Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Yaragorla Venkateswarlu, Guntur Dist vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport … on 20 June, 2025
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
M.A.C.M.A.No.209 of 2017
JUDGMENT:
1. One Sri Yaragorla Venkateswarlu, Claimant in M.V.O.P.No.991 of 2014 on
the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge,
Guntur (for short “the learned MACT”), feeling aggrieved by the judgment and
decree dated 01.12.2016 passed therein filed the present appeal contending that
the compensation of Rs.6,47,000/- awarded against the claim made for
Rs.8,00,000/- is not just and adequate.
2. Respondent No.1 before the learned MACT and herein A.P.S.R.T.C is the
owner of the Bus bearing No.AP 29 Z 451 (hereinafter referred to as “the
offending vehicle”) and Respondent No.2 is its driver.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as
the claimant and the Respondents with reference to their status before the
learned MACT.
Case of the claimant:
4. On the fateful day i.e. 23.07.2014 at about 05:10 P.M., while the claimant
was going on TVS XL Moped from Dachepalli side in order to reach
Rentachintala on Guntur-Macherla High Way, near Ambapuram Village, the
offending vehicle driven by its driver / Respondent No.2 came in a rash and
2
negligent manner and dashed the claimant from his behind and dragged him for
50 feet distance. With the result, the petitioner sustained crush injury to his right
upper limb, cut out above the elbow joint and fracture to his left lower limb above
the knee joint. He was treated at Government Hospital, Gurazala. After giving
first aid, he was shifted to Tulasi Multispecialty Hospital, Guntur. He has incurred
huge expenditure for treatment, suffered permanent disability. The claimant was
aged about „30‟ years; hale and healthy; attending agricultural operations; sheep
business and he was earning Rs.60,000/- per annum. The accident has
occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. Therefore,
the claimant is entitled for just and reasonable compensation.
5. Police registered a case vide Crime No.169 of 2014 in Gurazala Urban
Police Station for the offences under Section 338 IPC and charge sheet was laid
against the driver of the offending vehicle.
Case of the Respondents / A.P.S.R.T.C:
6. The claimant shall prove the pleaded accident, negligence of the driver of
the offending vehicle, nature of injuries suffered, age, occupation and income,
disability suffered, loss of income to the petitioner etc. relevant aspects. The
negligence of the claimant in driving the TVS XL Moped cannot be ignored and
the claimant himself is responsible for the accident. Quantum of compensation
claimed is excessive.
3
Case of Respondent No.2 / driver of the offending vehicle:
7. Allegations as to negligence etc. are false. The Claimant shall prove all
the allegations. The claimant was coming on wrong side in a drunken state and
he was fell down in front of the bus. There was no negligence on the part of the
driver of the offending vehicle. Negligence of the claimant in riding the motor
cycle / Moped is the sole cause for the accident and quantum of compensation
claimed is excessive.
8. On the strength of pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial by
the learned MACT:
1) Whether the petitioner Y. Venkateswarlu sustained injuries in the
accident on 03.07.2014 due to rash and negligent driving of driver of
Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Bus bearing No.AP 29
Z 451?
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount
and against whom?
3) To what relief?
9. Evidence before the learned MACT:
Description Remarks
Oral evidence P.W.1: Yaragorla Venkateswarlu Claimant
P.W.2: Dr. Ch. Bulli Reddy Consultant
Orthopedic surgeon
at Tulasi
Multispecialty
Hospital, Guntur.
R.W.1: Kanjula Chandra Sekhara Driver of the
Reddy offending vehicle
4
Documentary Ex.A1:Certified Copy of First On behalf of the
evidence Information Report in petitioner(s).
Cr.No.169/2014 of Gurazala
Police Station.
Ex.A2:Certified Copy of charge
sheet.
Ex.A3:Certified Copy of Wound
certificate.
Ex.A4: Accident Register issued
by Government Hospital,
Gurazala.
Ex.A5:Discharge summary issued
by Tulasi Hospital, Guntur.
Ex.A6:Receipt issued by Tulasi
Hospital, Guntur for Rs.80,000/-.
Ex.A7:62 medical bills for
Rs.52,247/-.
Ex.A8: 21 X-rays.
Ex.A9: Disability Certificate of the
petitioner.
Ex.X1: Case sheet of the
petitioner.
