Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Garlapati Ranuka Devi vs G. Dhaneswara Rao And 2 Others on 25 April, 2025
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
M.A.C.M.A.Nos.1802, 1862, 1868, 1871, 1874 and 2012 of
2008; 1729 of 2013 and 1426 of 2016
COMMON JUDGMENT:
M.A.C.M.A.No.1802 of 2008 under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is filed by the insurance company assailing the award dated 07.01.2008 of the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Vijayawada (hereinafter referred to as 'the Claims Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.343 of 2005.
2. M.A.C.M.A.No.1862 of 2008 under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is filed by the insurance company assailing the award dated 04.12.2007 of the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada (hereinafter referred to as 'the Claims Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.805 of 2004.
3. M.A.C.M.A.No.1868 of 2008 under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is filed by the insurance company assailing the award dated 22.01.2008 of the Motor Vehicles 2 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1802 of 2008 & batch Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada (hereinafter referred to as 'the Claims Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.808 of 2004.
4. M.A.C.M.A.No.1871 of 2008 under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is filed by the insurance company assailing the award dated 22.01.2008 of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada (hereinafter referred to as 'the Claims Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.806 of 2004.
5. M.A.C.M.A.No.2012 of 2008 under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is filed by the injured assailing the award dated 22.01.2008 of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada (hereinafter referred to as 'the Claims Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.807 of 2004.
6. M.A.C.M.A.No.1874 of 2008 under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is filed by the insurance company assailing the award dated 22.01.2008 of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District and 3 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1802 of 2008 & batch Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada (hereinafter referred to as 'the Claims Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.807 of 2004.
7. M.A.C.M.A.No.1729 of 2013 under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is filed by the injured assailing the award dated 22.01.2008 of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada (hereinafter referred to as 'the Claims Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.808 of 2004.
8. M.A.C.M.A.No.1426 of 2016 under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is filed by the injured assailing the award dated 22.01.2008 of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada (hereinafter referred to as 'the Claims Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.806 of 2004.
9. All these appeals pertain to one accident leading to filing of five claim petitions and finally emerging as eight appeals.
10. On 23.05.2003 Sri Garlapati Chiranjeevi Srinivasa Rao and his wife Garlapati Renuka Devi and his two daughters Garlapati 4 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1802 of 2008 & batch Pratyusha, Garlapati Praneeeta and his sister Smt. Maddi K. Kavitha were travelling in Maruti Zen Car bearing registration No.AP 16 X 4554. They were going from Vijayawada to Guntur on a National Highway. It was at about 12:00 noon a bus bearing registration No.AP 7 T 3400 came in the opposite direction dashed the car. All the inmates of the car suffered serious injuries. They were all admitted to hospital. On 27.05.2003 Sri Garlapati Chiranjeevi Srinivasa Rao died out of those injuries he sustained in the accident. On behalf of the deceased his wife and children filed the claim petition and each of the injured filed separate claim petitions praying for various amounts of compensation.
11. The learned Claims Tribunal having received the pleadings on both sides and the evidence on both sides and after considering the evidence and the contentions raised on both sides held that the accident was out of rash or negligent driving on part of the driver of the offending bus and there was no fault on part of the driver of the Maruti Zen Car. It granted various amounts of compensation. Assailing the awards in all these claim 5 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1802 of 2008 & batch petitions, United India Insurance Company Limited filed appeals. Assailing the meager compensation awarded, the wife and each of the daughters of the deceased filed appeals. The legal representatives of the deceased did not file any appeal. The sister of the deceased also did not file any appeal. A brief resume of the above aspects can be captured through the following table:
Trial Court Appeal Relief granted in
trial Court
MVOP No. 805 of MACMA No. 1862 of Claimants claimed
2004 2008 Rs.20,00,000/- but
granted
(This OP was filed by (Insurance Company
Rs.16,50,000/-
the dependants - wife preferred this appeal) and 2 daughters of (Medical Expenses the deceased for claimed Rs.55,890/-
compensation for the
but granted
death caused)
Rs.25,000/-)
MVOP No. 806 of MACMA No. 1871 of Claimant claimed
2004 2008 Rs.1,50,000/- but
granted Rs.10,000/-.
