Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Jangamareddygari Ramathulasamma vs M. Venugopal 2 Others on 6 February, 2025
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
M.A.C.M.A. No.341 of 2016
JUDGMENT:
Heard both sides.
2. Jangamareddygari Ramathulasamma, the claimant in M.V.O.P.No.153 of 2011 on the file of on the file of the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum- Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anantapur, [for short 'MACT'] is the appellant herein. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded and exonerating Insurance Company/2 nd Respondent before MACT, Anantapur, from the liability, the present appeal is filed questioning the propriety and sustainability of award and decree dated 25.02.2013 passed by the learned MACT.
3. The respondent No.1 herein is the owner of the Vehicle, TATA Indica bearing No.AP 02 K 0103 [hereinafter referred as 'offending vehicle'], in which claimant was travelling, the 2nd respondent is the Insurance Company with which offending vehicle was insured. The offending vehicle dashed against the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 28 Z 2734. The respondent No.3 before the MACT, is representing APSRTC, who is the 3rd respondent herein.
4. Learned MACT dismissed the claim against both the respondents 2 and 3, i.e., the Insurance Company and APSRTC respectively. 2
5. Case of the claimant:-
(i) By the date of accident claimant was aged 53 years, hale and healthy attending business as well as cultivation work, earning around Rs.60,000/- per annum. On a fateful day i.e., on 11.11.2010 at about 9.00a.m., she started her travel from Anantapur to Hindupur in offending vehicle. When they reached at RDT Hospital Cross at Mamillapalli village on NH7 by pass road, the driver of the car, in a rash and negligent manner dashed the APSRTC bus, whereby the accident occurred and claimant sustained multiple injuries all over the body. She was shifted to Government Hospital, Anantapur, from there to Padmachandra Hospital, Kurnool, thereafter to Sunshine Hospital, Hyderabad, where surgery was conducted and she was discharged on 25.10.2010.
(ii) Police registered a case in Crime No.66 of 2010. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, which was insured with the 2nd respondent Insurance Company, owned by the 1st respondent. Hence, both the respondents 1 and 2 are liable. Contending that there was negligence on the part of both the drivers of the Car and the RTC bus, the claim was made against all the three respondents.
3Case of the Insurance Company:-
6. The claimant shall prove the pleaded accident, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, valid and effective insurance policy for the offending vehicle, age, occupation and income of the claimant. The petition is liable to be dismissed for non joinder of the driver of offending vehicle. The claimant is the occupant, premium is collected for own damages and third party risks only. Therefore, the risk of claimant is not covered. It shall be proved that the driver of the offending vehicle was having valid and effective driving license by the time of accident. The claimant shall also prove the nature and effect of injuries including the medical expenditure etc., with all strict proof. In any event the quantum of compensation claimed is excessive. Case of APSRTC:-
7. The contention of respondent No.3, in brief, is that the claimant assertions as to age, occupation and income of the claimant, nature and effect of the accident as well as the negligence, medical expenditure, hospitalization etc., shall be strictly proved.
8. It is the specific case of the respondent No.3 that the negligence is on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, for which, prosecution is 4 launched by police. There is no negligence of the driver of the RTC bus. Hence, no liability can be imposed on the respondent No.3.
9. On the strength of the pleadings following issues are settled by the learned MACT:-
1. Whether the accident occurred on 11.10.2010 at about 9.00a.m. at RDT Hospital cross in Mamillapalli village was due to rash and negligent driving of TATA Indica Baring No.AP 02 K 0103 by its driver?
2. Whether the petitioner received injuries in that accident?
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondent?
4. To what relief?
10. EVIDENCE:-
[i] The claimant was examined as PW.1. Doctor, who treated the claimant, was examined as PW.2. A copy of FIR registered against the driver of the offending vehicle was marked as Ex.A1, Ex.A2/wound certificate is indicating and examination of claimant at hospital.
[ii] Ex.A3/Discharge Summary of Sunshine Hospital, indicating date of admission on 18.10.2010 and date of discharge on 25.10.2010, referring to the History as Road Traffic Accident.5
[iii] Ex.A4/Medical Bills are standing for Rs.1,79,236/- in all.
[iv] Ex.X1/ Case sheet issued by Sunshine Hospital pertaining to claimant.
