Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
C. Lakshmipathy (Died) And Others vs Ajay Kumar on 12 March, 2026
APHC010226022008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3311]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
Thursday the twelth day of March two thousand and twenty six
Present
The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi
M.A.C.M.A.
M.A.C.M.A.No: 4993 of 2008
Between:
C. Lakshmipathy (died) and others ...Appellants
Appellants
and
T Krishna Prasad and Others ...Respondent
Respondents
Counsel for the appellants
appellants:
S. Varadarajulu Chetty
Counsel for the respondents:
respondent
Rama Mohan Rao Kotha
The Court made the following:
2
M.A.C.M.A.No.4993 of 2008
JUDGMENT:
This is an appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and the decree dated 14.08.2006 in M.V.O.P.No.315 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum-V Additional District Judge, Chittoor at Tirupathi.
2. The case of the claimants, stated briefly, is as follows:-
On 24.07.2001 at about 9.00 p.m. when the claimant was standing along with the Sub-Inspector of Police, Nagari and three others on the road margin, at the main road near Ramapuram cross, the driver of a lorry bearing No.AP 16 U 3285 drove it with high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant and three others. The lorry turned turtle thereafter. As a result, the claimant sustained multiple injuries all over his body. The Sub-Inspector of police and the cleaner of the lorry died on the spot. The claimant was shifted to Government Hospital, Puttur and later to SVIMS Hospital, Tirupathi. The claimant is permanently disabled. He was aged 34 years. He was working as an Assistant Supervisor in Sapthagiri Fabs, Chennai and earning Rs.5,000/- as salary. He lost his job and earning capacity. Therefore, he sought compensation of Rs.12,00,000/-.
3. The respondent No.1 filed written statement opposing the petition, denying all the averments in the petition. Further, it was stated that the driver of the lorry drove cautiously but a person suddenly crossed the road near the vehicle and in a attempt to avoid him, as the lorry was swerved, the lorry turned turtle. This respondent claimed that the vehicle was insured with the respondent No.2 and the policy was in force at the 3 M.A.C.M.A.No.4993 of 2008 time of the accident. Therefore, this respondent sought to fasten liability against the insurance company.
4. The respondent No.2 filed a separate written statement denying the claim and also the manner of the accident stated by the claimant. It is further stated that the terms and conditions of the policy were violated, disowning its liability.
5. On behalf of the claimants, P.W.s 1 to 6 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A9, Ex.X1 and Ex.X2 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was adduced but a copy of insurance policy was marked as Ex.B.1.
Ex.A1: Certified copy of F.I.R.
Ex.A2: Discharge summary of S.V.I.M.S., Hospital. Ex.A3: Medical Certificate issued by Superintendent, S.V.R.R., Hospital, Tirupathi.
Ex.A4: Discharge summary of C.M.C., Vellore.
Ex.A5: P.D.Certificate.
Ex.A6: Salary Certificate.
Ex.A7: Bunch of Medical Bills worth Rs.2,30,825.33. Ex.A8: Out patient Bill.
Ex.A9: Income Tax returns.
Ex.X1: Case sheet.
Ex.X2: Case sheet.
Ex.B1: Copy of insurance policy.
6. The Tribunal allowed the claim petition partly awarding compensation of Rs.3,80,600/- with interest @ 7.5 % p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment payable by both the respondents to the claimant. Advocate fee of Rs.500/- was fixed.
4 M.A.C.M.A.No.4993 of 20087. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation contending it as low, the claimant preferred the appeal seeking enhancement of compensation by Rs.8,19,400/- in addition to the amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the evidence of employer examined as PW5 and the document i.e., salary certificate marked as Ex.A6 and merely assessed the income on par with a labourer with low income. In addition to that, he submitted that the Tribunal erred in assessing permanent disability @ 60% instead of 100% as the claimant lost all his income being bed ridden and lost his job not only one which he was doing but also any other kind of job due to permanent disability. He further submitted that even as on date, the claimant is totally bed ridden and therefore, the amount of compensation may be enhanced as prayed.
9. The appellant filed I.A.No.02 of 2026 under Section 151 C.P.C. to bring on record additional material papers consisting of copies of medical bills for Rs.1,11,750/- for the expenses of treatment of the appellant in Aster Narayanadri Hospital, Tirupathi during the period April-May, 2025 and colour photographs (4) of the appellant.
10. There is no representation for the respondent No.1, though appeared through counsel.
11. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 opposed the appeal. He further submitted that the additional documents cannot be considered as they are of recent origin.
5 M.A.C.M.A.No.4993 of 200812. The petition in I.A.No.02 of 2026 is allowed. The documents are considered for the purpose of assessing the recent condition of the appellant before his death on 10.12.2025. On his death, his wife, daughter and son were impleaded as the appellants Nos.2 to 4. Initially, the appeal also was filed by the appellant / injured through his wife as he was unable to represent his case.
13. As can be seen from the photographs of the appellant, he was in a bad condition which must have developed from the injuries suffered in the accident. It shows that the claim of the appellant that he was permanently disabled due to the injuries suffered is true.
14. In case of a claim for compensation for permanent disability suffered due to injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident, the principles for assessment of compensation have been laid down by the Apex Court in several cases and reiterated in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar1.
