insurance Company Limited vs. E. Suseelamma and others12 in M.A.C.M.A. No.945 of 2013, while answering point No.3 framed therein vide, para 50 of the judgment, which reads as follows:
50. In our considered view, the claimant/respondents are entitled for just compensation and if on the face of the award or even in the light of the evidence on record, and keeping in view the settled legal position regarding the claimants being entitled to just compensation and it also being the statutory duty of the Court/Tribunal to award just compensation, this Court in the exercise of the appellate powers can enhance the amount of compensation even in the absence of appeal or cross-objection by the claimants.
28. Observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. E. Suseelamma and others (12 supra) 12 2023 SCC Online AP 1725 24 case are in compliance with the observations of Hon'ble Apex Court in Surekha and Others vs. Santosh and Others13.
29. In Surekha and Others vs. Santosh and Others (13 supra) case, in Civil Appeal No.476 of 2020 vide judgment dated 21.01.2020, three judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that "it is well stated that in the matter of Insurance claim compensation in reference to the motor accident, the Court should not take hyper technical approach and ensure that just compensation is awarded to the affected person or the claimants". While addressing a case where the High Court has declined to grant enhancement on the ground that the claimants fail to file cross appeal above observations are made.
30. The legal position with regard to awarding more compensation than what claimed has been considered and settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court holding that there is no bar for awarding more compensation than what is claimed. For the said preposition of law, this Court finds it proper to refer the following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court made in:
(1) Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and Others 14, at para 21 of the judgment, that -
"..there is no restriction that the Tribunal/Court cannot award compensation amount exceeding the claimed amount. The function of the Tribunal/Court is to award "just" compensation, which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record."13
(2021) 16 SCC 467 14 (2003) 2 SCC 274 25 (2) Kajal Vs. Jagadish Chand and Ors.15 at para 33 of the judgment, as follows:-
"33. We are aware that the amount awarded by us is more than the amount claimed. However, it is well settled law that in the motor accident claim petitions, the Court must award the just compensation and, in case, the just compensation is more than the amount claimed, that must be awarded especially where the claimant is a minor ."
(3) Ramla and Others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Others16 at para 5 of the judgment, as follows:-
"5. Though the claimants had claimed a total compensation of Rs 25,00,000 in their claim petition filed before the Tribunal, we feel that the compensation which the claimants are entitled to is higher than the same as mentioned supra. There is no restriction that the Court cannot award compensation exceeding the claimed amount, since the function of the Tribunal or Court under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is to award "just compensation". The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation. A "just compensation" is one which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record. It cannot be said to have become time-barred. Further, there is no need for a new cause of action to claim an enhanced amount. The courts are duty- bound to award just compensation."
Analysis of Evidence:
Oral Evidence:-
31. [i] Claimant as PW.1 pleaded that he has suffered multiple bleeding injuries and fractures and took the treatment, the details of which are as follows:
15
2020 (04) SCC 413 16 (2019) 2 SCC 192 26 "1. Defuse Axonal injury with deep vein thrombosis of the right lower limb, D8 & D9 wedge compression of the vertebral body. The injury is grevious in nature.
CT Scan brain plain done - right high frontal hemorrhagic contusion and doctors have given opinion with regard to the injuries sustained on the head of the claimant as detailed:
i. On 19.01.2012 - Resolving intraparenchymal hemorrhagic contusion to the right high frontal region. Linear undisplaced fracture of the anterior arch of the atlas.
ii. CT doral spine done on 18.01.2012 -Anterior wedge compression fracture of D8 and D9 vertebral bodies without evidence of retropulsed fracture fragments or bony canal stenosis at these levels. iii. CT cervical spine done on 18.01.2012 -Undisplaced fracture of the anterior arch of atlas.
iv. CT scan brain plain done on 28.01.2012 as compared to previous scan dated 23.01.2012 - Hemorrhagic contusion noted in the right frontal lobe has been resolved.
v. MRI dorsolumbar spine with whole spine screening done on 20.01.2012-Anterior wedge compression fracture of D8 and D9 vertebral bodies without evidence of retropulsion or spinal canal stenosis at these levels.
vi. CT scan brain done on 23.01.2012 -Resolving hemorrhagic contusion noted in right frontal lobe.
vii. Doppler rights lower limb veins done on 05.02.2012 - Acute deep vein thrombosis of the right external Iliac vein, common femoral vein, superficial femoral vein, popliteal vein and partially occluding the anterior tibial vein and posterior tibial vein extending into saphenofemoral junction and saphenopopliteal junction. viii. Doppler right lower limb venous study done on 14/02-2012 - restitution of flow in distal anterior tibial vein and posterior tibial vein. Partial restitution of flow in proximal anterior tibial vein and posterior tibial vein, proximal suphenofemoral junction. No restitution of flow in external ilias vein, common femoral vein, saphenofemoral junction and popliteal vein."
