Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd., vs Vegi Veera Venkata Ramana Durga Prasad, on 20 June, 2025
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
M.A.C.M.A. Nos.2501 of 2015, 148 and 154 of 2016
COMMON JUDGMENT:
I.Introductory:-
1. One Pilla Uma Maheswara Rao (hereinafter referred to as “the Injured
No.1 / the deceased”) and Vegi Veera Venkata Ramana Durga Prasad
(hereinafter referred to as “the injured No.2”) met with an accident on
15.01.2009.
2. Injured No.1 / the deceased filed M.V.O.P.No.399 of 2009 and the
injured No.2 filed M.V.O.P.No.400 of 2009. Injured No.1 died on 14.11.2012
during the pendency of case and his legal representatives were added as
claimant Nos.2 to 4 in M.V.O.P.No.399 of 2009. Both cases are arising out of
same accident.
3. Both claim petitions were decided by the Chairman, Motor Vehicles
Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Bhimavaram (for
short “the learned MACT”) under separate orders and decrees in respective
M.V.O.P‟s dated 26.05.2015.
4. The accident has occurred when the injured No.1 / the deceased and
Injured No.2 were travelling on Hero Honda motorcycle bearing No.AP 31 AE
9742, the Tata Indica Car bearing No.AP 26 U 4374 (for short “the offending
vehicle”) allegedly came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the
motorcycle.
2
5. Respondent No.1 is the driver of the offending vehicle, Respondent
Nos.2 and 4 were the successive owners of the offending vehicle and
Respondent Nos.3 and 5 are the successive insurers before the learned
MACT.
6. M.A.C.M.A.No.2501 of 2015 is filed by the claimant in M.V.O.P.No.400 of
2009.
7. M.A.C.M.A.No.148 of 2016 is filed by Respondent No.5 directed against
the order and decree passed in M.V.O.P.No.399 of 2009.
8. M.A.C.M.A.No.154 of 2016 is filed by Respondent No.5 in
M.V.O.P.No.400 of 2009.
9. Two appeals i.e. M.A.C.M.A.No.154 of 2016 and M.A.C.M.A.No.148 of
2016 are filed by the Insurance Company questioning both the liability and the
quantification of compensation.
10. M.A.C.M.A.No.2501 of 2015 is filed by the injured No.2 / claimant in
M.V.O.P.No.400 of 2009, feeling aggrieved by awarding of compensation of
Rs.94,180/- only as against the claim made by him for Rs.3,50,000/-. No
appeal is filed by the claimants in M.V.O.P.No.399 of 2009.
11. All the three appeals are heard together. Details of the appeals in simple
are as follows:
Sl. M.A.C.M.A.No. M.V.O.P.No. Appellant Status before
No. (on the file of the learned
the learned MACT
MACT)
1. 148 of 2016 399 of 2009 HDFC ERGO Respondent No.5
General Insurance
Company Limited
3
2. 154 of 2016 400 of 2009 HDFC ERGO Respondent No.5
General Insurance
Company Limited
3. 2501 of 2015 400 of 2009 Vegi Veera Petitioner
Venkata Ramana
Durga Prasad
12. For the sake of convenience, parties hereinafter referred with reference
to their status before the learned MACT.
II. Case and facts asserted commonly in both the cases by the claimants /
injured Nos.1 and 2:
13(i). On 15.01.2009, injured No.1/ the deceased (Pilla Uma Maheswara
Rao) along with his cousin by name Vegi Veera Venkata Ramana Durga
Prasad (Injured No.2), while returning from Kommara Village near Attili, on
Hero Honda motor cycle at about 08:00 P.M., the offending vehicle driven by
Respondent No.1 came in a rash and negligent manner in opposite direction
and dashed the motor cycle causing accident and both of them sustained
injuries. Immediately the injured were shifted to Area Hospital, Tadepalligudem
and after first aid they were shifted to Eluru Govt. Hq. General Hospital,
Orthopedic Department for better treatment.
13(ii). A case in Crime No.8 of 2008 for the offences under Section 338 IPC
was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle at Ganapavaram
Police Station and subsequently, the charge sheet was laid against him.
4
14. Respondent No.2 is the owner of the offending vehicle at the time of
accident and Respondent No.3 is the Insurance Company with which the
offending vehicle was insured. Respondent No.4 was the previous owner and
Respondent No.5 was the insurer with whom the previous owner insured the
vehicle.
III. Specific case in respect of injured No.1 / the deceased:
15. Injured No.1 was hale and healthy; aged about 28 years; he was driver-
cum-owner of tractor-cum-trailer; he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month and he
was a sole breadwinner to the family. Due to the accident, he suffered the
following injuries.
1. A lacerated wound of 4x2x1 cm right side hand bleeding
present red in colour.
2. A lacerated wound of 3x2x1 cm on right side leg below knee
creption present, red in colour.
3. An abrasion of lower right side knee, bleeding present, red in
colour.
4. A lacerated wound of 6×3 cm red in colour.
5. A contusion of 5×4 cm on right side thigh, tenderness cription
present, red in colour.
6. Brasion of 3×2 cm right side great toe, bleeding present, red in
colour.
Injuries Nos.2 & 5 are grievous and other injuries are in simple.
16. He has incurred huge expenditure for treatment. Nails were inserted to
his right femur and plating was done to stabilize his right tibial fracture. He is
5
suffering 50% permanent disability. He was in continuous treatment and died
due to cardiopulmonary arrest on 14.11.2012. He was suffering mental agony
due to the accident injuries.
IV. Specific case of Injured No.2:
17. Injured No.2 is aged about „24‟ years; attending mason work and earning
Rs.6,000/- per month. He is the sole breadwinner for the family. Due to the
accident he has suffered the following injures:
1) A lacerated wound of 3x2x1 under low lip, bleeding present, red in
colour
2) A lacerated wound of 4x3x2 cm at right side knee, bleeding
present, red in colour.
3) an abrasion of 4×2 cm fore head extra aspect bleeding present red
in colour.
4) A contusion of 6×4 cm and right side thigh tenderness present,
contusion present, red in colour, fracture of right leg femur.
5) Inside injury to the abdomen.
Injuries Nos.4 & 5 are grievous.
18. Injured No.2 has taken treatment at Mahalakshmi Hosptial, Eluru, where
surgery was conducted to the right leg femur and installing interlocking nails.
Due to unbearable pain in the abdomen, he was shifted to Ashram Hospital,
Eluru. He has spent Rs.1,50,000/- towards treatment etc. and removal of
implants with cost of Rs.30,000/-. In view of the injuries and disability, he is
entitled for just and reasonable compensation.
6
19. Driver and successive owners of the offending vehicle remained ex
parte.
20. Insurance companies alone contested the case.
V. Common defence of Respondent No.3 and Respondent No.5 Insurance
Companies:
21. The claimants shall prove the pleaded accident, negligence of the driver
of the offending vehicle, compliance of policy conditions including valid and
effective driving licence to the driver of the offending vehicle, age, occupation,
nature of injuries suffered, disability, death of injured No.1 due to injuries
suffered in the accident etc. relevant factors.