Findings of the learned MACT:
10. Respondent No.2 is undisputedly the driver of the offending vehicle.
Evidence of claimant as PW.1 is clear and having corroboration from Ex.A1-FIR
and the charge sheet was laid against the driver of the offending vehicle under
Ex.A2. Claimant suffered traumatic amputation of right upper limb at axillar level
with gross contamination and fracture of lower 1/3 left femur. Evidence of
Respondent No.2 as RW.1 that the claimant was coming on wrong side on the
middle of the road and failed to control the Moped, despite applying sudden
brakes to the offending vehicle, the accident occurred is not of any help. There
5
was no evidence to show the drunken status of the claimant as alleged by the
Respondent No.2. Therefore, the negligent driving of the offending vehicle by
Respondent No.2 is proved. There is no dispute about the ownership of
Respondent No.1 over the offending vehicle.
11. Ex.A6 and Ex.A7 are medical bills standing for Rs.1,32,247/- and apart
from the said expenditure, purchase of artificial limb etc. is necessary.
Therefore, the claimant is entitled for Rs.1,75,000/- for medical expenditure,
special diet and attendant charges and also towards conveyance. Rs.20,000/-
towards pain and suffering, Rs.20,000/- for loss of amenities and enjoyment.
The petitioner is suffering 90% disability but it is only assessed for a particular
limb i.e. right hand and it comes to entire body same can be taken at 45%.
Therefore, he is entitled for Rs.4,32,000/-. Upon application of multiplier „16‟ to
age group of „32‟ years and in all the claimant is entitled for Rs.6,47,000/-.
12. Arguments in the appeal:
For the Claimant:
1) The learned MACT erred in not taking the correct income.
2) The learned MACT erred in ignoring 90% disability and adopting only 45%
disability.
3) The medical bills covered by Ex.A6 and Ex.A7 etc. are not properly
appreciated.
6
4) Claimant is entitled for more compensation that what claimed and the
learned MACT ought to have awarded the same and there is no bar for
awarding more compensation than what claimed.
For the Respondents:
1) Compensation already awarded itself is excessive.
2) There is no basis for accepting income at Rs.60,000/- by the learned
MACT.
3) The compensation awarded under the heads like loss of amenities,
medical expenditure and arriving at loss of income for Rs.4,32,000/- etc.
are all baseless. There are no merits to interfere. Hence, the appeal is fit
to be dismissed.
13. Perused the record. Thoughtful consideration given to the arguments
advanced by the both sides.
14. The points that arise for determination in this appeal are:
1) Whether the pleaded accident dated 23.07.2014 has occurred owing to
exclusive rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle or whether
there was any contributory negligence on the part of the injured claimant?
2) Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation, if so, to what quantum
and whether the compensation of Rs.6,47,000/- awarded by the learned
MACT is just and reasonable or require any interference, If so, to what
grounds and to which extent?
7
3) What is the result of the appeal?
Point No.1:
15. It is relevant to note that in view of the summary nature and mode of
enquiry contemplated under Motor Vehicles Act and social welfare nature of
legislation the Tribunal shall have holistic view with reference to facts and
circumstances of each case. It is sufficient if there is probability. The principle of
standard of proof, beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied while considering
a claim seeking compensation for the death or the injury on account of road
accident. The touch stone of the case, the claimant shall have to establish is
preponderance of probability only. Further, it is necessary to examine on whom
the duty of care lies and whether failure to avoid collision will amount to either
negligence or contributory negligence. This standard of proof required to be
borne in mind and how the defence of contributory negligence are addressed by
the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the following case.
16. Hon‟ble Apex Court in Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road
Transport Corporation1, in para 15 observed as follows:
“15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a
holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that
strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular
manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The
claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of
preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond
reasonable doubt could not have been applied. For the said purpose,
1
2009 (13) SCC 530
8the High Court should have taken into consideration the respective
stories set forth by both the parties.”
17. The evidence of PW.1 is that the offending vehicle came from behind and
hit the injured claimant has rightly observed by the learned MACT. There is no
evidence to show the claimant was in drunken condition. What is the result of
the criminal case is not known. The other witnesses cited in the charge sheet
are not examined. In the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly since
the allegations and the material is indicating that the offending vehicle hit the
Moped from his behind, the question of negligence or contributory negligence
from the end of claimant cannot be appreciated. Therefore, the negligence on
the part of the driver of the offending vehicle found by the learned MACT is fit for
approval and no tenable grounds are found to take contra view. Further, it is
relevant to note that there is no appeal by the A.P.S.R.TC. In view of all the
reasons stated above, the argument as to absence of negligence on the part of
the Respondent No.2 is rejected. Point No.1 is answered accordingly in favour of
the appellant.