(This OP was filed by (Insurance Company
wife - Garlapati preferred this appeal)
Renuka Devi for
injuries ) MACMA No. 1426 of
2016
(wife preferred this
6
Dr. VRKS, J
M.A.C.M.A.No.1802 of 2008 & batch
cross appeal)
MVOP No. 807 of MACMA No. 1874 of Claimant claimed
2004 2008 Rs.1,00,000/- but
granted Rs.15,000/-.
(This OP was filed by (Insurance Company
daughter- Garlapati preferred this appeal) Praneetha for injuries) MACMA No. 2012 of 2008 (daughter preferred this cross appeal) MVOP No. 808 of MACMA No. 1868 of Claimant claimed 2004 2008 Rs.1,00,000/- but granted Rs.17,000/-.
(This OP was filed by (Insurance Company
daughter- Garlapati preferred this appeal)
Pratyusha for injuries)
MACMA No. 1729 of
2013
(daughter preferred
this cross appeal)
MVOP No. 343 of MACMA No. 1802 of Claimant claimed
2005 2008 Rs.2,50,000/- but
granted Rs.75,000/-.
(This OP was filed (Insurance Company
by Maddi K. Kavitha preferred this appeal)
- wife's sister)
7
Dr. VRKS, J
M.A.C.M.A.No.1802 of 2008 & batch
12. Sri N.Rama Krishna, the learned counsel for insurance company, Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarthy, the learned counsel for claimants, Sri K.Ramakoteswara Rao, the learned counsel for owner of the offending bus submitted their respective arguments.
13. From the grounds urged in the appeals and from the arguments advanced on both sides, the following points fall for consideration in all these appeals:
1. Whether the subject matter accident was because of rash or negligent driving of the driver of offending bus bearing registration No.AP 7 T 3400 or was it a case of contributory negligence on part of the driver of the offending bus as well as the driver of the Maruti Zen Car bearing registration No.AP 16 X 4554?
2. Whether the compensation awarded in each of the cases adequate and just or they require modification?8
Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1802 of 2008 & batch POINT No.1:
14. The subject accident was complained to police and Crime No.110 of 2003 was registered at Tadepalli Police Station. The crime was investigated into. State Police initiated the prosecution against Sri O.Dhaneswara Rao who was found to be the driver of the offending bus bearing registration No.AP 7 T 3400. It was an accident that occurred during broad daylight. The inmates of the car who survived this accident were eyewitnesses to the incident and in their respective cases they deposed before the Claims Tribunal. The substance of their evidence indicated that the car in which they were travelling was going on the left side on the road which was in accordance with rules and regulations and the offending bus which came in the opposite direction came on to the wrong side of the road and dashed the car and caused the incident. The evidence of all these witnesses attributed fault exclusively to the driver of the offending bus. The investigative outcome of the police which resulted in filing of the charge sheet also attributed exclusive negligence or rashness on the part of the driver of the offending bus. These aspects convinced the Claims 9 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1802 of 2008 & batch Tribunal and it recorded its finding that the claims made under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act were successful in establishing fault on part of the driver of the offending bus. `15. Before the Claims Tribunal as well as here two contentions are raised on behalf of the insurance company based on which the correctness of findings in the impugned awards are questioned. They shall be dealt with now.
16. The driver of the offending bus Sri O.Dhaneswara Rao though did not put up contest by way of counters chose to testify as one of the witnesses on behalf of the insurance company. Before the Claims Tribunal the insurance company got exhibited certified copies of rough sketch of the scene of offence as well as certified copies of scene observation reports. The substance of these two documents and the oral testimony of RW.1, as argued by the learned counsel for insurance company, is that the road leading from Vijayawada to Guntur has been a four-way road with a road divider in the median. However, the road that was running from Guntur to Vijayawada was under repair at some stretch and that necessitated for diversion of the vehicular traffic and it was in 10 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1802 of 2008 & batch that context the offending bus had to travel on the other side of the road divider. While the car was travelling from Vijayawada to Guntur, the offending bus was travelling from Guntur to Vijayawada and because of the above-referred circumstances of road repair, they were travelling in the same part of the divider road and the driver of the offending car drove it rashly or negligently and contributed to the accident. According to the evidence of RW.1, there was no fault on his own part and the entire fault was on part of the driver of the car. It is on this evidence, the learned counsel for insurance company contends that it is a case of contributory negligence. It is argued that the observation of the Claims Tribunal that there was no evidence showing repair of the road and diversion of the traffic was an erroneous observation that led to the incorrect finding resulting in negating the contention of contributory negligence.