32. Ex.A1-wound certificate is the wound certificate reflecting the injuries. Discharge summaries covered by Ex.A6, Ex.A7 reads as follows:-
A6 -Discharge Summary dated 24.02.2012, issued by SriRamachandra Medical Center is as follows:
DOA : 18-Jan-2012 DOD: 24-Feb-2012 Final Diagnosis: AXONAL INJURU WITH DEEP VEIN THROMBOSSI OF THE RIGHT LOWER LIMB, 27 D8 AND D9 WEDGE COMPRESSION OF THE VERTEBRAL BODY.
PROCEDURE DONE: D7-D9, 10 PEDICLE SCREW FIXATION AND INSTRUMENTAL STABILIZATION UNDER GA ON 15/02/12.
Admission Complaints Chief Complaints: Alleged history of RTA on & Brief history of 18/01/2012 around 5:50 a.m. presenting illness:
HOPI: 18-year-old male patient was brought to ER with alleged history of RTA while driving a two wheeler on 18/01/12 around 5:50 a.m.. History of LOC present, ENT bleed present. No history of seizures or vomiting.
Physical Examination: Moderately built and nourished.
Temperature afebrile.
PR-80/min.
RR-16/min.
BP-110/80mmHg
No pallor, icterus, cyanosis, clubbing,
lymphadenopathy, edema or thyromegaly.
CVS-S1,S2+,
RS-Normal vesicular breath sounds present, CNS-Patient drowsy and not obeying commands. Patient is restless.
GCS-10/15.
Pupils bilaterally 2mm reacting to light. C spine tenderness present.
Chest and pelvic compression test negative. No long bone deformity.
P/A -Soft. BS+ Ex.A7 -Discharge Summary dated 16.03.2012 issued by the SriRamachandra Medical Center, is as follows DOA : 14-Mar -2012 DOD: 16-Mar -2012 Final Diagnosis: KNOWN CASE OF DIFFUSE AXONAL INJURY WITH D8 AND D9 WEDGE COMPRESSION FRACTURE POSTOPERATIVE STATUS WITH RIGHT LOWER LIMB DEEP VENOUS THROMBOSIS.
Admission Complaints Chief Complaints: Known case of diffuse axonal & Brief history of injury with D8 and D9 wedge compression presenting illness: fracture postoperative status with right lower limb DVT came for follow up and rehabilitation.28
HOPI: 18-year-old male patient who is a known case of diffuse axonal injury with D8to D9 wedge compression fracture. Postoperative status with right lower limb DVT vame for follow up and rehabilitation. No history of recent trauma or seizures or fever.
Past Medical History Patient had underwent D7 to D9-D10 pedicle screw fixation and instrumental stabilization on 15.02.2012 under GA.
Physical Examination: Temperature afebrile.
PR-80/min.
RR-16/min.
BP-110/80mmHg
No pallor, icterus, cyanosis, clubbing,
lymphadenopathy, edema or thyromegaly.
CVS-S1,S2+,
RS-Normal vesicular breath sounds. BAE+.
Conscious, obeying.
GCS-15/15
Pupils bilaterally 2mm reacting to light.
No neck stiffness.
33. [i] Ex.A4, A8, A9, A10, A11 [154 Nos.], A12,A13,A14,A15 and A16 are indicating the medical expenditure incurred and treatment undergone by the claimant Ex.A17 is that the prescription and cash bills. Ex.A18 is the disability certificate issued by Dr.A.Sudhakar Reddy, Neuro Surgeon, indicating the disability of the claimant. It is containing the reasons for the disability along with the history of the case and treatment given, Dr.Sudhakar Reddy, who issued Ex.A5, assessed the disability at 55% and he has been examined as PW.3. Doctors, who treated the claimant are examined as PWs.2 and 3. Summary of their evidence is as follows:-
29
1) PW.2 identified the claimant and the admission of claimant on 18.01.2012 with polytrauma injuries, including head injury and spinal injury due to the history of road traffic accident, dated 18.01.2012.