22. Negligence of the rider of the motor vehicle viz. Injured No.1 / deceased
is the cause for the accident and at least contributory negligence shall be
considered. The owner and the Insurance Company of the motor cycle in
which injured were travelling are also necessary parties. Quantum of
compensation claimed is excessive.
VI. Specific case of Respondent No.5-Insurance Company:
23. Owner of the vehicle in question issued cheque bearing No.41306 of
Coastal Area Bank pertaining to his account for an amount of Rs.7,299/-
towards premium of the Policy and when the same was presented for
collection, it was dishonoured by the Bank. Hence, the policy was cancelled.
As on the date of accident, in view of the non receipt of premium, there is no
7
insurance coverage. Therefore, Respondent No.5 is not liable, as the contract
of Insurance is not supported by consideration.
VII. Issues:
24. On the strength of pleadings, learned MACT settled the following issues
for trial:
VII(A). M.V.O.P.No.399 of 2009 in the case of Injured No.1:
(i) Whether the accident dated 15.01.2009 occurred due to the rash and
negligent driving of the TATA Indica Car bearing No.AP 26 U 4374 by the
1st Respondent?
(ii) Whether the 1st Respondent was not having valid and effective driving
licence to drive TATA Indica Car?
(iii) Whether there is contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner
who was riding Hero Honda motorcycle bearing no.AP 31 AE 9742?
(iv) Whether the petitioner was not having valid driving license to drive
motor cycle?
(v) Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of proper and necessary
parties i.e., owner and insurer of the Hero Honda motorcycle bearing
No.AP 31 AE 9742?
(vi) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation and if so, for what
amount and from which of the respondents?
(vii) To what relief?
8
VII(B) M.V.O.P.No.400 of 2009 in the case of Injured No.2:
(i) Whether the accident dated 15.01.2009 occurred due to the rash and
negligent driving of the TATA Indica Car bearing No.AP 26 U 4374 by the
1st Respondent?
(ii) Whether the 1st Respondent was not having valid and effective driving
licence to drive TATA Indica Car?
(iii) Whether there is contributory negligence on the part of the rider of
Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing no.AP 31 AE 9742?
(iv) Whether the rider of Hero Honda Motorcycle was not having valid
driving license?
(v) Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of proper and necessary
parties i.e., owner and insurer of the Hero Honda motorcycle bearing
No.AP 31 AE 9742?
(vi) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation and if so, for what
amount and from which of the respondents?
(vii) To what relief?
VIII. Evidence before the learned MACT:
25. M.V.O.P.No.399 of 2009 in the case of Injured No.1:
Description Remarks
Oral evidence P.W.1: Pilla Uma Maheswara Rao Injured No.1 / the
deceased
P.W.2: Dr. A.V.R.Mohan Doctor(Civil Surgeon
Specialist)
P.W.3: Pilla Lavanya Wife of the deceased
9
R.W.1: P. Satyanarayana Head Constable,
Ganapavaram Police
Station
R.W.2: V. Ananda Kiran Legal Officer of
Respondent No.3
Insurance Company.
R.W.3: V. Sankar Dar Senior Manager in
Respondent No.5
Insurance Company.
Documentary Ex.A1: Attested copy of F.I.R.
evidence
Ex.A2:Attested copy of wound
certificate
On behalf of the
Ex.A3: Attested copy of M.V.I. Report petitioner(s).
Ex.A4: Attested copy of charge sheet
Ex.A5: Attested copy of driving
licence of Respondent No.1.
Ex.A6: Bunch of medical
prescriptions(14 in number)
Ex.A7: Bunch of medical bills worth
of Rs.57,469/- (8 in number)
Ex.A8: Discharge summary.
Ex.A9: Disability certificate
Ex.A10: Attested copy of C-Book of
Tractor and Trailer belongs to the 1st
petitioner (deceased)
Ex.A11: Attested copy of driving
licence of 1st petitioner(deceased)
Ex.A12: Bunch of X-Ray films (12 in
number)
Ex.A13: Death certificate of Pilla
Uma Maheswara Rao, dated
10
23.11.2012.
Ex.A14: Legal heri certificate, dated
19.02.2013.
Ex.A15: Photostat copies of Ration
card and Aadhar card.
Ex.A16: Death report given by the
Doctor of Asram Hospital, Eluru,
dated 14.11.2012.
Ex.A17: Vehicle permit
No.AP016/32/PC/2009.
Ex.A18: Attested copy of policy,
dated 07.01.2009.
Ex.B1: Insurance Policy certificate, On behalf of
dated 10.01.2014. Respondent No.5
Ex.B2: Attested copy of policy dated
31.12.2008.
Ex.B3: Cheque return advice, dated
07.01.2009.
Ex.B4: Poof of postage
Ex.B5: Endorsement-cum-letter
addressed.
Ex.X1: True copy of policy of HDFC
ERGO General Insurance Company
covering the insurance coverage to the
crime vehicle bearing No. AP 26 U 4374
from 31.12.2008 to 30.12.2009.
26. M.V.O.P.No.400 of 2009 in the case of Injured No.2:
Description Remarks
Oral evidence P.W.1: Vegi V.V.R. Durga Prasad Injured No.2
P.W.2: Dr. A.V.R.Mohan Doctor(Civil
Surgeon Specialist)
11
R.W.1: P. Satyanarayana Head Constable,
Ganapavaram
Police Station
R.W.2: V. Ananda Kiran Legal Officer of
Respondent No.3
Insurance
Company.
R.W.3: V. Sankar Dar Senior Manager in
Respondent No.5
Insurance
Company.
Documentary Ex.A1: Attested copy of F.I.R., dated
evidence 16.01.2009
Ex.A2:Attested copy of wound
certificate, dated 15.01.2009 On behalf of the
petitioner(s).
Ex.A3: Attested copy of M.V.I.
Report, dated 20.01.2009
Ex.A4: Attested copy of charge sheet
Ex.A5: Photostat copy of driving
licence of Respondent No.1.
Ex.A6: Photostat copy of C-Book in
Crime car of Tata Indica.
Ex.A7: Bunch of medical
prescriptions(4 in number)
Ex.A8: Bunch of medical bills worth
of Rs.24,180/- (4 in number)
Ex.A9: Two discharge summaries.
Ex.A10: Attested copy of disability
certificate issued by the District
Medical Board, Eluru
Ex.A11: Two X-Ray films
Ex.A12: Attested copy of vehicle
permit No.AP016/32/PC/2009
12
Ex.A13: Attested copy of Insurance
Policy, dated 07.01.2009.
Ex.B1: Insurance Policy certificate, On behalf of
dated 10.01.2014. Respondent No.5
Ex.B2: Attested copy of policy dated
31.12.2008.
Ex.B3: Cheque return memo, dated
07.01.2009.