17. As against that, the learned counsel for claimants contended that the offending bus came to the wrong side of the road, contributory negligence was not a case set up in the counters or written statements filed by the insurance company 11 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1802 of 2008 & batch and evidence was appropriately considered by the Claims Tribunal and it reached to correct conclusions on facts and there is no merit in the contention raised by the insurance company.
18. Having considered the entire material placed before this Court, the following aspects are to be recorded:
A perusal of the scene observation report prepared by the police disclosed, near the subject matter accident the traffic was diverted because the road on the other side of the divider was under repair. Thus, there was evidence placed before the Claims Tribunal about road repair and diversion of traffic. The learned Claims Tribunal failed to notice this aspect from the document, and it took the view that the rough sketch of the scene of offence did not contain anything disclosing road repair and diversion of traffic and it was with that view it went on to consider the aspect of "fault". Thus, there was the failure of the Claims Tribunal in not considering the evidence placed before it. Be that as it may. The evidence on record clearly discloses that the road on the other side of the road divider was under repair and the traffic was diverted. Therefore, in the two-lane road running from 12 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1802 of 2008 & batch Vijayawada to Guntur was alone was under use for the vehicles travelling from Vijayawada to Guntur as well as Guntur to Vijayawada. That part of the road undisputedly had no further road divider. It is on that road the subject accident took place. Speed, road, density of traffic, attempt to overtake without observing the vehicles coming in the opposite direction, availability or otherwise of a clear view of the road ahead are some of the relevant factors that are always required to be considered to decide the presence or absence of rash or negligent driving.1 Where a person is injured as a result of negligence on the part of two or more wrong doers, it is a case of composite negligence. Victims can sue both or either of them. If both wrongdoers are sued, the Tribunal can determine the extent of negligence. One who pays the whole of the compensation can recover the portion from the other in execution proceedings. However, if only one wrongdoer is sued, the Tribunal or the Court is not permitted to determine the extent of composite negligence of the drivers of the two vehicles since one of the wrong doers is 1 Shakila Khader v. Nausher Gama AIR 1975 SC 1324 13 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1802 of 2008 & batch not impleaded. In such cases the impleaded wrongdoer/tort- feasor is entitled to sue the other joint tort-feasor in independent proceedings after passing the award by the Claims Tribunal.2 The question of contributory negligence arises when there has been some act or omission on the complainant's part which has materially contributed to the damage caused, and is of such a nature that it may properly be described as "negligence". The question of contributory negligence is to be decided on the same principle on which the question of defendant's negligence is decided. The standard of reasonable man is relevant consideration of both parties. In the case of contributory negligence, Courts have power to apportion the loss between the parties as seems just and equitable. Apportionment in that context means that damages are reduced to such an extent as the Court thinks just and equitable having regard to the claim shared in the responsibility for the damage.3 It is in the above referred legal firmament the evidence on record has to be 2 Khenyei v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2015) 9 SCC 273 14 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1802 of 2008 & batch considered. It has always been undisputed that the car in which the victims were travelling was at the material point of time travelling on the left side of the road which was its correct side. It was also undisputed that it was during daylight around the noon time the incident occurred. It has never been the case of the insurance company or the evidence of the driver of the offending bus that there was no clear view of the road. It was well within the knowledge of the driver of the offending bus that he was placed such a situation where the appropriate road for him was under repair and therefore he was to travel on the road lying on the other side of the road divider which was not the usual road for him to travel from Guntur to Vijayawada. That places a little more duty to exercise caution on his part. Undisputedly between the two vehicles that collided it is the bus that is bigger in size and the driver of such a bus is placed at such level where he holds better view of the road and the traffic than the driver of a car which is smaller in its size and lower in its height. Except stating that the 3 Usha Rajkhowa v.M/s. Paramount Industries (2009) 14 SCC 71 and Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Shri Laxman Iyer AIR 2003 SC 4182 15 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1802 of 2008 & batch driver of the car was at fault and dashed the bus nothing acceptable was spoken to by the driver of the offending