2) claimant was admitted in ICU.
3) On 15.02.2012 surgery was conducted for the spine like fixation and stabilization,
4) claimant was discharged on 24.02.2012 with an advise to follow up.
5) Again claimant was admitted on 14.03.2012, which signs of deep vein thrombus at lower limb.
6) claimant was in continuous follow up, even as out-patient on 03.09.2014.
7) Claimant was advised to have spinal brace, for travel purposes.
8) Ex.A6, Ex.A7 and Ex.A1 was issued by their Hospital.
9) As per the wound certificate theinjury has been grievous in nature. Ex.A8, Ex.A9,Ex.A10,Ex.A11, Exs.A15 to 17 and Ex.A23 are issued by their Hospital.
10) Ex.A15 is the ECG report which issued by their Hospital.
11) Ex.A14 is Eight CT reports taken by their Hospital.
12) Ex.A13 is Five x-rays taken by their hospital.
13) Ex.A12 is Nineteen X-rays taken by their hospital.
14) Ex.X1 issued out-patient prescriptions and bills issued by their Hospital marked through the witness dated 15.05.2015. The prescriptions contains treatment Ex.X-2 to Ex.X4 is the Doppler and EEG 30 reports X-5 is the X-ray marked through the witness. [ii] During the cross-examination of PW.2, it is elicited that the patient regained sensorium improved from 26.01.2012. the patient underwent only one surgery i.e., 15.02.2012. While discharging patient on 16.03.2012 due to "DVT" he was advised to continue treatment and it is ture that the in-patient bills are inclusive of pharmacy bills. In their hospital there is no separate department for issuance of disability certificate but the concerned doctor will issue disability certificate. He was advised spinal belt whenever necessary. Now the patient became in a normal position.
34. The evidence of PW.3, Dr.A.Sudhakar, working as Neuro Surgeon in SVRRGG Hospital, Tirupati is as follows:
"The petitioner had met with RTA on 18.01.2012 he sustained severe head injury, dorsal spine injury. He was treated initially at CMC Hospital, Vellore on 18.01.2012 and then he was treated in Sri Ramachandra Medical Center, Porur, Chennai from 18.01.2012 to 24.02.2012 as in-patient. CT Scan brain shown hemorrhagic contusion in right frontal lobe, x-ray of dorsal spine wedge compression fracture D8, D9 vertebral bodies.
On 15.02.2012 D7, D9,D10 pedicle screw fixation and instrumental stabilization done. He developed DVT (Deep vein Thrombosis) of Right Lower Limb on 5-2-2012 Doppler study revealed thrombosis of external ioliac vein, common femoral vein, superficial femoral vein, poplital vein and anterior tibial vein and posterior tibial vein, which was treated conservatively. He wad discharged on 24.2.2012. He was readmitted in SRMC, Chennai for followup treatment on 14.03.2012 and discharged on 16.3.2012 last followup treatment was given on 16.08.2013 in SRMC Chennai after discharge from SRMC, Chennai, the 31 petitioner came to me, for follow up treatment on 18.03.2012. Since the accident the petitioner had head-ache, giddiness, defective memory, anger and inability to concentrate on studies, pain in middle of back and difficulty in walking and unable to lift weight. At present on clinical neurological examination of the petitioner, I found the following permanent disabilities:
(1) Post traumatic head-ache (2) Post traumatic vertigo (giddiness) (3) Post traumatic defective memory (4) Post traumatic anger irritability and bheavioiur disorder. (5) Inability to concentrate on studies (6) Pain in middle of the back and difficulty in walking and unable to lift weight.
(7) Disfiguration due to scars over face Basing on the above diabliteis the percentage of permanent disability is assessed as 55% (fifty five percent).