Ex.B4: Poof of postage
Ex.B5: Endorsement-cum-letter
addressed to the owner.
Ex.X1: True copy of policy of HDFC
ERGO General Insurance Company
covering the insurance coverage to the
crime vehicle bearing No. AP 26 U 4374
from 31.12.2008 to 30.12.2009.
IX. Findings of the learned MACT:
IX(A) On negligence:
27. Injured No.1 / deceased as PW.1 stated about the accident and PW.3 is
wife of the injured No.1 / deceased stated about his death. Ex.A1 is the FIR
registered is indicating the involvement of the offending vehicle. Ex.A4 is the
charge sheet disclosing the name of the driver of the car as Carlton Rozario.
As per the investigation, the negligence of the driver of the car is the cause for
the accident. Therefore, the negligence on the part of the driver of the
offending vehicle is believed. Evidence of injured No.2 in his case is same as to
the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle.
13
IX(B). On the point of Insurance Policy and liability of Insurance
Companies:
28. RW.2, the Legal Officer of Respondent No.3 Insurance Company
produced Ex.B1-Insurance Policy covering the period from 09.01.2009 to
08.01.2010, which is covering the accident date i.e. on 15.01.2009. Therefore,
the policy issued by Respondent No.3 was in force. Hence, Respondent No.3
is liable.
29. RW.3 examined for Respondent No.5 stated that, cheque was
dishonoured whereas the policy was issued subject to the collection and
realization of the premium and as the cheque was dishonoured, hence the
policy Ex.B2 and cover note are void abinitio of the issue. But, Ex.B3-cheque
return advice is not indicating the clear date. The Insurance Company did not
take any action for about „28‟ days after the Bank return memo. The owner of
the vehicle is one Shaik Rafi. But the cheque is issued by one Y. Bala. As per
Ex.B3, admittedly the Insurance Company collected an amount of Rs.8,116/-
but the cheque is issued for Rs.7,279/- from Y. Bala. It is not clear whether
balance amount of Rs.837/- issued by way of cash etc. Mode of payment is not
indicated in Ex.B3. Therefore, Ex.B5 the endorsement letter cannot be
considered. One Y.Bala, who issued Ex.B3 cheque was not the owner. Ex.B2
Policy was not cancelled by the date of accident. Therefore, Respondent No.5
Insurance Company failed to prove the defence of dishonor etc.
14
30. Respondent Nos.2 to 5 are liable to pay the compensation. However,
Respondent Nos.3 and 5 / Insurance Companies are liable to deposit in view of
the Insurance Policy issued by them.
IX(C). On quantum:
IX(C)(i) In respect of injured No.1 vide M.V.O.P.No.399 of 2009
31(i). Injured No.1 / the deceased suffered „six‟ injuries.
(ii) Operation was conducted and nails were inserted.
(iii) First time admitted in the Hospital on 15.01.2009.
(iv) First time operation was on 28.01.2009 and discharge was on 04.02.2009.
(v) Second time admission was on 06.03.2011 and discharge was on
08.03.2011.
32. Ex.A8 is the discharge summary. Ex.A9 is the disability certificate issued
/ indicating disability at 50%. Medical bills and medical prescriptions are
covered by Ex.A6 to Ex.A7. Ex.A12 is the X-Ray films. Ex.A6 and Ex.A7
discloses Medical expenditure at Rs.57,469/-.
33. Ex.A13 is death certificate indicating death of injured No.1 / deceased
on 14.11.2012. The prolonged treatment and death if seen along with the
evidence of PW.3, the wife of injured No.1 / deceased. Ex.A13 and Ex.A16 are
death certificates/reports. The age of the deceased is shown as „29‟ years
under Ex.A8 discharge summary.
15
34(i). The learned MACT has considered the case of claimants in
M.V.O.P.No.399 of 2009 as a death case and quantified the compensation
accordingly.
34(ii). The learned MACT has taken the income at Rs.200/- per day.
Considering the deceased as a coolie restricted the same for „22‟ days which
comes to an amount of Rs.4,400/- per month and Rs.52,800/- per annum. 1/3rd
is deducted towards personal expenditure which comes to Rs.17,600/- and
remaining amount is Rs.40,600/- , which he can contribute to his family. „16‟
multiplier is applicable for the age of „28‟ years. Therefore, the entitlement
comes to Rs.6,49,600/- and the claimants are entitled for Rs.10,000/- for
funeral expenditure. Rs.57,469/- towards medical expenditure, Rs.50,000/-
towards loss of consortium and love and affection. In all, the claimants are
entitled for Rs.7,67,000/-. However, as the claim is made for Rs.2,50,000/-.
The award is restricted to Rs.2,50,000/-.
IX(C)(ii) Quantum of compensation in respect of injured No.2 vide
M.V.O.P.No.400 of 2009:
35. The injuries suffered are „five‟. Injury Nos. 4 and 5 are grievous in
nature. The operation was conducted. The evidence of PW.2 disclosed that
the prescriptions are given and bunch of medical bills are standing for
Rs.24,180/-. Ex.A10 is the disability certificate. Claimant is entitled for
Rs.5,000/- towards transportation and extra nourishment. Rs.30,000/- towards
loss of earnings, Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering and mental agony.
16
Rs.25,000/- towards permanent disability. In all, entitlement of claimant
towards compensation is for Rs.94,180/-.
36. Respondent No.3 / Sriram General Insurance Company Limited before
the learned MACT did not choose to file any appeal.
X(i). Scope of the appeals of Insurance Company / Respondent No.5:
37. Respondent No.5 / HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company before the
learned MACT filed M.A.C.M.A.No.148 of 2016 and M.A.C.M.A.No.154 of
2016.
X(ii). Common grounds of appeal and arguments for Respondent No.5:
(i). The learned MACT failed to appreciate the dishonoured of cheque and
erred in imposing liability. Respondent No.4 / Rafi Shaik before the learned
MACT sold the vehicle to Respondent No.2 / Peeta Satyanarayan and new
owner took new policy from Respondent No.3. The policy issued by
Respondent No.3 Insurance Company was in force as on the date of accident.
Therefore, the new owner and new insurance company viz. Respondent No.2
and Respondent No.3 alone are liable to indemnify and pay the compensation.
Both policies cannot be co-exists.
(ii). The learned MACT failed to appreciate the evidence of RW.3 and Ex.B4
and Ex.B5 properly, when the cheque return memo was addressed to the
registered address and the same has been deemed to have been served.
(iii). As per the guidelines of the Insurance Amendment Act, 2002 and
Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of Policyholders‟
17
Interests) (Amendment) Regulations, 2002, where the premium is not realized
by the insurer, the policy was void ab initio. Said aspect is erroneously ignored
by the learned MACT.
(iv). Compensation claimed & awarded, both are excessive. Case of injured
No.1 cannot be considered as a death case.
XI. Grounds of appeal and arguments of the injured No.2 / claimant in
M.V.O.P.No.400 of 2009 in M.A.C.M.A.No.2501 of 2015:
38(i). The objective of social welfare legislation of the Motor Vehicles Act not
properly understood by the learned MACT.