bus. When the evidence of eyewitnesses and the investigative outcome of State Police clearly disclosed that the bus changed its direction and came at high speed and dashed the car, it cannot be negated except when there is on record much more solid evidence to think about contributory negligence or exclusive negligence on part of the driver of the car. It is a matter of fact and law that the driver of the offending bus was prosecuted by the State in a Criminal Court. It is only he who testified on behalf of the insurance company in proof of the contention concerning contributory negligence. No other evidence was brought on record to corroborate the version of the driver of the offending bus. How much credence can be given to such evidence of the offending bus driver/accused was considered by this Court in its earlier decisions where consistently it was held that his evidence could not be taken on face value and if there was no evidence in corroboration of his version, it was not safe to consider the 16 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1802 of 2008 & batch version spoken to by such driver of offending bus.4 In the light of these principles this Court has assessed the rival evidence placed on record and finds that there is complete failure on part of the insurance company in disclosing any percentage of rashness or negligence on part of the driver of the car and on the other hand the evidence on record amply demonstrated that the driver of the offending bus alone was responsible for the accident. Therefore, it is a case of exclusive fault on part of the driver of the offending bus and it is not a case of contributory negligence.
19. It is at this juncture, the learned counsel for insurance company submits that after due trial the Criminal Court found the driver of the offending bus was not guilty and acquitted him. Learned counsel brought the attention of this Court to the judgment of the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri dated 16.03.2006 in C.C.No.471 of 2003. In that case Sri P.Daneswara Rao @ Gnaneswara Rao who was the driver of 4 R.Konda Reddy v. The APSRTC 2024:APHC: 29078 (DB) and APSRTC, Vijayawada v. Changantipati Venkateswaramma (2007) 4 ALT 662 and M/s. The National Insurance Company Limited v. E.Suseelamma 2023 SCC OnLine AP 1725 17 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1802 of 2008 & batch the offending bus concerning the subject accident was prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 304A, 338 and 337 I.P.C. and was acquitted. It is on this acquittal judgment, the stout contention of the learned counsel for insurance company that the findings of the Claims Tribunal are erroneous is placed. For two reasons this contention must be negatived. In the first place, as one would notice from the testimonies of the witnesses before the Claims Tribunal the acquittal judgment of the Criminal Court took place while the trial/enquiry were pending before the Claims Tribunal and the insurance company or the owner of the bus did not choose to exhibit certified copy of Criminal Court judgment for consideration before the Claims Tribunal. In these appeals also it was not a case where any application for additional evidence was filed. Therefore, in terms of law the judgment of the Criminal Court cannot be read in evidence. However, since it is placed for consideration of this Court in the presence of the opposite counsels, a brief reference to it is required to be made. Before the Criminal Court the plea of the accused who is the driver of the offending bus was that at the material point of time, he was not the driver of the offending bus 18 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1802 of 2008 & batch and he was not at all present at the scene of offence. This very gentleman who testified on behalf of the insurance company before the Claims Tribunal stated that he himself was driving the offending bus at the material point of time. Thus, it is a clear case where the witness is prepared not to speak the truth as he says one thing at one trial and says another thing at a different trial. It is precisely for such reasons in the earlier cited rulings clear and consistent view was taken that it was not appropriate to put implicit faith in the evidence of the driver of the offending bus who was under prosecution as an accused before a Criminal Court. The Criminal Court judgment went on to acquit the accused since it did not find enough evidence to prove identity of the driver. That Criminal Court judgment bears no weight in the claim petitions before the Claims Tribunal since every judicial forum is under legal obligation to consider that evidence which was produced before it and not the conclusions that were reached by a Criminal Court on some other evidence that was placed before the Criminal Court. Be it noted that in criminal prosecutions there 19 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1802 of 2008 & batch is a requirement of culpable rashness which is more drastic than negligence under the law of torts.5
20. For the reasons stated above, this Court holds that the Claims Tribunal rightly rejected the contention of contributory negligence and the insurance company which claimed otherwise in these appeals is unable to persuade this Court to take a different view. In these circumstances, it is recorded that it is not a case of contributory negligence. Hence, the point is answered against the insurance company.