[v] One K. Rama Gopal, Senior Assistant working in 2 nd respondent Insurance Company is RW.1.
[vi] Ex.B1/copy of Insurance Policy is marked on behalf of the insurance Company.
11. Findings of the Tribunal:-
(1) Evidence of PW.1, who is victim and injured in the accident is sufficient to prove the occurrence of accident, rash and negligent driving of driver of the TATA Indica Car; when the same is seen in the light of F.I.R./Ex.A1 and other material, Ex.A2/wound Certificate is disclosing the injuries sustained by the petitioner viz., one grievous and one simple. Since the driver of the car is discharging duties in the course of employment, the 1 st respondent is liable to pay compensation vicariously.
(2) Further, learned MACT observed that, the Insurance Company Policy was in force, but the contention of the Insurance Company that extra premium is not paid to cover the occupants of the car and that the claimant does not come under the purview of the third party deserves to be accepted.6
Decisions relied on by the claimant i.e.., 1) 2011 ACJ 2527, 2) 2011 ACJ 1415, 3) 2011 ACJ 1129 4) 2011 ACJ 2345, are not applicable to the case on hand, to cover the risk of the 2nd respondent and that the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay the compensation, as Ex.B1/policy is not indicating that it covers the risk of the passenger.
12. The Doctor/PW.2 stated about the admission of the claimant in the hospital, treatment, for factures and operation conducted, insertion of 7 hole locking compression plates. It was found by him on examination of PW.1, after one year, that the facture was united. Bills were issued for Rs.1,43,957/-. He estimated disability is 20%, but it is not a permanent one.
13. Learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.2,27,236/- under the following heads:
NON PECUNIARY DAMAGES:
1. Pain and Sufferings - Rs.12,500-00/-
2. Discomfort and inconvenience - Rs.5000-00/-
PECUNIARY DAMAGES:
1. Compensation for injuries - Rs. 12,500-00/-
2. Medical Expenses - Rs.1,79,236-00
3. Attendant Chages - Rs. 3,000-00
4. Special diet and feedings expenses - Rs. 10,000-00
5. Transport expenses - Rs. 5,000-00 ___________________ Total - Rs.2,27,236-00 ___________________ 7
14. The Tribunal fixed liability on the owner of the offending vehicle alone, while exonerating the APSRTC for want of negligence, and the 2 nd respondent Insurance Company, for want of coverage of Ex.B1/Policy for inmates of the Car.
Grounds raised in the Memorandum of Appeal as well as the arguments made before this Court:-
15. Sri M.Karibasaiah, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Tribunal ought to have considered that the Policy/Ex.B1, covers the risk and that the objections as to valid driving license etc., by Insurance Company are not tenable. Learned MACT ought to have found that the Ex.B1/Policy was in force by the date of accident and third party risk is covered in view of admitted collection of Rs.800/- by the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company, the claimant certainly falls under the category of third party and the travel of the claimant in the Car is not prohibited. Further, the quantification of compensation is also not proper and that the claimant is entitled for more amount than what granted and against insurance company/2 nd respondent also.
16. Arguments of the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent Insurance Company are that observations of MACT as to claimant not falling under the category of third party and that Ex.B1/Policy not covering the risk, non- 8 collection of extra premium for the passengers in the private car and the other findings as to quantification of compensation are well reasoned and the quantum of compensation already awarded itself is excessive, fit to scaled down.
17. In the light of the facts and circumstances and rival contentions canvassed this appeal, the points that arise for determination are:-
1) Whether Ex.B1/Policy issued by the 2nd respondent Insurance Company for the offending vehicle bearing TATA Indica Car bearing No. AP 02 K 0103 covers the risk of persons travelling in the Car and whether the award and Decree passed by the learned MACT in O.P.No.153 of 2011 dated 25.06.2013 as to exonerating the 2 nd respondent Insurance from the liability are sustainable in law and facts; or whether any interference is necessary? If so, on what ground and to which extent? What shall be the liability of the 2nd respondent Insurance Company to answer the claim in question?
2) Whether the quantum of compensation in a sum of Rs.2,27,200/-
with incidental reliefs like interest and costs awarded by the learned Tribunal under the impugned proceedings does warrant any interference and enhancement?
3) To what relief?