15. Thus, it is not the physical disability orthopedically assessed which is relevant for the purpose of calculating the amount of compensation. The effect of the disability on the capacity to earn shall be evaluated considering the nature of the occupation and the disability suffered. In the present case, the Tribunal took into consideration the percentage of disability certified by a doctor at 60% inspite of ample evidence that the claimant was confined to bed and also noted that the claimant's wife examined as PW1 stated that the claimant had become totally wreck and even after 3½ years of the accident, he is like a dead person lying on the bed. The evidence of PWs 3, 4 and 6, doctors who treated him, clinchingly establishes the vegetative life being led by the claimant confining to bed after the accident. The Tribunal failed to examine the 1 AIR ONLINE 2010 SC 144 6 M.A.C.M.A.No.4993 of 2008 actual loss of future earning capacity and the earnings. The claimant suffered multiple injuries all over the body, including head injury, severe perennial tare, fracture of pubic rem and injury to the spine at L4 region. Since the claimant lost his job and physically confined to bed and totally dependent on attendant, it is quite evident that he suffered 100% loss of future earnings.
16. The claimant stated that he was working as an Assistant Supervisor in Sapthagiri Fabs, Chennai and earning Rs.5000/- per month. The claimant examined PW5 who is said to be proprietor of Sapthagiri Fabs. She deposed that the claimant worked in their business concern as an Assistant Supervisor from 01.04.2000 till the date of the accident in July, 2001 and that he was paid monthly salary of Rs.5,000/-. She filed her income tax return marked as Ex.A9, but failed to produce any other document in support of the evidence regarding the claim, except a salary certificate marked as Ex.A6 issued by her on the letter head of Sapthagiri Fabs certifying that the claimant was paid monthly salary of Rs.5,000/- with effect from 01.04.2000. As there is no other reliable evidence placed in proof of the maintenance of the business concerned and the employment of the claimant therein and also proof of payment of salary to him, the Tribunal could not believe the contention of the claimant regarding his income and notionally evaluated the income of the claimant on par with wages of a daily labourer @ Rs.50/- per day and came to the conclusion that his average annual income could be Rs.18,000/-. As per the age of the claimant, multiplier 17 was adopted and awarded Rs.1,83,600/- towards loss of future earnings at 60%.
17. Since there is no proof of his actual earnings, the Tribunal has no other option, but to notionally assess the quantum of income on a minimum scale of a daily wage earner. Therefore, even if the annual 7 M.A.C.M.A.No.4993 of 2008 income of the claimant is taken at Rs.18,000/-, the claimant is entitled to 100% loss of future earnings. Therefore, Rs.3,06,000/- towards loss of future earnings.
18. Insofar as the medical expenses are concerned, the claimant filed a bunch of medical bills worth Rs.2,30,825/- marked as Ex.A.7, however, since some of the medical bills do not contain the signatures of the issuing authority, the Tribunal did not believe the entire claim. But, considering the nature of the treatment taken in view of the evidence of P.Ws.3, 4 and 6 and that the claimant suffered permanent disability of 60%, Rs.2,00,000/- was granted towards past and future medical expenses.
19. The amount granted under these heads is evidently on low side considering the condition of the claimant and the kind and period of treatment taken by the claimant, yet, remaining vegetative life confining to bed. The photographs clearly show the sufferance of the claimant till his death in December, 2025. Therefore, the claim of the amount of compensation sought by him for past and future medical expenses needs to be adequately granted. The recent expenditure shown to this Court supports the claim of the appellant that he required continuous treatment. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the amount of compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is very low. It needs to be increased to Rs.5,00,000/-.
20. The Tribunal awarded Rs.12,000/- only, @ Rs.5,000/- per each grievous injury and Rs.1,000/- for each simple injury to compensate pain and suffering, basing on Schedule II of the M.V.Act. It is a glaring example of inappropriate application of Schedule II to a case decided for a claim under fault liability under Section 166 of the M.V.Act. It is surprising that for a person who suffered permanent disability of this kind 8 M.A.C.M.A.No.4993 of 2008 is granted only Rs.12,000/- for pain and suffering. It is an untold misery and sufferance throughout life of the claimant. While dealing with the motor claims under the M.V.Act which is a social welfare legislation, an empathetic approach is required basing on the evidence on record. The Tribunal failed to properly consider the case on merits and awarded far low amount of compensation under various heads, failing to meet the objective of the legislation. The claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering.
21. No amount of compensation was granted for attendant charges. Due to the condition of the claimant, atleast an amount of Rs.50,000/- is required to be awarded under this head.
22. The Tribunal recorded that an amount of Rs.25,000/- was paid as interim compensation as per order dated 11.10.2004 in I.A.No.545 of 2003. Thus, after deducting the same out of the total amount of compensation calculated at Rs.4,05,600/-, the balance amount of Rs.3,80,600/- was awarded as compensation. In addition thereto, as already noted interest @ 7.5% p.a. payable from the date of petition till the date of payment and proportionate costs were awarded.
23. The rate and period of interest do not require any interference in appeal.
24. Accordingly, the claimant is entitled to a compensation of total amount of Rs.9,56,000/-, out of which interim compensation of Rs.25,000/- paid shall be deducted. The balance amount of compensation to be awarded is Rs.9,31,000/-.
25. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed by enhancing the amount of compensation from Rs.3,80,600/- to Rs.9,31,000/- with interest at the 9 M.A.C.M.A.No.4993 of 2008 same rate and period as determined by the Tribunal, with proportionate costs throughout. The amount already paid towards the principal, interest and costs shall be deducted as they were due on the date of such payment.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________ B. S. BHANUMATHI, J Dt.12.03.2026 GRL / PNV