POINT No.2:
21. The evidence placed before the Claims Tribunal and the findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal on the following aspects remained undisputed and no questions have been raised in these appeals:
At the material point of time the offending bus was covered by a valid and subsisting insurance policy. In all the claims the 5 N.K.V.Bros. (P.) Ltd. v. M.Karumai Ammal AIR 1980 SC 1354 20 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1802 of 2008 & batch driver, the owner of the offending bus and the insurance company were parties. The car was driven by Sri Garlapati Chiranjeevi Srinivasa Rao and he was holding a valid and effective driving licence. The driver of the offending bus was having effective and valid driving licence.
22. The aspect of adequacy or inadequacy of compensation that has arisen in all these appeals should be addressed for each case.
23. Before adverting to the contentions in the appeals a few aspects are required to be stated here itself. It is to be recorded that all the injured including the injured who later died were initially admitted in Soumya Apollo Hospital. The incident occurred in the year 2003. From the evidence of the witnesses, it was found by the Claims Tribunal that the Soumya Apollo Hospital was closed around in the year 2005. By the time the evidence was recorded in these claim petitions the said hospital was closed. However, with great difficulty the claimants were able to secure the staff of the hospital/who testified as PW.2-Sri G.Hanumantha Rao and one of the doctors who worked there as 21 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1802 of 2008 & batch Orthopedic Surgeon by name Dr. M.Narendra Kumar. The Claims Tribunal recorded a distressing finding stating that the doctor who treated the patients did not testify and therefore he could not place much reliance on the documents filed before it. This observation of the Claims Tribunal cannot be supported. Opposing the evidence brought on record by the claimants, no contrary medical record was produced by the contesting parties which include insurance company. The case sheets and other medical records were not shown to be erroneous in any manner. Staff and doctor who worked testified on oath proving the genuineness of those documents. The contention of the insurance company before the Claims Tribunal that the medical record was fabricated was a contention raised without any factual basis. The version was never attempted to be established by the insurance company through any perceptible evidence. In claims for compensation in motor accident cases the law has been that it may not be always necessary to have the doctor who treated to come and testify. Even the medical expenses as claimed by the claimant could be granted except in those cases where serious mistakes are seen.
22
Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1802 of 2008 & batch M.A.C.M.A.No.1862 of 2008 arising out of M.V.O.P.No.805 of 2004:
24. From the evidence on record, it was found that the deceased Sri Garlapati Chiranjeevi Srinivasa Rao was born on 01.11.1960 and by the time of his death he was aged 43 years. Multiplier '15' was applied by the Claims Tribunal. From the various income tax returns and other documents filed, it was recorded that the deceased was engaged in various business activities. Some of them were run by him individually and some of them were business firms where he was only a partner. To put it broadly he was engaged in business in the following firms:
1. Garlapati Enterprises
2. Jaya Cotton Processing Factory
3. Jaya Cotton Associates
4. Vision Enterprises.23
Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1802 of 2008 & batch His business concerns were there at Guntur, Vijayawada and Machilipatnam. In one of the firms, he was also drawing a monthly salary of Rs.3,500/-. In some of the business firms he held 25% share. In some of the business firms he held 50% share. After considering these aspects, the Claims Tribunal awarded compensation under the following heads:
1. Loss of dependecy Rs.16,00,000/-
2. Loss of estate Rs. 10,000/-
3. Loss of consortium Rs. 10,000/-
4. Medical bills he survived for about two Rs. 25,000/-
days and underwent treatment
5. Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/-
Total Amount Rs.16,50,000/-
Thus, a total compensation of Rs.16,50,000/- was awarded as against the claim of Rs.20,00,000/-.
25. The challenge from the insurance company is that the multiplier applied was incorrect as the Claims Tribunal ought to have applied multiplier '14' instead of '15'. That the Claims 24 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1802 of 2008 & batch Tribunal though rightly considered from the income tax returns of the deceased from 1999-2003 while it calculated the average annual net income it committed calculation error. Learned counsel for insurance company contended that the Claims Tribunal committed an error in considering the total income of the partnership firms as the income of the deceased. According to the learned counsel only the share of the deceased was to be considered but not the entire income of the firm. Even after his death the businesses remained intact and therefore, the loss of dependency was minimal.