(ii). The evidence of PW.2 / doctor is not properly appreciated.
(iii). The compensation awarded is meager and there is no bar for awarding
more compensation than what claimed.
(iv). The learned MACT erred in awarding quantifying the compensation and
taking note of all heads. The documentary evidence placed is not properly
considered.
39. The argument on behalf of the Insurance Companies is that the
compensation claimed is excessive.
40. One of the insurance companies i.e. Respondent No.3 / Sriram General
Insurance Company Limited did not choose to file any appeal nor cross
objections in any of the appeals.
18
XII. Arguments of Respondent No.3 Insurance Company:
41. Arguments submitted for learned counsel for Respondent No.3 is that
there is no bar for obtaining two policies and when two policies are in force, the
liability can be apportioned equally among the two Insurance Companies and
the cause of action being the same, the claimants are not entitled for
compensation for full amount against both the Insurance Companies and case
of injured No.1 cannot be considered as death case.
42. Perused the record.
43. Thoughtful consideration given to the arguments advanced by both
sides.
XIII. Points for determination:
44. Now the points that arise for determination in these appeals are:
1) Whether the pleaded accident dated 15.01.2009 has occurred due to the
rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle bearing
No.AP 26 U 4374?
2) Whether Respondent No.5 / HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company
(Appellant in M.A.C.M.A.No.148 of 2016 and M.A.C.M.A.No.154 of 2016)
before the learned MACT is liable to pay compensation?
3) Whether the claimants in M.V.O.P.No.399 of 2009 are entitled for
compensation, if so, to what quantum
4) Whether the claimant / injured No.2 in M.V.O.P.No.400 of 2009 (appellant
in M.A.C.M.A.No.2501 of 2015) is entitled for compensation, if so, to what
quantum?
5) What is the liability of the Respondents?
6) What is the result of the appeal in M.A.C.M.A.No.148 of 2016?
19
7) What is the result of the appeal in M.A.C.M.A.No.154 of 2016?
8) What is the result of the appeal in M.A.C.M.A.No.2501 of 2015?
XIV. Findings-point wise:
Point No.1:
Statutory and Precedential Guidance:
45. It is relevant to note that the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 are
applicable in deciding the cases by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals and they
are made in exercise of powers conferred under Section 176 of the Motor
Vehicles Act which reads as follows:
176. Power of State Government to make rules.–A State
Government may make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect
the provisions of sections 165 to 174, and in particular, such rules
may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:–
(a) the form of application for claims for compensation and the
particulars it may contain, and the fees, if any, to be paid in respect
of such applications;
(b) the procedure to be followed by a Claims Tribunal in holding
an inquiry under this Chapter;
(c) the powers vested in a Civil Court which may be exercised by
a Claims Tribunal;
(d) the form and the manner in which and the fees (if any) on
payment of which an appeal may be preferred against an award of
a Claims Tribunal; and
(e) any other matter which is to be, or may be, prescribed.
20
46. Chapter „11‟ of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 commencing from
Rule 455 to Rule 476A deals with the powers of the Tribunal and all other allied
aspects like form of application, registration, notice to parties, appearance and
examination of parties, local inspection, summary examination of parties,
method of recording evidence, adjournments, framing and determination of
issues, judgments and enforcements of awards, Court fee relating to claim
petitions applicability of Civil Procedure Code and the application for claim
basis to award the claim by the claims tribunal. Rule 476 of the A.P. Motor
Vehicles Rules, 1989 reads as follows:
Rule 476: Application for claim :-
(1) Every application in the case of claim under Chapter X of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; shall be made in Form CWF (Claim
Without Fault); Provided that the application shall also be
accompanied by an affidavit stating that the petitioner has not filed
any other claim petition regarding the same cause of action or the
same accident in the same Tribunal or any other Tribunal to his/her
knowledge.
(2) Fees:- Every applicant along with application for claim under
Chapter X shall pay a fee of Rs. 10/-.
(3) Consideration of the claim: Every claim under Chapter X of the
Motor Vehicles Act shall be adjudicated by the Tribunal summarily
complying with the principles of natural justice.
(4) Application not to be rejected on technical flaw – The Claims
Tribunal shall not reject any application made as per the provision of
Chapter X of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on the ground of any
21technical flaw, but shall give notice to the applicant and get the
defect rectified.
(5) Presence of owner and insurer not necessary to award the claim
after notice :- The Claims Tribunal shall give notice to the owner and
insurer, if any of the motor vehicle involved in the accident, directing
them to appear on a date not later than 10 days from the date of
issue of notice. The date so fixed for such appearance shall also be
not later than 15 days from the receipt of the claim application. The
Claims Tribunal shall state in such notice, that in case they fail to
appear on such appointed date, the tribunal will procede ex-parte on
the presumption that they have no contention to make against, the
award of compensation.
(6) Award of Claim :- The Claims Tribunal shall obtain whatever
information necessary form the Police, Medical and other authorities
and proceed to award the claim whether the parties who were given
notice, appear or not on the appointed date.
(7) Basis to award the claim :- The Claims Tribunal shall
proceed to award the claim on the basis of;-
(i) Registration Certificate of the Motor Vehicle involved in the
accident;
(ii) Insurance Certificate or Policy relating to the insurance of
the Motor Vehicle against the Third party risk;
(iii) Copy of First Information Report;
(iv) Post-mortem certificate or certificate of inquiry from the
Medical Officer; and
(v) The nature of the treatment given by the Medical Officer
who has examined the victim.
(7A) Specification of amount of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal to each victim:- Where compensation is awarded to
22two or more persons, the Claims Tribunal shall also specify the
amount payable to each of them.
47. 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 claimants shall have
to establish is preponderance of probability only. The legal position to this
extent is settled and consistent.
48. The 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, the High Court should have taken into consideration
the respective stories set forth by both the parties..”1
2009 (13) SCC 530
23
Analysis of Evidence on point No.1:
49. Injured Nos.1 and 2 in both cases has taken witness stand and deposed
about the occurrence of accident. They are eye witnesses to the accident. The
concentration during cross examination was done mostly on the liability by both
Insurance Companies and there is no specific or categorical denial of
negligence. No specific evidence is adduced. Contradicting the evidence of the
injured eye witness of both cases. When oral evidence of injured witness
coupled with entries in crime record is seen, viz. FIR, wound certificate, MVI
report and charge sheet with the aid of statutory and precedential guidance
mentioned above, the irresistible conclusion follows is that the claimants in
respective cases are able to prove the pleaded accident and negligence of the
driver of the offending vehicle. Accordingly, the point relating to negligence is
answered against the Respondents and in favour of the claimants.
Point No.2:
50. Respondent No.5 / HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company has taken
the defence that the cheque issued towards the premium for the insurance
policy was dishonoured. Therefore, the policy becomes void ab initio. Hence,
Respondent No.5 is not liable.