9
18. Point No.1:-
For answering this point, reference to contents of the Ex.B1/Policy, is necessary. Following terms are clear under Ex.B1/Policy:
I MOTOR INSURANCE CERTIFICATE CUM POLICY SCHEDULE PRIVATE CAR PACKAGE POLICY - ZONE B II Period of Insurance: From 12:47 on 05.04.2010 to Midnight of 04.04.2011 III Limitations as to use:
1. The policy covers use of the vehicle for any purpose other than
a) Hire or Reward
b) Carriage of goods (other than samples or personal luggage)
c) Organized racing
d) Pace making
e) Speed testing
f) Reliability Trials
g) Use in connection with Motor Trade.
IV Limit of Liability: [*it is relevant to note that it is kept blank] PRECEDENTIAL GUIDANCE:-
19. It is relevant to note that the learned Tribunal has simply observed that the decisions in : 1) 2011 ACJ 2527, 2) 2011 ACJ 1415, 3) 2011 ACJ 1129 4) 2011 ACJ 2345, cited for claimant as not applicable to the case on hand. But, 10
1) In United India Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Baby1, it was a case of pillion rider and contention is that no additional premium was paid. Policy was in force and it was a package policy. By referring clarificatory circular issued by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority [for short IRDA] dated 16.11.2009 that passengers carried in private vehicle and persons travelling of two wheeler are covered under terms and conditions and standard package policy, the liability of the Insurance Company was accepted. Para Nos.2 and 3 are relevant.
2) In Yashpal Luthra and another 2:
It was a case decided by the High Court of Delhi, whereunder there is reference to IRDA Act and the provisions of M.V. Act, as well as circular instructions issued by IRDA.
It is found in this judgment that in respect of comprehensive policy of a private vehicle, the pillion riders and passengers are covered. Reference to circular dated 16.11.2009 referred in United India Insurance Company's case [cited 1 supra], is also made in this judgment.
Detailed discussion is made as to the nature and coverage of risk.
Observations made in para 27 of this judgment are found relevant for 1 2011 ACJ 2527 = 2010 SCC OnLine Ker 4743 2 2011 ACJ 1415 11 appreciating the contention in respect of the present case before this Court, which are as follows:-
27. In view of the aforesaid, it is clear that the comprehensive/package Policy of a Two-Wheeler covers a pillion rider and comprehensive/package Policy of a Private car covers the occupants and where the vehicle is covered under a Comprehensive/Package Policy, there is no need for Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to go into the question whether the Insurance Company is liable to compensate for the death or injury of a pillion rider on a two-wheeler or the occupants in a Private Car. In fact, in view of the TAC's directives and those of the IRDA, such a plea was not permissible and ought not to have been raised as, for instance, it was done in the present case."
It is clear from Para 27 that a comprehensive and pacaked policy are one and the same and such policy covers risk of the accident and claimant in this case is also an occupant for the offending vehicle.
3) In New India Assurance Co. Ltd V. G. Nagaraju and Others 3:
In this case, after referring to the contention that in respect of pillion rider, the Insurance Company is not liable, it was held that pillion rider do comes under the expression of third party.
4) In New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Secunderabad V. Palamoni Suresh and another4:-
Learned single Judge of this Court after referring to the policy and also the premium collected towards third party in respect of private vehicle and 3 2011 ACJ 1129 = 2010 SCC Online Kar 431 4 2011 ACJ 2345 = 2010 SCC online AP 106 12 particular point that if any private vehicle, is allowed to carry third parties than the owner, whether the policy covers with reference to the terms of the policy, like how, in the policy copy Ex.B1 before this Court observed that the policy covers the risk.
It is also referred in para 12, that in a private vehicle when a private vehicle is authorized to travel (06) persons, the person travelling in the vehicle falls under the category of third party (vide para 12).
20. For the respondent Insurance Company, before the MACT a judgment in Boppudi Anantha Laxmi and Ors. V. K. Ambica Prasad and another5, of the Division Bench of this Court was cited and the same is referred by the learned Tribunal in para 14 of the judgment. But its applicability is not referred by the learned Tribunal in clear terms.
The contention in the case cited is that when extra premium was not collected, whether there will be any liability for the passengers travelling in such vehicle. It was a case of officials of a company owned car, travelling in it and they failed to prove that they were travelling for an official purpose.