26. As against this, the learned counsel for claimants/legal representatives of the deceased contended that the Claims Tribunal did the calculations rightly and applied right principles and no interference is required.
27. This Court has considered the entire evidence on record, and it is seen that the claimants had filed the individual income tax returns of the deceased as well as the income tax returns of the partnership firms. Exs.A.8 to A.11 are the relevant documents. There is on record the evidence of Income Tax 25 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1802 of 2008 & batch Officer/RW.1, who also produced Exs.C.1 to C.3 which are tax assessments for different years. On verification it is seen that Exs.C.1 to C.3 are equivalent to Exs.A.8 to A.11. The Claims Tribunal rightly considered these aspects, and no error is pointed out in that regard before this Court. The evidence on record spoken to by the wife of the deceased also indicated the various salaries the deceased was drawing in his business concerns as a partner. That aspect of the matter is also not in dispute. At page No.16 of the impugned award the Claims Tribunal prepared a table where the income and expenditure of each of the financial years pertaining to each of the business concerns and the profits earned by those firms in those years and the share of the deceased were all considered. From the evidence the net income for various years were arrived at as mentioned below:
1999-2000 - Rs. 79,204/-
2000-2001 - Rs. 46,616/-
2001-2002 - Rs.1,23,376/-
2002-2003 - Rs.1,51,794/-26
Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1802 of 2008 & batch During hearing when the average was taken it was found to be Rs.1,68,616/- which is found to be the average amount arrived at by the Claims Tribunal. There is no material to think that the entire income of the partnership firms was considered as income of the deceased. The Claims Tribunal rightly considered only the share of the deceased. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court there is no error in the amount of compensation awarded. There is no material to think that after the death of the deceased his legal representatives became members of the partnership firm or that anyone of them was conducting that business which was run by the deceased. Therefore, it is a clear case of loss suffered by legal representatives on the death of their breadwinner. Towards the conventional heads the law is that towards loss of estate Rs.15,000/-, towards funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-, towards consortium Rs.40,000/- to wife and children each6. However, the Claims Tribunal granted only Rs.25,000/- under all these conventional heads. Looking at the age of the deceased as 43 6 National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 27 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1802 of 2008 & batch years multiplier '14' is correct, but the Claims Tribunal wrongly applied multiplier '15' and calculated Rs.16,00,000/-. If multiplier '14' is applied the amount comes to Rs.14,93,338/-. This difference of amount as against the difference of amounts for conventional heads would make one to reach to same amount that was finally granted by the Claims Tribunal. Therefore, no correction is needed. Hence, M.A.C.M.A.No.1862 of 2008 is required to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. M.A.C.M.A.No.1802 of 2008 pertaining to M.V.O.P.No.343 of 2005:
28. This is with reference to the compensation claimed for the serious injuries suffered by Smt. Maddi K. Kavitha. As against compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-, the Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.75,000/-. That is challenged by the insurance company. The Claims Tribunal granted Rs.32,800/- towards actual medical expenses and Rs.7,200/- towards attendant charges + transportation charges + extra nourishment. The injured claimant aged about 42 years was found to have suffered 50% permanent disability to her right wrist. Therefore, towards pain and suffering 28 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1802 of 2008 & batch Rs.10,000/- and towards loss of natural amenities Rs.25,000/- were granted by the Claims Tribunal. The contention raised by the insurance company is that they are excess amounts and they are not in terms of the evidence on record. Learned counsel for claimant submits that what was granted was in accordance with evidence on record and therefore, no interference is called for.