51. Further, it is also the defence of Respondent No.5 that the subsequent
owner of the offending vehicle, Respondent No.2 obtained Insurance Policy
from Respondent No.3. Therefore, the policy issued by Respondent No.5 for
the previous owner Respondent No.4 in respect of the vehicle even if
24
presumed to be in force gets merged or vanished. On that count also
Respondent No.5 Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation.
The defence of dishonor of a cheque issued towards the premium:
52. Respondent No.5 examined RW.3 / V. Shankar Das (Senior Manager)
one of its officials. His evidence is that Respondent No.5 Insurance Company
issued passenger carrying commercial vehicle package policy for the offending
vehicle on 31.12.2008, subject to collection and realization of premium
consideration with a specific condition that “in case of dishonour of premium
cheque, this cover note will be void ab initio”. The owner of the vehicle issued
cheque for Rs.7,279/- towards premium of the policy and the said cheque
returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds. Therefore, the cover note void ab
initio. An endorsement was passed cancelling the policy and the same was
informed vide letter dated 05.02.2009 indicating that the Insurance Company
shall not be liable.
53. During cross examination RW.3 stated that the claimant is third party.
The date of notice issued to the owner of the vehicle is not visible. Respondent
No.4 by name Shaik Rafi is the owner of the vehicle. One Bala issued the
cheque to the Insurance Company which was dishonoured. As per Ex.B3 an
amount of Rs.8,116/- was collected. But, the cheque is standing for an amount
of Rs.7,279/- from the said Bala. He do not know whether he received the
balance amount of Rs.837/- or not. Ex.B3 is not disclosing the mode of
payment.
25
54. It was suggested to witness that Ex.B5 is fabricated. He has further
admitted that the Insurance Company did not send notice under registered post
with acknowledgement due. The Insurance Company did not send the notice
to the RTA Authority, Guntur. It was also suggested to him that the cheque of
one Y. Bala does not pertain to the offending vehicle.
55. Ex.B2 is the insurance policy issued by HDFC Insurance Company
covering the period from 31.12.2008 to 30.12.2009. Date of accident is
15.01.2009. Premium paid is disclosed as Rs.8,116/-. Ex.B2 is signed at
Mumbai on 07.01.2009.
56. Ex.B3 is cheque return advice by HDFC Bank to the Insurance Company
is in respect of cheque issued by one Y. Bala. Ex.B5 is the endorsement of
cancellation of policy. Ex.B2 is addressed to one Rafi Shaik.
57. Ex.B2 is certificate of Insurance-cum-Policy Schedule. The date of
signing of the Policy is 07.01.2009. The endorsement issued vide Ex.B5 is
dated 05.02.2009. The date of accident is 15.01.2009. RW.3 admitted in cross
examination that the information as to cancellation of policy is not
communicated to the RTA officials.
58. Section 147 (4) and (5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 reads as follows:
147. Requirements of policies and limits of liability.
(4) Where a cover note issued by the insurer under the provisions of
this Chapter or the rules made thereunder is not followed by a policy
of insurance within the prescribed time, the insurer shall, within
26
seven days of the expiry of the period of the validity of the cover
note, notify the fact to the registering authority in whose records the
vehicle to which the cover note relates has been registered or to
such other authority as the State Government may prescribe.
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being
in force, an insurer issuing a policy of insurance under this section
shall be liable to indemnify the person or classes of persons
specified in the policy in respect of any liability which the policy
purports to cover in the case of that person or those classes of
persons.
59. Sending of information by Respondent No.5 to RTA officials is not there.
The points relevant for answering the objections of Respondent No.5 Insurance
Company are:
1) No material is placed to indicate that the cheque dishonoured was
issued in respect of the policy Ex.B2 and towards the premium payable for
Ex.B2.
2) The premium mentioned in Ex.B2 is different from the amount
mentioned in the cheque.
3) The person who issued the cheque is different from the person in
whose name the policy is issued.
4) Information relating to cancellation of cheque is much subsequent to the
date of accident.
5) Information relating to the cancellation of policy was not sent to the
RTA.
27
60. In a case between Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Inderjit
Kaur and Others2 while referring to Section 147 (5) in a situation of cheque
issued towards payment of premium was dishonoured, it was held that the
liability of the Insurance Company does not dissolve on the ground of non-
receipt of premium. In this judgment, a case between United India Insurance
Company Limited vs. Ayeb Mohammed & Others3 was referred, where the
cheque was dishonoured, despite the absence of steps taken for cancellation
of cover note, it was found that the insurance would not be liable but such
finding has been overruled, meaning thereby the insurance company is liable.
61. In a case between The United India Insurance Company Limited vs.
Cherukuri Shekar Died and Others4, the Hon‟ble High Court for the State of
Telangana at Hyderabad while referring the Oriental Insurance Company vs.
Inderjit Kaur (2 supra) and another case in between New India Assurance
Company Limited vs. Rula and others5 it was held that the right of the third
party will not be affected, where the policy was in force as on the date of
accident and cancellation has taken place subsequently.
62. In view of the legal and factual position, it is clear that the Respondent
No.5 Insurance Company failed to prove the defence.
2
1997 (10) Supreme 289
3
1991(2) ACJ 650 : 1991 0 Supreme(SC) 190
4
2022 3 ALD 516
5
2000 (2) Supreme 158
28
63. It is also relevant to note that where the Insurance Company failed to
prove that notices served on the insured and RTO. Therefore, it cannot claim
exemption from liability on the ground of dishonor of cheque.
64. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the defence of dishonour of
cheque and cancellation of policy that too after the accident cannot be
appreciated as the defence. Accordingly, the defence of Respondent No.5 as
to dishonor of cheque is fit to be rejected.
65. The next defence of Respondent No.5 insurance company is that when
the subsequent owner has obtained the Insurance from Respondent No.3 /
Sriram General Insurance Company Limited, the policy issued by Respondent
No.5 does not survive and hence the Respondent No.5 is not liable. Ex.A17 is
the Registration Certificate standing in the name of Satyanarayana Peeta, who
is Respondent No.2. Ex.B1 insurance policy is standing in the name of Peeta
Satyanarayana as insured. The period of Insurance covered is from
09.01.2009 to 08.01.2010. Policy Ex.B1 is not in dispute. Premium paid is
Rs.7,466/-. It is a package policy. Violations of conditions of policy are not
alleged by Respondent No.3.
66. The cheque bounce return endorsement Ex.B1 is dated 07.01.2009.
Ex.B4 is containing the certain details, as to cheque number, policy number
issued by whom. The sequence of events as deposit of cheque on 06.01.2009
and intimation of insufficiency of funds on 07.01.2009 and obtaining of policy
under Ex.B1 covering the period from 09.01.2009 to 08.01.201, if seen
29
together an inference can be drawn about knowledge at risk under Ex.B2
policy. When Peeta Satyanarayana / Respondent No.2 obtained the ownership
is the next question. He is not before the Court, remained ex parte. When
Ex.B2 policy it was in force covering the period from 31.12.2008 to 30.12.2009,
where is the need for obtaining a fresh policy from 09.01.2009 to 08.01.2010 is
the next question. The explanation is that the policy was obtained by the
subsequent owner. Peeta Satyanarayana was examined as LW.6 by Police
during investigation, as per the case dairy by Investigating Officer/ RW.1.