It was also observed in that case that the deceased was said to be a workman being an employee, the policy may not cover the risk of such workmen. The context of the case and points addressed therein are different and the learned MACT did not assign any reason in that regard. Therefore, 5 2011 ACJ 1775 = 2009 SCC Online AP 748 13 the authority found not applicable to the context in the present case before the Court.
21. Now it is relevant to note the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court made in National Insurance Company Vs. Balakrishna and another 6 wherein it is observed that comprehensive policy is also a package policy and they can be understood in the same sense. By referring to the circular issued by the IRDA etc., relevant observations are made vide para 21 to 24 of the judgment and they are follows:-
"21. At this stage, it is apposite to note that when the decision in Bhagyalakshmi [(2009) 7 SCC 148 : (2009) 3 SCC (Civ) 87 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 321] was rendered, a decision of the High Court of Delhi dealing with the view of the Tariff Advisory Committee in respect of "comprehensive/package policy" had not come into the field. We think it apt to refer to the same as it deals with certain factual position which can be of assistance. The High Court of Delhi in Yashpal Luthra v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [2011 ACJ 1415 (Del)] , after recording the evidence of the competent authority of the Tariff Advisory Committee (TAC) and the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA), reproduced a Circular dated 16-11-2009 issued by IRDA to CEOs of all the insurance companies restating the factual position relating to the liability of insurance companies in respect of a pillion rider on a two-wheeler and occupants in a private car under the comprehensive/package policy.
22. The relevant portion of the circular which has been reproduced by the High Court is as follows: (Yaspal Luthra case [2011 ACJ 1415 (Del)] , ACJ pp. 1419- 20, para 20) 6 2013(1) SCC 731 14 "INSURANCE REGULATORY AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Ref.: IRDA/NL/CIR/F&U/073/11/2009, Dated: 16-11-2009 To, CEOs of all general insurance companies Re: Liability of insurance companies in respect of occupants of a private car and pillion rider on a two-wheeler under the Standard Motor Package Policy (also called 'the Comprehensive Policy').
Insurers' attention is drawn to wordings of Section II(1)(ii) of Standard Motor Package Policy (also called 'the Comprehensive Policy') for private car and two-wheeler under the (erstwhile) India Motor Tariff (IMT). For convenience the relevant provisions are reproduced hereunder:
'Section II--Liability to Third Parties (1) Subject to the limits of liabilities as laid down in the Schedule hereto the company will indemnify the insured in the event of an accident caused by or arising out of the use of the insured vehicle against all sums which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of--
(i) death or bodily injury to any person including occupants carried in the vehicle (provided such occupants are not carried for hire or reward) but except so far as it is necessary to meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Company shall not be liable where such death or injury arises out of and in the course of employment of such person by the insured.' It is further brought to the attention of insurers that the above provisions are in line with the following circulars earlier issued by the TAC on the subject:
(i) Circular M.V. No. 1 of 1978 dated 18-3-1978 (regarding occupants carried in private car) effective from 25-3-1977.
(ii) MOT/GEN/10 dated 2-6-1986 (regarding pillion riders on a two-wheeler) effective from the date of the circular.
The above circulars make it clear that the insured's liability in respect of occupant(s) carried in a private car and pillion rider carried on a two-wheeler is covered under the Standard Motor Package Policy. A copy each of the above circulars is enclosed for ready reference.
The Authority vide Circular No. 066/IRDA/F&U/Mar-08 dated 26-3-2008 issued under File and Use Guidelines has reiterated that pending further orders 15 the insurers shall not vary the coverage, terms and conditions wording, warranties, clauses and endorsements in respect of covers that were under the erstwhile tariffs. Further the Authority, vide Circular No. 019/IRDA/NL/F&U/Oct-08 dated 6-11-2008 has mandated that insurers are not permitted to abridge the scope of standard covers available under the erstwhile tariffs beyond the options permitted in the erstwhile tariffs. All general insurers are advised to adhere to the aforementioned circulars and any non-compliance with the same would be viewed seriously by the Authority. This is issued with the approval of competent authority.
sd/-
(Prabodh Chander) Executive Director."