Point No.2 :
Precedential Guidance:
18. A reference to parameters, for quantifying the compensation under various
heads, addressed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court is found necessary, to have
standard base in the process of quantifying the compensation, to which the
claimant is entitled.
9
(i) With regard to awarding just and reasonable quantum of
compensation, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Baby Sakshi Greola vs. Manzoor
Ahmad Simon and Anr.2, 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.3, referred to various
heads under which, compensation can be awarded, in injuries cases vide
paragraph No.52, the heads are as follows:-
S. No. Head Amount (In ₹)
1. Medicines and Medical Treatment xxxxx
2. Loss of Earning Capacity due to Disability xxxxx
3. Pain and Suffering xxxxx
4. Future Treatment xxxxx
5. Attendant Charges xxxxx
6. Loss of Amenities of Life xxxxx
7. Loss of Future Prospect xxxxx
8. Special Education Expenditure xxxxx
9. Conveyance and Special Diet xxxxx
10. Loss of Marriage Prospects xxxxxx
_________
Total Rs. ...xxxxxx
_________
(ii). Hon‟ble Apex Court in Yadava Kumar Vs. Divisional Manager,
National Insurance Company Limited and Anr.,4 vide para No.10, by referring
to Sunil Kumar Vs. Ram Singh Gaud5,as to application of multiplier method in
case of injuries while calculating loss of future earnings, in para 16 referring to
2
2025 AIAR (Civil) 1
3
2020 (04) SCC 413
4
2010(10)SCC 341
5
2007 (14) SCC 61
10Hardeo Kaur Vs. Rajasthan State Transport Corporation6, as to fixing of
quantum of compensation with liberal approach, valuing the life and limb of
individual in generous scale, in para 17 observed that :-
“The High Court and the Tribunal must realize that there is a distinction between
compensation and damage. The expression compensation may include a claim for
damage but compensation is more comprehensive. Normally damages are given for an
injury which is suffered, whereas compensation stands on a slightly higher footing. It is
given for the atonement of injury caused and the intention behind grant of
compensation is to put back the injured party as far as possible in the same position, as
if the injury has not taken place, by way of grant of pecuniary relief. Thus, in the matter
of computation of compensation, the approach will be slightly more broad based than
what is done in the matter of assessment of damages. At the same time it is true that
there cannot be any rigid or mathematical precision in the matter of determination of
compensation.”
(iii). In Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another7 vide para No.19, the
Hon‟ble Apex Court summarized principles to be followed in the process of
quantifying the compensation after referring to socio economic and practical
aspects from which, the claimants come and the practical difficulties, the parties
may face in the process of getting disability assessed and getting all certificates
from either the Doctors, who treated, or from the medical boards etc., it is
observed that :-
“…We may now summarise the principles discussed above :
(i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of
earning capacity.
6
1992(2) SCC 567
7
2011 (1) SCC 343
11
(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…”
(iv) In Sidram vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr.8
vide para No.40, the Hon‟ble Apex Court referred to the general principles
relating to compensation in injury cases and assessment of future loss of earning
due to permanent disability by referring to Rajkumar‘s case, and also various
heads under which compensation can be awarded to a victim of a motor vehicle
accident.
(v) In Sidram‘s case, reference is made to a case in R.D. Hattangadi
V. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd.9. From the observations made therein, it can
be understood that while fixing amount of compensation in cases of accident, it
involves some guess work, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of
sympathy linked with the nature of the disability caused. But, all these elements
8
2023 (3) SCC 439
9
1995 (1) SCC 551
12
have to be viewed with objective standards. In assessing damages, the Court
must exclude all considerations of matter which rest in awarding speculation or
fancy, though conjecture to some extent is inevitable.
Analysis Of Evidence:
Oral Evidence:
19. As per P.W.1 (Claimant):
He sustained crush injury and suffered amputation right upper limb above
the elbow joint.
Fracture to left lower limb above the knee joint.