He (RW.1) has stated that the particulars of Insurance issued by Respondent
No.5 / Insurance Company are furnished by Peeta Satyanarayana.
67. Respondent No.3 / Insurance Company is not disputing about the
Insurance Policy covered by Ex.B1.
68. In the context of the case and upon examining the sequence of instances
like dishonor of cheque and coverage of policy Ex.B1 from Respondent No.3, it
can be inferred that, there was information among the persons concerned as to
risk in the policy covered by Ex.B2, hence Ex.B1 was obtained.
69. Legally and technically speaking in view of the judgments of the
Supreme Court referred above and in view of the absence of Respondent No.5
informing that the RTA officials about the cancellation and as the cancellation
has taken place subsequent to the date of accident the policy deemed to be in
force as on the date of accident. However, in view of conduct of obtaining
subsequent policy from Respondent No.3 by Respondent No.2 vide Ex.B1, it
30
can be said that Respondent No.3 Insurance Company alone is liable to
indemnify.
70. In view of the issuance of policy by Respondent No.3 and as the same is
being in force and as there is no denial of liability on the ground of violation of
any conditions of policy except for the reason of pre-existing policy issued by
Respondent No.5, Respondent No.3 is liable.
71. The policy Ex.B1 issued by Respondent No.3 was in force. There cannot
be two entitlements and two liabilities. Hence, Respondent No.3 alone is liable.
72. In the light of the discussion made above, point No.2 is answered in
favour the Respondent No.5 / HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company
(Appellant in M.A.C.MA.No.148 of 2016 and MA.C.M.A.No.154 of 2016),
concluding that Respondent No.5 Insurance Company is not liable to pay the
compensation.
Point No.3:
73. It is vehemently argued for both Respondent Nos.3 and 5 that there is no
nexus between the death and the injuries.
74. The learned MACT while addressing the issue Nos.1 to 5 together
considered the income of the deceased at Rs.200/- per day observing that he
will have work for „22‟ days and arrived that the income of the deceased at
Rs.4,400/- per month and Rs.52,800/- per annum. After deducting 1/3rd
towards personal expenditure, taken Rs.40,600/- as his contribution to family.
By applying Multiplier „16‟, awarded compensation under the head of loss of
31
dependency at Rs.6,49,600/-. Towards funeral expenditure at Rs.10,000/-.
Towards medical expenditure at Rs.57,469/-. Towards loss of consortium and
loss of love and affection at Rs.50,000/-. Concluded total entitlement at
Rs.7,67,069/- and rounded it Rs.7,67,000/- but restricted the same to
Rs.2,50,000/- considering the claim of the claimants.
75. Errors committed by the learned MACT:
(i). Failed to consider that claim made by the claimants is not a bar to award
more compensation, if the claimants are otherwise entitled.
(ii). Failed to reframe the issue when considering the claim as a death case.
76. Basically, it is necessary to consider whether there is any convincing
material to connect the death of injured No.1 to the injuries caused in the
accident.
77. Date of accident is 15.01.2009. Evidence of injured No.1 / deceased
was taken on 28.09.2011. Ex.A9-disability certificate is issued by the Medical
Board which is indicating 50% of disability.
78. Ex.A16 is the death report issued by the Alluri Sitarama Raju Academy of
Medical Sciences (ASRAM) indicates that the patient was suffering from CVA
acute inject in RT MCA and cause of death is due to cardiopulmonary arrest.
79. Ex.A13 is the death certificate indicating the death of the deceased / the
injured No.1 on 14.11.2012.
32
80. Ex.A14 is the Family member / Legal heir certificate indicates that the
deceased working as coolie died due to „general death‟ on 14.11.2012. The
Family member certificate was issued to get the financial benefit.
81. PW.3 / Pilla Lavanya, wife of injured No.1 (deceased) deposed that her
husband filed the case for grant of compensation on account of injuries in a
motor vehicle accident. During pendency of case he died due to
cardiopulmonary arrest at ASRAM Hospital. She and her children become
legal heirs from the date of accident. Her husband was suffering with mental
agony due to the accident.
82. It was suggested to PW.3 during cross examination on behalf of
Respondent No.3 that injured No.1 / deceased received the injuries to leg and
they are no way connected to his death. It was also suggested to her that the
claimants are entitled only for loss of estate and treatment costs only.
83. Cross examination done on behalf of Respondent No.5 would show that
Ex.A16 does not show the seal and stamp of the doctor. P.W.3 stated that she
do not know whether after the death of her husband, postmortem was not
conducted.
84. The evidence of PW.2 examined on behalf of the claimants to show that
the injured No.1 admitted at Mahalakshmi Hospital on 17.01.2009. Operation
was conducted on 28.01.2009 and on 04.02.2009, nails were inserted to his
right femur and plating was done to stabilize his right tibial fracture and he was
discharged on 17.01.2009. His implants were removed on 07.03.2011, after
33
his second admission on 06.03.2011, he was discharged on 08.03.2011. The
disability was 50% in nature.
85. P.W.2 was examined before the Commissioner on 10.01.2012 by which
date the claimant was alive. Loss of expectation of life and possibility of
acceleration of death etc. are not spoken by PW.2. There is no other evidence
placed by the claimants to show that the death of claimant is relatable to the
injuries sustained in the accident. The learned MACT has grossly erred in
considering the claim as death claim, mechanically recorded the death of the
deceased and decided the case as it is claim made for compensation for the
death of injured in a motor vehicle accident. It is not even a clear case of the
claimants that the death is due to the accident injuries.
86. The learned MACT‟s while considering the claims basing on the injuries
must examine the nature of injuries and satisfy that there is nexus between the
injuries and the accident likewise while considering the claim basing on the
death, learned MACT‟s shall satisfy and give findings as to nexus between the
accident and the death. There is a clear and categorical suggestion to
witnesses in box that there is no nexus between the death and the injuries
sustained in the accident. Hence, it is found that the findings of the learned
MACT that the claimants are entitled for compensation on the ground of death
of injured No.1 / deceased due to accident cannot be approved.
87. The next point remains for consideration is on the death of the injured
whether the cause of action would survive. The legal representatives were
34
added. Therefore, the survival of cause of action in favour of legal
representatives for certain reliefs when the injured claimant dies during the
pendency of petition filed by him for compensation is settled.