(emphasis supplied) The High Court has also reproduced a circular issued by IRDA dated 3-12-2009. It is instructive to quote the same: (Yashpal Luthra case [2011 ACJ 1415 (Del)] , ACJ pp. 1422- 23, para 23) "Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Ref.: IRDA/NL/CIR/F&U/078/12/2009 Dated: 3-12-2009 To, All the CEOs of all general insurance companies (except ECGC, AIC, Staff Health, Apollo) Re: Liability of insurance companies in respect of occupant of a private car and a pillion rider on a two-wheeler under the Standard Motor Package Policy (also called 'the Comprehensive Policy').
Pursuant to the order of the Delhi High Court dated 23-11-2009 in Yashpal Luthra v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [ MAC Appeal No. 176 of 2009, order dated 23-11- 2009 (Del)] , the Authority convened a meeting on 26-11-2009 of the CEOs of all the general insurance companies doing motor insurance business in the presence of the counsel appearing on behalf of the Authority and the learned amicus curiae. Based on the unanimous decision taken in the meeting by the representatives of the general insurance companies to comply with the IRDA circular dated 16-11- 2009 restating the position relating to the liability of all the general insurance 16 companies doing motor insurance business in respect of the occupants in a private car and pillion rider on a two-wheeler under the Comprehensive/Package Policies which was communicated to the court on the same day i.e. 26-11-2009 and the court was pleased to pass the order (dated 26-11-2009 [Yashpal Luthra v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., MAC Appeal No. 176 of 2009, order dated 26-11-2009 (Del)] ) received from the Court Master, Delhi High Court, is enclosed for your ready reference and adherence. In terms of the said order and the admitted liability of all the general insurance companies doing motor insurance business in respect of the occupants in a private car and pillion rider on a two-wheeler under the Comprehensive/Package Policies, you are advised to confirm to the Authority, strict compliance with the Circular dated 16-11-2009 and order dated 26-11-2009 [Yashpal Luthra v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., MAC Appeal No. 176 of 2009, order dated 26-11-2009 (Del)] of the High Court. Such compliance on your part would also involve:
(i) withdrawing the plea against such a contest wherever taken in the cases pending before the MACT, and issue appropriate instructions to their respective lawyers and the operating officers within 7 days;
(ii) with respect to all appeals pending before the High Courts on this point, issuing instructions within 7 days to the respective operating officers and the counsel to withdraw the contest on this ground which would require identification of the number of appeals pending before the High Courts (whether filed by the claimants or the insurers) on this issue within a period of 2 weeks and the contest on this ground being withdrawn within a period of four weeks thereafter;
(iii) with respect to the appeals pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court, informing, within a period of 7 days, their respective Advocates-on-Record about the IRDA Circulars, for appropriate advice and action. Your attention is also drawn to the discussions in the CEOs meeting on 26-11-2009, when it was reiterated that insurers must take immediate steps to collect statistics about accident claims on the above subject through a central point of reference decided by them as the same has to be communicated in due course to the Hon'ble High Court. You are, therefore, advised to 17 take up the exercise of collecting and collating the information within a period of two months to ensure necessary and effective compliance with the order of the court. The information may be centralised with the Secretariat of the General Insurance Council and also furnished to us.
IRDA requires a written confirmation from you on the action taken by you in this regard.
This has the approval of the competent authority.
