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