Precedential guidance as to survival of cause of action in favour of legal
representatives of injured claimants, when the injured claimants dies
during the pendency of claim petition:
88. A reference to the precedential guidance covered by Melepurath
Sankunni Ezhuthassain vs. Thekkittil Gopalan Kutty Nair6, M. Veerappa
vs. Evelon Sequeira and others7, Umed Chand Golcha vs. Dayaram and
others8, Kongara Narayanamma vs. Uppala Chinna Simhachalam9, United
India Insurance Company Limited vs. G. Kishen Rao and others10 and also
Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, Order XXII Rule 1& 3 of the
C.P.C. and Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act would helpful to arrive at
such conclusion that where the injured claimants died during the pendency of
an application filed for compensation for the injuries sustained by him, maxim
“Actio personalis moritur cum persona” cannot be invoked and the claim can be
restricted to loss of estate, transportation, medical expenses, transportation
charges, extra nourishment and expenditure for attendants etc.
6
1986 AIR 411 ; 1986 (1) SCC 118
7
AIR 1988 SC 506
8
2001 ACJ 966
9
1975 ACJ 448(AP)
10
2004 (1) ALD 626; II(2004) ACC 249
35
Precedential guidance for awarding compensation in a claim basing on
injuries:
89(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.11, 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 reasonable 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.12,
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
_________
89(ii). A reference to parameters for quantifying the compensation under
various heads addressed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court is found necessary, to
11
2025 AIAR (Civil) 1
12
2020 (04) SCC 413
36have standard base in the process of quantifying the compensation, to which
the claimant is entitled.
89(iii) In Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another13 vide para No.19, the
Hon‟ble Apex Court summarized principles to be followed in the process of
quantifying the compensation after referring to socio economic and practical
aspects from which, the claimants come and the practical difficulties, the
parties may face in the process of getting disability assessed and getting all
certificates from either the Doctors, who treated, or from the medical boards
etc., it is observed that :-
“…We may now summarise the principles discussed above :
(i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of
earning capacity.
(ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a
person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put
it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the
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…”
13
2011 (1) SCC 343
37
89(iv). In Sidram vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr14
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.
89(v). In Sidram‘s case, reference is made to a case in R.D. Hattangadi
V. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd15. From the observations therein it can be
understood that while fixing amount of compensation in cases of accident, it
involves some guess work, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of
sympathy linked with the nature of the disability caused. But, all these elements
have to be viewed with objective standards. In assessing damages, the Court
must exclude all considerations of matter which rest in awarding speculation or
fancy, though conjecture to some extent is inevitable.
90. In the present case the injured No.1 survived for around three years from
the date of accident till death and he suffered 50% disability. He has taken
treatment for the injuries. Medical expenditure, incurred expenditure for
transportation, attendant charges etc. and the entitlement towards loss of
income for survival period will become the estate. The entitlement for
compensation under other heads like medical expenditure etc. will follow.
14
2023 (3) SCC 439
15
1995 (1) SCC 551
38
91. The entitlement for compensation under the heads of pain and suffering
etc. are out of scope. It is relevant to note that, the documents Ex.A6 bunch of
medical bills, medical prescriptions are 14 in number. Ex.A7 bunch of medical
bills 8 in number for Rs.57,467/-. Disability certificate Ex.A9 also required to be
taken into consideration.
92. The learned MACT has taken the income of the injured No.1 at Rs.200/-
per day. Age of the claimant is around 30 years. Future prospects should
have been added. The income claimed is at Rs.10,000/- though the same is
found is excessive, income at around Rs.6,000/- per month with possibility of
around 25% to 30% in growth towards future prospects if taken into
consideration, the income comes to Rs.7,500/- per month including of future
prospects. Then the annual income comes to Rs.90,000/-. Disability is around
50%. Then for a year, the loss of income comes around Rs.45,000/-. The
injured No.1 survived for three years. Therefore, around Rs.1,50,000/- towards
loss of income due to disability can be accepted and the same would become
the estate of the deceased. Loss of income during the period of treatment can
be awarded for a period of four months. Therefore, loss of income during the
period of treatment and rest comes to Rs.30,000/-. Towards medical
expenditure, bills are standing for Rs.57,469/-. Hence, under medical
expenditure Rs.60,000/- can be awarded. Towards attendant charges,
transportation and extra nourishment Rs.25,000/- can be awarded as
compensation under each head.
39
93. In the light of precedential guidance and in view of the reasons and
evidence referred above, the entitlement of the claimants for reasonable
compensation in comparison to compensation awarded by the learned MACT
in M.V.O.P.No.399 of 2009 is as follows:
S.No. Head Granted by the MACT Fixed by this
Appellate Court
1. Loss of earnings / - Rs.30,000/-
income during the
period of treatment
and rest
2. Medicines and Rs.57,469/- Rs.60,000/-
Medical Treatment
3. a)Extra Nourishment - Rs.25,000/-
b)Attendant Charges - Rs.25,000/
c)Transportation - Rs.25,000/-
4. Loss of earning Rs.50,000/- Rs.1,50,000/-
capacity / income (Awarded towards
due to permanent consortium)
disability
5. Funeral expenses Rs.10,000/- -
6. Loss of dependency Rs.6,49,600/- -
Total: Rs.7,67,069/- Rs.3,15,000/-
(rounded to
Rs.7,67,000/-)
However,
Rs.2,50,000/-
alone is granted
94. In view of the discussion made above, the entitlement of claimants for
compensation is found at Rs.3,15,000/- and the point framed is answered
accordingly.
40
Point No.4:
95. The claimant as PW.1 deposed that he has suffered the injuries
mentioned in wound certificate. Due to the accident he has suffered the
following injures:
1) A lacerated wound of 3x2x1 under low lip, bleeding present, red in
colour
2) A lacerated wound of 4x3x2 cm at right side knee, bleeding
present, red in colour.
3) an abrasion of 4×2 cm fore head extra aspect bleeding present red
in colour.
4) A contusion of 6×4 cm and right side thigh tenderness present,
contusion present, red in colour, fracture of right leg femur.
5) Inside injury to the abdomen.
Injuries Nos.4 & 5 are grievous.
96. He has further stated about the treatment undergone and operation
conducted to abdomen spending of Rs.1,50,000/- and taking the treatment
continuously. He was doing masonry work and claimed that he was earning
Rs.6,000/- per month. He has also added that he has to undergo another
operation for removal of implants and he has spent Rs.30,000/-.
97. The evidence of PW.2/ Dr. A.V.R. Mohan, who treated the claimant, is
placed. Summary of evidence is as follows:
(i) Injured No.2 was admitted in hospital on 17.01.2009.
(ii) There was a fracture of Right femur.
(iii) Surgery was conducted on 17.01.2009.
41
(iv) The claimant was discharged on 02.02.2009.
(v) The claimant was examined by medical board including PW.2 and
disability was assessed at 40%.
(vi) Further operation was conducted on 07.03.2011 because of fracture
and disability.
(vii) Ex.A2 is the wound certificate. Ex.A7 is the bunch of medical
prescriptions, Ex.A8 is the bunch of medical bills, Ex.A9 is the two
discharge summaries, Ex.A10 is the disability certificate issued by the
District Medical Board, Eluru.