24. It is extremely important to note here that till 31-12-2006 the Tariff Advisory Committee and, thereafter, from 1-1-2007 IRDA functioned as the statutory regulatory authorities and they are entitled to fix the tariff as well as the terms and conditions of the policies issued by all insurance companies. The High Court had issued notice to the Tariff Advisory Committee and IRDA to explain the factual position as regards the liability of the insurance companies in respect of an occupant in a private car under the "comprehensive/package policy". Before the High Court, the competent authority of IRDA had stated that on 2-6-1986, the Tariff Advisory Committee had issued instructions to all the insurance companies to cover the pillion rider of a scooter/motorcycle under the "comprehensive policy" and the said position continues to be in vogue till date. It had also admitted that the "comprehensive policy" is presently called a "package policy". It is the admitted position, as the decision would show, the earlier Circulars dated 18-3-1978 and 2-6-1986 continue to be valid and effective and all insurance companies are bound to pay the compensation in respect of the liability towards an occupant in a car under the "comprehensive/package policy"
irrespective of the terms and conditions contained in the policy. The competent authority of IRDA was also examined before the High Court who stated that the Circulars dated 18-3-1978 and 2-6-1986 of the Tariff Advisory Committee were incorporated in the Indian Motor Tariff effective from 1-7-2002 and they continue to be operative and binding on the insurance companies. Because of the aforesaid factual position, the Circulars dated 16-11-2009 and 3-12-2009, that have been reproduced hereinabove, were issued.18
22. Further it is also relevant to note the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court made in the case of Jagtar Singh alias Jagdev Singh v. Sanjeev Kumar and Ors.7 Wherein comprehensive policy and package policy were found as same and that they are different from Act Policy, the observations in para 2 of the judgment are found relevant. They are:
"2. It is submitted by Mr Yadunandan Bansal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the controversy is covered by the two-Judge Bench decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Balakrishnan [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Balakrishnan, (2013) 1 SCC 731 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 771 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 677] , wherein the Court has held thus: (SCC pp. 743-44, paras 24-26) "24. It is extremely important to note here that till 31-12-2006 the Tariff Advisory Committee and, thereafter, from 1-1-2007, IRDA functioned as the statutory regulatory authorities and they are entitled to fix the tariff as well as the terms and conditions of the policies by all insurance companies. The High Court had issued notice to the Tariff Advisory Committee and IRDA to explain the factual position as regards the liability of the insurance companies in respect of an occupant in a private car under the "comprehensive/package policy". Before the High Court, the competent authority of IRDA had stated that on 2-6-1986, the Tariff Advisory Committee had issued instructions to all the insurance companies to cover the pillion rider of a scooter/motorcycle under the "comprehensive policy" and the said position continues to be in vogue till date. It had also admitted that the "comprehensive policy" is presently called a "package policy". It is the admitted position, as the decision would show, the earlier Circulars dated 18-3-1978 and 2-6-1986 continue to be valid and effective and all insurance companies are bound to pay the compensation in respect of the liability towards an occupant in a car under the "comprehensive/package policy" irrespective of the terms and conditions contained in the policy. The competent authority of IRDA was also examined before the High Court who stated that the Circulars dated 18-3-1978 and 2-6- 1986 of the Tariff Advisory Committee were incorporated in the Indian Motor Tariff effective from 1-7-2002 and they continue to be operative and binding on the insurance companies. Because of the aforesaid factual position, the 7 (2018) 15 SCC 189 19 Circulars dated 16-11-2009 and 3-12-2009, that have been reproduced hereinabove, were issued.
23. From Precedential guidance referred above, it is clear that when a policy is package policy, it covers the risk of occupants.
24. Records clearly indicating that
i) Ex.B.1 is a package Policy
ii) In Para 14 learned MACT observed that Ex.B1 is a Comprehensive/Package Policy.
iii) Admittedly Ex.B1 was in force by the date of accident.
iv) No evidence is adduced by respondent No.2/Insurance Company as to want of Driving License.
25. In the light of the legal position referred above and in the light of the evidence on record, particularly Ex.B1/policy being a package policy which can be considered as a comprehensive policy, the contention of respondent No.2 Insurance Company that it is not liable, cannot be accepted. Point No.1 is answered accordingly in favour of the appellant and against the 2nd respondent Insurance Company holding that the 2nd respondent Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation, to which claimant is entitled. Point No.2:- Quantum of compensation:-
26. With regard to awarding just and reasonable quantum of compensation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Baby Sakshi Greola Vs. 20 Manzoor Ahmad Simon and Anr.8, 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.9, 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 xxxxx
Disability
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
_________
27. Noting parameters for quantifying the compensation under various heads addressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, is found necessary, to have standards base in the process of quantifying the compensation, to which the claimant is entitled.
8 2025 AIAR (Civil) 1 9 2020 (04) SCC 413 21
28. Hon'ble Apex Court in Yadava Kumar Vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited and Anr., 10 vide para Nos.10, by referring to Sunil Kumar Vs. Ram Singh Gaud11, as to application of multiplier method in case of injuries while calculating loss of future earnings, in para 16 referring to Hardeo Kaur Vs. Rajasthan State Transport Corporation12, 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."
29. In Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another 13 vide para 19, the Apex Court summarized principles to be followed in the process of quantifying the 10 2010 (10) SCC 341 11 2007 (14) SCC 61 12 1992(2) SCC 567 13 2011 (1) SCC 343 22 compensation are addressed after referring to socio economic and practical aspects from which, the claimants can claim and the practical difficulties, the parties may face in the process of getting disability assessed and getting all certificates from either the Doctors, who treated, or from the medical boards etc., it is observed that :-
"We may now summarise the principles discussed above :
(i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity.
(ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as percentage of permanent disability).
(iii) The doctor who treated an injured-claimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety.
(iv) The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors..."
30. In Sidram Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr.14 vide para 40, the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to the general principles relating to 14 2023 (3) SCC 439 23 compensation in injury cases and assessment of future loss of earning due to permanent disability by referring to Rajkumar's case (cited 9 supra), and also various heads under which compensation can be awarded to victim of a motor vehicle accident.
31. In Sidram's case, it is also observed by referring to a case in R.D. Hattangadi V. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd.15, that while fixing amount of compensation in cases of accident, it involves some guess work, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of the disability caused. But all these elements have to be viewed with objective standards. In assessing damages, the Court must exclude all considerations of matter which rest in awarding speculation or fancy, though conjecture to some extent is inevitable.
Whether the compensation awarded by Tribunal in this case is just and reasonable?
32. Learned MACT under the impugned award, granted compensation of Rs.2,27, 236/- in all taking note of injuries to both knees including thigh, bilateral supra condylar fracture femur, hole locking compression plate was inserted for both fractures. Mild pain complained after one year, medical bills 15 1995 (a) SCC 551 24 were issued for Rs.1,43,957/- and disability was assessed @20%. No disability certificate was issued.
33. Analysis of evidence relevant for quantifying compensation head:-
Occurrence of accident at RDT Hospital cross at Mamillapalli village, shifting of claimant to Government Hospital, Anantapur through ambulance from there to Padmachandra Hospital, Kurnool, thereafter, Sunshine Hospital, Hyderabad where her surgery was conducted, hospitalization and treatment of claimant upto 25.10.2010 are evidenced by some record or other.
Although claimant stated that she was attending business and agriculture work no evidence is placed. Loss of income for the temporary period of treatment etc., if any can be notionally assessed. Since the disability is not evidenced by any documentary evidence like Disability Certificate issued by the competent authority, whether there is permanent loss of income is a question, for which the learned MACT did not consider the entitlement of claimant, the same is fit to be concurred. However, with regard to other heads under which the claimant is entitled for compensation require consideration, with reference to the other evidence available on record.
34. PW.2, Dr.Chiranjeevi stated that the claimant was admitted in Sunshine Hospital on 18.10.2010, claimant sustained injuries both the knees including thigh. After relevant investigations, claimant was operated on 19.10.2010. She sustained bilateral supra condylar fracture femur. Further, 7 holed 25 locking compression plate was done for both fractures. Claimant came for follow up after one year, fracture was united, except mild pain in knee joint, which may be because of post traumatic degenerative changes of both knee joints. Bills were issued by their hospital for Rs.1,40,957/-. He has stated that disability is less than 20%. He has admitted that disability certificate was not issued. He denied the routine suggestion as to his evidence aimed for helping the claimant.
35. Documentary evidence available is medical bills for Rs.1,79,236/-, Wound Certificate Ex.A2, and Discharge Summary issued by Sunshine Hospital as Ex.A3. Ex.A3 is referring to road traffic accident, by Indica Car Trauma to both knees, pain, swelling, inability to stand and walk. The Discharge Summary is indicating that past illness that the patient was operated for bilateral total knee replacement done in 2003 at KIMS by Dr.A.V. Gurava Reddy. This is the document relied by the claimant.
36. Under the head 'Course in the Hospital", the following observations are made:
"A Female patient of aged about 50 years was admitted with H/o.RTA dashed by Indica Car, trauma to both knees, C/o.pain and swelling and inability to stand/walk. After all relevant investigations and PAC, ORIF with Bilaeral Plating with 7 holed Locking Compression Plate was done on 19.10.2010. Post operative period was uneventful. Wound dressing done- wound healthy. Physiotherapy started. Patient is being discharged in a stable condition with the following advice."26
37. From the evidence oral and documentary, following aspects are clear:-
1) Claimant suffered fractured injuries
2) Claimant has a history of knee replacement somewhere in 2003.
3) Injuries are grievous in nature
4) Surgery was conducted.
5) Plates are inserted.
6) Medical Bills are issued for Rs.1,79,236
7) No disability certificate is issued.