It is true that the petitioner is advised to use dorsal spine corset support of fracture dorsal spine. I have issued Ex.A18, the permanent disability certificate to the petitioner. I have issued permanent disability certificate basing on the Hospital records of the SRMC, Porur, Chennai and also clinical neurological examination of the petitioner. Cross-examination by respondent NO.1:
It is true that I have not treated the petitioner initially I have given only follow up treatment after discharged from SRMC. It is not true to suggest that my assessment of permanent disability is higher side. Cross-examination by respondent nO.2:
I have not maintained any records with regarding follow-up treatment. I have given the follow-up treatment in my private clinic to the petitioner. It is true I don't have equipment like X-ray, CT Scan etc., in my private clinic. It is true that I have not mentioned in Ex.A18 the details of clinical examination that was conducted on the petitioner. It is true that SVRR Hospital there is medical board, I am also a member in the board. It 32 is true that there is prescribed format for issuing disability certificate. It is tre that I have reproduced all the treatment details which was mentioned in SRMC Hospital records. I have no personal knowledge about the contents i.e,, the accident and the treatment given in SRMC, Chennai. I have mentioned the same in my permanent disability certificate basing on the SRMC records. It is not true to suggest that as per the SRMC records the petitioner discharged in good condition. I have not given any advice to the petitioner to come to medical board to take permanent disability certificate. Witness volunteers the patients can take disability certificate either in medical board or at private clinic. It is not true to suggest that permanent disability certificate should not be issued in private clinic. It is not true to suggest that I have not examined the petitioner clinically or physically and issued the disability certificate at the request of the petitioner to help the petitioner. It is not true to suggest that the petitioner is not sustained any permanent disability as mentioned in Ex.A18 and the assessment of the disability is excessive and exorbitant. It is not true to suggest that I am deposing false to help the petitioner."
35. From the pleadings and oral and documentary evidence placed by the claimant, the following points are clear:-
1) Claimant suffered grievous injuries during the accident.
2) He has undergone surgeries.
3) He was in-patient for quite good time.
4) He was taken to Vellore and Chennai for treatment purposes.
5) He has suffered disability.
6) Claimant is student and aged about '18' years..
7) Doctor, PW.2 stated about the disability.
8) PW.3 stated that he is also member to Medical Board.33
9) It was simply suggested to him that the disability is excessive and exorbitant.
10) No steps are taken to refer the claimant to any other hospital for having a different basis for the disability.
11) PW.3, who spoke about the disability as attended the claimant since PW.3 claims that he is also a member of Medical Board, interference with his findings as to disability cannot be notionally done.
12) There shall be some basis to take a contra view.
13) The income of the claimant, considering the year of accident 2012, and as the claimant was aged about '19' years, studying B.Tech II year, in context to the facts in case B.Ramulamma and Ors. v. Venkatesh bus Lingarajapuram and another17, wherein the claimant was studying B.E. computers final year, aged '21'years and even in that case, the income claimed was around Rs.7,500/- per month, where as the Court has adopted Rs.12,000/- per month considering various aspects. It was a case of death and deducted 50% of the amount towards expenses of the individual while awarding compensation to the parents etc.
14) The factual scenario in the present case is somehow different as this case a case of boy, aged about '19' years and studying II year Engineering. No doubt there will be progress in the income, it will depend on the performance of the individual. However, optimistic and 17 2009 (6) ALD 684 = 2011 ACJ 1702 34 positive approach shall be there in considering the claims in terms of social welfare legislations, where empethetical perspective is necessary. One way the Insurance Company is claiming that income adopted is excessive, on the other way the claimant is studying that future prospects are not added. The income at Rs.12,000/- adopted in B.Ramulamma's case [cited supra] was disposed of somewhere in 2008. The accident in the present case is of the year 2012. Difference in age and the year in which the individual is studying, difference in the years of accident and possibility of increased in the cost of living, escalation of market prices etc., are required to taken out.
15) Upon taking note of all relevant figures, it can be concluded that the income of the claimant taken at Rs.12,000/- by the learned MACT and the disability adopted at 55%, does not require any addition, deletion or modification and they are fit to be maintained intact.
16) However, the compensation awarded towards damages, pain and suffering, cloths and articles, extra nourishment transportation etc., require some interference.
17) The medical expenditure addressing para 24 of the judgment of the learned MACT with reference to the documents Exs.A4,A5,A8,A9,A10,A11,A17, A20, A23, necessity of interference is not found in respect of medical bills also. However, with regard to pain 35 and suffering, loss of amenities, transportation, expenditure, attendant charges etc., there is need to award reasonable compensation.