29. Having considered the evidence on record, it is very clearly seen that Smt. Maddi K. Kavitha suffered multiple injuries, some of which were found to be grievous. She was attended to by doctors/physicians and doctors/surgeons, and she was further treated by plastic surgeon. There was skin grafting on the tip of her nose. There were sutures on her face. After being treated at Soumya Apollo Hospital where she was found to be diagnosed with fracture of right wrist, she underwent physiotherapy at Sanjeevi Orthopedic Physiotherapy Centre at Guntur and yet did not recover fully well and doctor testified/PW.2 that her right wrist is permanently disabled for 50%. The Claims Tribunal granted compensation very conservatively. However, the claimant was fully satisfied as she did not file either cross-objections or a cross- 29
Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1802 of 2008 & batch appeal. The contention of the insurance company that the compensations awarded are on the higher side is devoid of any merit. Therefore, M.A.C.M.A.No.1802 of 2008 is dismissed. M.A.C.M.A.No.1871 of 2008 and M.A.C.M.A.No.1426 of 2016:
30. Concerning M.V.O.P.No.806 of 2004 filed by Smt. Garlapati Renuka Devi for her own personal injuries. The insurance company filed M.A.C.M.A.No.1871 of 2008. The injured claimant filed M.A.C.M.A.No.1426 of 2016. Before the Claims Tribunal she prayed compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-. Evidence of the hospital staff, evidence of the doctor and the medical record were all placed for consideration before the Claims Tribunal. It finally granted Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenses and thus a total compensation of Rs.10,000/- was granted. That is assailed by the insurance company as incorrect. According to it, the claim ought to have been dismissed by the Claims Tribunal. The stout contention of the learned counsel for the claimant is that the material placed before the Claims Tribunal overwhelmingly proved the injuries the 30 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1802 of 2008 & batch victim suffered which at once makes it clear that what was awarded by the Claims Tribunal is certainly erroneous.
31. The medical record and the evidence of the victim as PW.1 and that of the other witnesses disclosed that this claimant suffered a deep laceration on her forehead and another deep laceration on her cheek. There is on record Ex.A.2-discharge summary and Ex.X.1-case sheet. The fact that she suffered these injuries in this accident and that she underwent treatment in the hospitals has never been in dispute. In the grounds averred in the appeal, it is urged and the learned counsel for appellant on behalf of the claimant pointed out that she had spent Rs.22,000/- towards medical expenses, but the Claims Tribunal granted only Rs.5,000/-. From the material on record this Court finds that the Claims Tribunal committed an error in granting only Rs.5,000/-. In the opinion of this Court, towards actual medical expenses the injured claimant is entitled to Rs.22,000/-. Injuries on face such as forehead and cheek and the scars on the face of a woman create distress and therefore, appropriate amount shall be granted towards pain and suffering. Granting Rs.5,000/- by the 31 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1802 of 2008 & batch Claims Tribunal towards pain and suffering is found to be very inadequate. Therefore, Rs.23,000/- is required to be granted towards pain and suffering. Thus, the claimant is found eligible for Rs.45,000/- and the impugned award wherein only Rs.10,000/- was granted requires modification. Thus, an additional amount of Rs.35,000/- is granted.
32. M.A.C.M.A.No.1426 of 2016 is allowed enhancing the compensation awarded in the impugned award dated 22.01.2008 of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada in M.V.O.P.No.806 of 2004 from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.45,000/- with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. The third respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount after giving due credit to amounts, if any, deposited already within one month before the Claims Tribunal. On such a deposit, the appellant/claimant is entitled to withdraw the same along with costs and accrued interest thereon.
32
Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1802 of 2008 & batch Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A.No.1871 of 2008 is dismissed. M.A.C.M.A.No.1874 of 2008 and M.A.C.M.A.No.2012 of 2008:
33. M.V.O.P.No.807 of 2004 of Garlapati Praneetha is assailed by the insurance company in M.A.C.M.A.No.1874 of 2008 and is assailed by the injured claimant in M.A.C.M.A.No.2012 of 2008. The injured claimant is an unmarried girl aged 23 years. She claimed Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation. The Claims Tribunal granted Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering and thus, a total compensation of Rs.15,000/- was granted. According to the insurance company nothing ought to have been granted and the claim ought to have been dismissed. According to the learned counsel for the claimant, what was granted was in disregard to the material on record and she deserves more compensation. The doctor/PW.3 and the staff of the hospital/PW.2 and Ex.A.2-discharge summary and Ex.X.1-case sheet were all available for consideration before the Claims Tribunal. Evidence disclosed that she suffered a deep laceration on her forehead and another deep laceration on her cheek and the scars on the face of this unmarried girl, as per the 33 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1802 of 2008 & batch record, are permanent. Medical record also disclosed that there are injuries to the facial soft tissue and there was fracture of nasal bone and there were several other bleeding injuries on her body. In the grounds of appeal, it is urged that she had spent Rs.18,900/- towards medical expenses but the Claims Tribunal granted only Rs.5,000/-. The submission is found correct. In the opinion of this Court the actual medical expenses of Rs.18,900/- are required to be granted and thus granted. Towards pain and suffering Rs.30,000/- is granted. Thus, a total compensation of Rs.48,900/- is found to be the just compensation and the impugned award wherein only Rs.15,000/- was granted requires modification. Thus, an additional amount of Rs.33,900/- is granted.