38. Under the heads of pain and suffering, discomfort, inconvenience, attendant charges, special diet, transportation expenses etc.. Considering the travel and movement of the claimant from her native place to several hospitals, etc., and age of the claimant as well as the complications and trauma, which the claimant might have suffered during the entire episode, the compensation granted require enhancement, at following quantums:-
S.No. Head Granted by MACT Granted by the Appellate Court
1. Pain and Rs.12,500/- Rs.30,000/-
suffering [Addl.
Compensation for injuries found not necessary)
2. Discomfort and Rs. 5000/- Rs.10,000/-
inconvenience
[Loss of
amenities]
3. Compensation Rs. 12500/- Nil
for the injuries
3. Medical Rs.1,79,236/- [rounded up to]
Expenses
Rs.1,80,000/-
27
4. Future medical Nil 20,000/-
expenditure
[including for
removal of
Plates etc., And
follow up
treatment]
5. Attendant Rs.3000/- Rs.10,000/-
Charges
6. Special Diet and Rs.10,000/- Rs.20,000/-
Feedings
Expenses
7. Transportation Rs.5000/- Rs.30,000/
charges
8. Loss of Income, Nil Rs.25,000/-
during the
period of
treatment
[on Notional
Basis]
Total: Rs.2,27,236/- Rs.3,25,000/-
40. In view of the above discussion made above and reasons stated, entitlement of claimant for granting compensation is fixed @Rs.3,25,000/-. Concluding that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal for a sum of Rs.2,27,236/- required enhancement to Rs.2,90,000/-. Point No.2 is answered accordingly.
Point No.3:
41. In view of the discussion made and the conclusions drawn on points 1 and 2, in the result, the appeal is allowed in part as follows: 28
[i] Dismissal of claim against the respondent No.2/Insurance Company made by MACT under the impugned Award and Decree dated 25.06.2013 is set aside.
[ii] Both the 1st respondents and 2nd respondents, owner and the Insurance Company of the offending vehicle (TATA Indica bearing No.AP 02 K 0103) are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimant.
[iii] Compensation awarded @Rs.2,27,236/- by the learned MACT is modified and enhanced to Rs.2,90,000/- with interest @9% instead of Rs.7.5% ordered by the learned MACT.
[iv] Dismissal of claim against the 3rd respondent/APSRTC is confirmed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeal shall stand closed.
____________________________ A. HARIHARANADHA SARMA, J Date: 06.02.2025 Pnr NOTE:
L.R. COPY BE MARKED B/o.
Pnr 29 * THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA M.A.C.M.A. No.341 of 2016 % 06.02.2024 # Jangamareddygari Ramathulasamma, w/o. J.Kesava reddy R/o. Thimmampeta village, Garladinne mandal, Anantapur District.
. .... Appellant Versus
$M Venugopal 2 Others, s/o. M.Venaktarami Reddy, R/o. D.No.19-4-377, Arveti Street, Gooty Road, Anantapuram and 2 Others.
.... Respondents ! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri M.Karibasaiah ! Counsel for the Respondents :
V.KRISHNA RAO MANIMMA MEDIDA K VISWANATHAM (SC FOR APSRTC) < Gist:
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
2011 ACJ 2527 = 2010 SCC OnLine Ker 4743 2011 ACJ 1415 2011 ACJ 1129 = 2010 SCC Online Kar 431 2011 ACJ 2345 = 2010 SCC online AP 106 2011 ACJ 1775 = 2009 SCC Online AP 748 (2018) 15 SCC 189 2025 AIAR (Civil) 1 2020 (04) SCC 413 2010 (10) SCC 341 2007 (14) SCC 61 992(2) SCC 567 2011 (1) SCC 343 2023 (3) SCC 439 30 *THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA M.A.C.M.A. No.341 of 2016 # Jangamareddygari ramathulasamma, w/o. J.Kesava Reddy R/o. Thimmampeta village, garladinne mandal, Anantapur District.
.... Petitioner Versus
$ M Venugopal 2 Others, s/o. M.Venaktarami Reddy, R/o. D.No. 19-4-377, Arveti street, Gooty Road, Anantapuram And 2 Others .... Respondents DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED: 06.02.2025 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 ____________________________ B. HARIHARANADHA SARMA, J