36. 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:
S.No. Head Granted by the Fixed by this
learned MACT Appellate
Court
1. Medicines and Medical Rs.5,40,200/- Rs.5,40,200/-
Treatment [Medical Expenditure]
2. Loss of earning capacity due to Rs.14,25,600/- Rs.14,25,600/-
disability [loss of future earnings]
3. Loss of Income during treatment -Nil- -Nil-
period
4. Pain and suffering Rs.25,000/- Rs.50,000/-
5. Future Treatment -Nil- -Nil-
6. Attendant Charges -nil- -Nil-
7. Loss of amenities of Life and -nil- Rs.25,000/-
discomfort
8. Loss of Future Prospects -nil- Rs.50,000/-
9. a) Conveyance and Rs.10,000/- Rs.20,000/-
b) special diet/ Extra Rs.10,000/- Rs.25,000/-
nourishment of food
10. Loss of Marriage Prospects -Nil- Rs.50,000/-
11. Damages towards cloths and Rs.5,000/- -Nil-
articles
Total Rs.20,15,800/- Rs.21,85,800/-
37. For the aforestated reasons and discussions made, it is found that the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs. 21,85,800/- with interest @7.5% p.a.. Both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the same. Point No.2 is answered accordingly.
36Point No.3:- Whether the compensation of Rs.20,15,800/- awarded by the learned MACT require any modification? If so, to what tune?
38. In view of the above discussion and the conclusions drawn under points 1 and 2, the impugned Award and Decree dated 10.01.2017 required to be modified, and the compensation awarded by the learned MACT is enhanced to Rs.21,85,800/-. Accordingly, point No.3 is answered accordingly.
Point No.4:
39. In the result, appeal is dismissed.
[i] However, the compensation of Rs.20,15,800/- with interest @7.5% p.a. awarded under the impugned decree and order dated 10.01.2017 is modified and enhanced to Rs.21,85,800/- with interest @7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.
[ii] The claimant/petitioner shall pay the Court fee in respect of enhanced part of compensation, before the learned MACT.
[iii] The claimant/petitioner is entitled to withdraw the compensation amount at once, on deposit.
[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: 20.06.2025 Pnr 37 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA M.A.C.M.A.No.1510 of 2017 Dt. 20.06.2025 Pnr 38 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA M.A.C.M.A. No.1510 of 2017 % 20.06.2025 # National Insurance Co. Ltd. Mumbai, Rep by its Branch Manager, Office at TATA Pebo, Dept. of Motor Tie Up business, Royal Insurance Building 2nd Floor, 14 J TATA Road Church Gate, Mumbai, Maharashtra State- 400038.
. .... Appellant Versus
$1. M.Mothi Kiran, S/o P. M. Babu, aged about 23 years, Hindu, B. Tech Student residing at Kotagaram Village, Etteri Post, GD Nellore Mandal, Chittoor Distrcit and 02 Others.
.... Respondents !Counsel for the Appellant : Sri A.Jayanthi ! Counsel for the Respondents : Sri M.Vidya Sagar Sri Naresh Byrapaneni < Gist:
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
2015 ACJ 1352;
2015 ACJ 797 2009 (13) SCC 530 2025 AIAR (Civil) 1 2020 (04) SCC 413 2010(10)SCC 341 2007 (14) SCC 61 1992(2) SCC 567 2011 (1) SCC 343 2023 (3) SCC 439 1995 (1) SCC 551 2023 SCC Online AP 1725 (2021) 16 SCC 467 (2003) 2 SCC 274 2020 (04) SCC 413 (2019) 2 SCC 192 2009 (6) ALD 684 = 2011 ACJ 1702 39 * THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA M.A.C.M.A.No.1510 of 2017 # National Insurance Co. Ltd. Mumbai, Rep by its Branch Manager, Office at TATA Pebo, Dept. of Motor Tie Up business, Royal Insurance Building 2nd Floor, 14 J TATA Road Church Gate, Mumbai, Maharashtra State- 400038 . .... Appellant/s Versus $1. M.Mothi Kiran, S/o P. M. Babu, aged about 23 years, Hindu, B. Tech Student residing at Kotagaram Village, Etteri Post, GD Nellore Mandal, Chittoor Distrcit and 02 Others.
.... Respondent/s DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED: 20.06.2025 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the Order? Yes/No
2. Whether the copies of Order may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No
3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order ? Yes/No ____________________________ A. HARIHARANADHA SARMA, J 40