Operations were conducted for both right upper limb and left lower limb.
Skin drafting was done for right hand.
Steel rod was inserted to left leg.
He cannot walk without assistance of others due to the fracture.
Disability is permanent.
He is aged about „32‟ years.
He was cultivating Ac.2.00 cents of land.
He was Sheppard and having 200 sheep and used to earn Rs.60,000/-
per annum.
He has spent Rs.2,00,000/- for medicines and treatment.
13 During cross-examination, he has stated that he is not attending cultivation
after the accident.
He has denied the suggestion that he was not earning Rs.60,000/- per
annum.
20. As per PW.2 / Dr.Ch.Bulli Reddy:
He worked as a Consultant Orthopedic surgeon at Tulasi Multispecialty
Hospital, Guntur.
Claimant went to their hospital with the following injuries:
I) Traumatic amputation of right upper limb at axillar level with gross
contamination.
II) Fracture lower 1/3 left femur.
The injuries are grievous in nature. The petitioner was
resuscitated and wound debrided after repeated
debridements and tetanus, gas gangrene treatment, stump of
right upper limb close at axilla level. On 01.08.2014, left femur
fracture fixed with plates. The petitioner was discharged on
08.08.2014 and advised prosthetic fitting to right upper limb.
Ex.X1 is the case sheet of the claimant. He has issued Ex.A4 and Ex.A5.
Ex.A6 and Ex.A7 are issued by the Tulasi Multispecialty Hospital.
Claimant suffered 90% permanent disability.
It is impossible to do labour work without right upper limb.
Artificial limb costs about Rs.50,000/-.
14
During cross-examination, PW.2 stated that the treatment given at Tulasi
Multispecialty Hospital is also available at Government Hospital.
He has denied the suggestion that artificial limb is implanted and available
at Government Hospital also.
He has also denied the suggestion that claimant did not suffer permanent
disability.
Documentary Evidence:
Ex.A3 is the wound certificate reflecting four grievous injuries.
Ex.A4 is information about the accident indicating the injuries.
Ex.A5 is the discharge summary.
Ex.A6 is the medical bill issued for Rs.80,000/-.
Ex.A7 is bunch of medical bills, laboratory reports etc.
Ex.A8 is X-ray report.
Ex.A9 is the disability certificate indicating disability at 94%. The findings
are as follows:
This is certified that Shri Yaragarla Venkateswarllu, S/o. Addiyya,
Male, age 32 years resident of H.No.#8, Mutyalampadu Village,
Dacepalli Mandal, Guntur District, is suffering from permanent
disability of the following category:-
Physical (Locomotor/Orthopaedic) Disability.
The disability is in relation to his: Right Upper Limb.
Sub-type of disability: Post Traumatic Amputation.
15
Ex.X1 is the case sheet pertaining to the claimant.
21. The learned MACT while quantifying the compensation accepted Ex.A6 /
receipt issued by the Tulasi Hospital at Rs.80,000/- and the total medical bills
covered under Ex.A7 is for Rs.52,247/- and cost of artificial limb at Rs.50,000/-
was considered but in all awarded Rs.1,75,000/- under medial expenditure.
Further, the learned MACT while referring to Ex.A9 restricted its application as to
disability at 45% considering that it is only upper limb not applicable to the entire
body although disability is at 90%. The total of the medical expenditure covered
under Ex.A6 and Ex.A7 comes to Rs.1,32,247/- and the cost of artificial limb
comes to Rs.50,000/-. The learned MACT restricted medical claim to
Rs.1,75,000/-.
22. It is relevant to note that the learned MACT did not consider transportation
expenditure, attendant expenses, possibility of progress in the income / future
prospects, extra nourishment, future medical needs for change of artificial limb,
loss of amenities and loss of expectation of life etc.
23. In the light of evidence available on record and in view of the parameters
contemplated by Hon‟ble Apex Court in the authorities mentioned above, it is
necessary to reconsider the material and awarded just and reasonable
compensation to the claimant.
16
24. The claimant is said to be a Sheppard, having the sheep‟s and attending
certain agricultural operations in the land possessed by him. There will be
restriction of managerial power to some accident. The claimant cannot do labour
work is the evidence of PW.2 / the doctor, who treated the claimant.