98. The disability of the body is different from the limb. The disability is
related to right lower limb alone. Ex.A10 is not reflecting that disability is
permanent in nature. He has denied the suggestion that unless the disability is
for the entire body and more than 50%, it cannot become permanent disability.
Total loss of income for five months can be believed in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
99. Disability certificate Ex.A10 is indicating 40% disability. Medical bills
covered by Ex.A8 are standing for Rs.24,180/-. Though, the disability is stated
at 40% for the lower limb, in view of the masonry work in which the claimant /
injured No.2 is engaged, the disability can be safely accepted at 30%. In view
of the age of the claimant / the injured No.2, his income can be safely taken at
Rs.6,000/- per month inclusive of future prospects considering the year of
accident and social economic circumstances of the place from which the
42
claimant hails from. 30% of the same comes to Rs.1,800/- per month and
Rs.21,600/- per annum. For the age group of „20-25‟ years under which the
claimant falls, the multiplier applicable is „18‟, when the same is applied, the
entitlement of the claimant for compensation comes to Rs.3,88,800/- under the
head of loss of income due to permanent disability. Under the medical
expenditure, the claimant is entitled for Rs.30,000/-. Likewise the entitlement of
claimant under various heads in terms of authorities mentioned above in
comparison to the compensation awarded by the learned MACT in
M.V.O.P.No.400 of 2009 is as follows:
S.No. Head Granted by the Fixed by this
MACT Appellate Court
1. Loss of earning Rs.25,000/- Rs.3,88,800/-
capacity due to
permanent
disability
2. Medical expenses Rs.24,180/- Rs.30,000/-
3. Pain and suffering Rs.10,000/- Rs.50,000/-
4. Loss of earnings Rs.30,000/- Rs.30,000/-
during treatment
5. a)Extra Rs.5,000/- Rs.20,000/-
Nourishment
b) Transportation Rs.20,000/-
c)Attendant Rs.15,000/-
Charges
6. Conveyance and Rs.25,000/-
special diet
Total: Rs.94,180/- Rs.5,78,800/-
43
100. In view of the discussion made above, the entitlement of claimant for
compensation is found at Rs.5,78,800/- and the point framed is answered
accordingly.
Precedential guidance as to awarding of just and reasonable
compensation and awarding of more compensation than what is claimed
by the claimants:
Just Compensation:
101. In Rajesh and others vs. Rajbir Singh and others16, the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court in para Nos.10 and 11 made relevant observations, they are as
follows:
10. Whether the Tribunal is competent to award compensation in
excess of what is claimed in the application under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is another issue arising for consideration in
this case. At para 10 of Nagappa case [Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh,
(2003) 2 SCC 274 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 523 : AIR 2003 SC 674] , it was
held as follows: (SCC p. 280)
“10. Thereafter, Section 168 empowers the Claims Tribunal to
„make an award determining the amount of compensation which
appears to it to be just‟. Therefore, the only requirement for
determining the compensation is that it must be „just‟. There is no
other limitation or restriction on its power for awarding just
compensation.”
The principle was followed in the later decisions in Oriental Insurance
Co. Ltd. v. Mohd. Nasir [(2009) 6 SCC 280 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 877 :
(2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 987] and in Ningamma v. United India Insurance
Co. Ltd. [(2009) 13 SCC 710 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 241 : (2010) 1 SCC
(Cri) 1213]
11. Underlying principle discussed in the above decisions is with
regard to the duty of the court to fix a just compensation and it has
now become settled law that the court should not succumb to niceties
or technicalities, in such matters. Attempt of the court should be to
equate, as far as possible, the misery on account of the accident with16
(2013) 9 SCC 54
44the compensation so that the injured/the dependants should not face
the vagaries of life on account of the discontinuance of the income
earned by the victim.
Granting of more compensation than what claimed, if the claimants are
otherwise entitled:-
102. The legal position with regard to awarding more compensation than what
claimed has been considered and settled by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court
holding that there is no bar for awarding more compensation than what is
claimed. For the said preposition of law, this Court finds it proper to refer the
following observations of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court made in:
(1) Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and Others17, 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.18 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.”
17
(2003) 2 SCC 274
18
2020 (04) SCC 413
45
(3) Ramla and Others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and
Others19 at para 5 of the judgment, as follows:-
“5. Though the claimants had claimed a total compensation of Rs.25,00,000
in their claim petition filed before the Tribunal, we feel that the
compensation which the claimants are entitled to is higher than the same as
mentioned supra. There is no restriction that the Court cannot award
compensation exceeding the claimed amount, since the function of the
Tribunal or Court under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is to
award “just compensation”. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial and
welfare legislation. A “just compensation” is one which is reasonable on the
basis of evidence produced on record. It cannot be said to have become
time-barred. Further, there is no need for a new cause of action to claim an
enhanced amount. The courts are duty-bound to award just compensation.”
Point No.5:
103. In view of the discussion made above and conclusions drawn under point
Nos.1 to 4, Respondent No.1 to 3 are found jointly and severally liable and
Respondent Nos.4 and 5 are not liable.
XV. Conclusion:
Point Nos.6 to 8:
104. For the aforesaid reasons and in view of the conclusions under the point
Nos.1 to 5, point Nos.6 to 8 are answered as follows:
19
(2019) 2 SCC 192
46In the result,
(i) M.A.C.M.A.No.148 of 2016 is allowed and the impugned order and
decree dated 26.05.2015 passed by the learned MACT in
M.V.O.P.No.399 of 2009 is dismissed against Respondent Nos.4 and 5.
(ii) Claimant Nos.2 to 4 in M.V.O.P.No.399 of 2009 are entitled for
compensation of Rs.3,15,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per
annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit or realization and
the compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per
annum awarded by the learned MACT stands enhanced accordingly.
(iii) Claimant Nos.2 to 4 in M.V.O.P.No.399 of 2009 are entitled to equal
shares and withdraw their respective shares of compensation amount at
once on deposit.
(iv) M.A.C.M.A.No.154 of 2016 is allowed and the impugned order and
decree dated 26.05.2015 passed by the learned MACT in
M.V.O.P.No.400 of 2009 is dismissed against Respondent Nos.4 and 5.
(v) M.A.C.M.A.No.2501 of 2015 is allowed.
(vi) Claimant in M.V.O.P.No.400 of 2009 is entitled for compensation of
Rs.5,78,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of
petition to till the date of deposit or realization and the compensation of
Rs.94,180/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum awarded by the
learned MACT stands enhanced accordingly.
47
(vii) Claimant in M.V.O.P.No.400 of 2009 is entitled to withdraw the entire
amount at once on deposit.
(viii) Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable. However,
Respondent No.3 is liable to deposit the compensation in view of the
Insurance Policy in both the cases i.e. M.V.O.P.Nos.399 and 400 of
2009.
(ix) No costs in the appeals.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these appeals shall
stand closed.
____________________________
A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J
Date:20.06.2025
Knr
48
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2501 of 2015; 148 and 154 of 2016
20th June, 2025
Knr
[ad_1]
Source link