34. M.A.C.M.A.No.2012 of 2008 is allowed enhancing the compensation awarded in the impugned award dated 22.01.2008 of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada in M.V.O.P.No.807 of 2004 from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.48,900/- with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of 34 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1802 of 2008 & batch petition till the date of realisation. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. The third respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount after giving due credit to amounts, if any, deposited already within one month before the Claims Tribunal. On such a deposit, the appellant/claimant is entitled to withdraw the same along with costs and accrued interest thereon.
Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A.No.1874 of 2008 is dismissed. M.A.C.M.A.No.1868 of 2008 and M.A.C.M.A.No.1729 of 2013
35. One of the injured Garlapati Pratyusha filed M.V.O.P.No.808 of 2004. As against that, the insurance company preferred M.A.C.M.A.No.1868 of 2008 and the injured preferred M.A.C.M.A.No.1729 of 2013. The injured claimant is an unmarried girl aged 20 years and was a student. She claimed compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and the Claims Tribunal granted Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.12,000/- towards pain and suffering and thus Rs.17,000/- was granted. According to the insurance company the claim ought to have been dismissed. According to the learned counsel for the claimant 35 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1802 of 2008 & batch from the evidence placed before the Claims Tribunal it is clear that she had spent Rs.22,000/- towards actual medical expenses and that the Claims Tribunal committed an error in granting only Rs.5,000/-. The further submission is that the observations of the Claims Tribunal that only Rs.12,000/- would be sufficient towards pain and suffering is incorrect as it failed to notice that the claimant was an unmarried girl and she suffered such injuries on her face and they diminish the marriage prospects also and more compensation ought to have been awarded.
36. A perusal of the material on record which include Ex.X.1- case sheet and Ex.A.2-discharge summary of the hospital and the evidence of PW.3/the doctor and that of hospital staff/PW.2, it is seen that she suffered multiple facial injuries and she was referred to plastic surgeon who had to attend long-drawn treatment on such injuries. She also suffered injuries on both her feet as well as right arm. While considering the case of an unmarried girl, especially when there were multiple injuries on her face, one is required to be alive to the usual facts in the life that such girl suffers such mental trauma about her marriage 36 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1802 of 2008 & batch prospects. The contention of the learned counsel about actual medical expenses of Rs.22,000/- is found to be correct. It is in these circumstances, the impugned award requires modification. An amount of Rs.22,000/- is granted towards actual medical expenses. An amount of Rs.30,000/- is granted towards pain and suffering. Thus, total compensation of Rs.52,000/- is granted. and the impugned award wherein only Rs.17,000/- was granted requires modification. Thus, an additional amount of Rs.35,000/- is granted.
37. M.A.C.M.A.No.1729 of 2013 is allowed enhancing the compensation awarded in the impugned award dated 22.01.2008 of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada in M.V.O.P.No.808 of 2004 from Rs.17,000/- to Rs.52,000/- with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. The third respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount after giving due credit to amounts, if any, deposited already within 37 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1802 of 2008 & batch one month before the Claims Tribunal. On such a deposit, the appellant/claimant is entitled to withdraw the same along with costs and accrued interest thereon.
Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A.No.1868 of 2008 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs in these appeals. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________ Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J Date: 25.04.2025 Ivd 38 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1802 of 2008 & batch THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR M.A.C.M.A.Nos.1802, 1862, 1868, 1871, 1874 and 2012 of 2008; 1729 of 2013 and 1426 of 2016 Date: 25.04.2025 Ivd