25. It is not the case of claimant that he is an agricultural labour. Upon
considering the nature of work, nature of earning sources of the claimant,
acceptance of disability at 45% for the purpose of functional and financial
disability, adopted by the learned MACT found fit to be accepted.
26. However, the possibility of progress in the income can be added at 30%,
whereby the income of the claimant comes to Rs.78,000/-. 45% of the same
comes to Rs.35,100/-. Upon application of multiplier „16‟, the entitlement of the
claimant comes to Rs.5,61,600/- (Rs.78,000/-x16x45%) under the head of loss of
income due to permanent disability as against the amount Rs.4,32,000/- awarded
by the learned MACT. The entitlement of claimant under the other heads also
requires a revisit and revamp in the light of the evidence and discussion made
above.
27. In the light of precedential guidance and in view of the reasons and
evidence referred above, the entitlement of the claimant for reasonable
compensation in comparison to compensation awarded by the learned MACT is
as follows:
17
Sl. Head Granted by Fixed by this
No. the learned Appellate
MACT Court
1. a)Medicines and Rs.1,82,247/-
Medical treatment
Rs.1,75,000/-
b)Attendant charges Rs.20,000/-
c)Extra nourishment / Rs.25,000/-
Special diet etc.
2. Loss of earning Rs.4,32,000/- Rs.5,61,600/-
capacity due to
permanent disability
3. Pain and suffering Rs.20,000/- Rs.50,000/-
4. Future medical -NIL- Rs.50,000/-
treatment
5. Loss of amenities Rs.20,000/- Rs.25,000/-
Total: Rs.6,47,000 /- Rs.9,13,847/-
28. For the reasons aforesaid, it is found that the claimant is entitled for a
compensation of Rs.9,13,847/- with interest at 7.5% per annum and the
compensation awarded by the learned MACT at Rs.6,47,000/- is fit to be
modified accordingly. Point No.2 is answered accordingly in favour of the
appellant / claimant.
Granting of more compensation than what claimed, if the claimants are
otherwise entitled:-
29. The legal position with regard to awarding more compensation than what
claimed has been considered and settled by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court holding
18
that there is no bar for awarding more compensation than what is claimed. For
the said preposition of law, this Court finds it proper to refer the following
observations of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court made in:
(1) Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and Others10, at para 21 of the
judgment, that –
“..there is no restriction that the Tribunal/Court cannot award compensation
amount exceeding the claimed amount. The function of the Tribunal/Court is
to award “just” compensation, which is reasonable on the basis of evidence
produced on record.”
(2) Kajal Vs. Jagadish Chand and Ors.11 at para 33 of the judgment, as
follows:-
“33. We are aware that the amount awarded by us is more than the amount
claimed. However, it is well settled law that in the motor accident claim
petitions, the Court must award the just compensation and, in case, the just
compensation is more than the amount claimed, that must be awarded
especially where the claimant is a minor.”
(3) Ramla and Others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and
Others12 at para 5 of the judgment, as follows:-
“5. Though the claimants had claimed a total compensation of Rs.25,00,000
in their claim petition filed before the Tribunal, we feel that the compensation
which the claimants are entitled to is higher than the same as mentioned
supra. There is no restriction that the Court cannot award compensation10
(2003) 2 SCC 274
11
2020 (04) SCC 413
12
(2019) 2 SCC 192
19exceeding the claimed amount, since the function of the Tribunal or Court
under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is to award “just
compensation”. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation.
A “just compensation” is one which is reasonable on the basis of evidence
produced on record. It cannot be said to have become time-barred. Further,
there is no need for a new cause of action to claim an enhanced amount. The
courts are duty-bound to award just compensation.”
Point No.3:
30. For the aforesaid reasons and in view of the findings of points Nos.1 and 2,
Point No.3 is answered as follows:
In the result,
(i) The appeal is allowed.
(ii) The compensation awarded by the learned MACT at Rs.6,47,000/- is
modified and enhanced to Rs.9,13,847/- with interest at the rate of 7.5%
per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.
(iii) The claimant is entitled to withdraw the amount at once on deposit.
(iv)The claimant shall pay the Court fee for the enhanced part of the
compensation, before the learned MACT.
(v) There shall be no order as to costs, in this appeal.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeal shall
stand closed.
____________________________
A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J
Date:20.06.2025
Knr
20
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
M.A.C.M.A No.209 of 2017
20th June, 2025
Knr