Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Gudla Hymavathidied Per Lrs 5 Others vs Byri Venkata Sivaprasad 2 Others on 10 March, 2025
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
M.A.C.M.A.No.2952 of 2016
JUDGMENT:
1. Heard both sides.
2. This appeal is filed against the award and decree dated 03.09.2013
passed in M.V.O.P.No.155 of 2008 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-
District Judge, Srikakulam (for short “the MACT”).
3. Claimants before the learned MACT are the appellants herein. One Gudla
Hymavathi was a original claimant before the MACT.
4. The claim petition was filed, invoking Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 read with Rule 455 of the A.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, by the original
claimant (hereinafter referred to as “claimant No.1”) claiming a compensation of
Rs.2,27,200/- for the injuries suffered by her in a motor vehicle accident that
occurred on 08.01.2007. During the pendency of proceedings before the learned
MACT, she died, and her Legal Representatives were added as Claimant Nos.2
to 6 and they continued the proceedings.
5. Learned MACT awarded a compensation of Rs.40,300/- as against the
claim made for Rs.2,27,200/- apportioned the compensation amount awarded
equally among claimant Nos.2 to 6. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants filed
the present appeal.
2
Case of claimants in brief:
6. On the fateful day i.e.08.1.2007, when the claimant No.1 was proceeding
to photo studio at Palakonda Road, Srikakulam, a Hero Honda Splender
Motorcycle bearing No.AP35D-6485 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending
vehicle”) driven by Respondent No.1 came in a rash and negligent manner and
dashed her, whereby she sustained multiple injuries, including fracture. On a
complaint, a case in Crime No.4 of 2007 was registered against the rider of the
motorcycle and subsequently he was charge sheeted.
(i) Claimant No.1 has undergone operation at Government Headquarter’s
Hospital and took treatment. She became disabled and the District Medical
Board assessed her disability at 40%.
(ii). Claimant No.1 was earning Rs.3,000/- per month by attending petty kirana
business and running a tea stall. But, due to the accident, she became
permanently disabled, and her disability is assessed at 40% by the District
Medical Board. The offending vehicle is owned by Respondent No.2 and insured
with Respondent No.3. Negligence of Respondent No.1 was the cause of
accident. Therefore, all the Respondents are liable to pay the compensation,
and the valid and effective insurance policy was in force on the date of the
accident.
3
7. Respondent No.1 filed counter. Respondent No.2 remained ex-parte.
Respondent No.3 insurance company contested the case.
Case of Respondent No.1:
8. There was no negligence on the part of Respondent No.1. Occupation,
income and disability of claimant No.1 pleaded are incorrect and claimant No.1 is
not liable to pay any compensation. In the event of any liability, Respondent No.3
is accountable.
Case of Respondent No.3:
9. The claimant shall prove the pleaded accident, negligence of the
motorcyclist, injuries suffered by the claimant, treatment undergone, age,
occupation, income, disability and driving licence particulars of the driver of the
motorcycle with cogent evidence and in any event the quantum of compensation
claimed is excessive.
10. On the strength of pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial by
the learned MACT are:
i) Whether the injured Gudla Hymavathi sustained injuries in the Motor
Vehicle accident that took place on 08.01.2007 at about 1.45 PM on
Palakonda Road in Srikakulam town and District? If so, whether the
4accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving the Hero Honda
splendor motorcycle bearing No.AP35D 6485 by its driver?
ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim any compensation for the
injuries sustained by the injured Gudla Hymavathi in the accident? If so, to
what amount and from whom?
iii) To what relief?
11. Evidence before the learned MACT:
Description Remarks
Oral evidence P.W.1: Gudla Srinivasa Rao Son of the
deceased
P.W.2: Boosala Ramanamma Eyewitness to the
accident
P.W.3: Dr.M.V.Laxman Kumar Doctor who attend
claimant No.1.
Documentary Ex.A1: Certified copy of F.I.R. in
evidence Crime No.4 of 2007 of Srikakulam II
Town Police Station.
Ex.A2: Certified copy of charge
sheet in C.C.No.275 of 2007 on the
file of Judicial Magistrate of I Class,
Srikakulam. On behalf of the
Ex.A3: Certified copy of wound petitioner
certificate of P.1.
Ex.A4: Disability Certificate dated
07.12.2007.
Ex.A5 to A33: Record(s) relating
to medical treatment including
medical bills.
Ex.B1: Copy of policy On behalf of
No.150402/31/05/01/00004099. Respondents.
5
Findings of the learned MACT:
12(i). Evidence of PW.2 is clear and categorical as to her presence,
accident and negligence of the motorcyclist. The evidence of PW2-eye witness
and did not shake despite cross examination, charge sheet was filed against the
motorcyclist, Respondent No.1 under Ex.A2. Evidence of P.W.2 coupled with
Police record like Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 are sufficient to believe the negligence of the
motorcyclist and about claimant No.1 sustained injuries due to accident.
12(ii). With regard to liability, the learned MACT found that claimant No.1
was driver of the driver of the offending vehicle and the same is not in dispute.
Ownership of Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.3 being insurer are also not
in dispute, in view of Ex.B1 insurance policy. Therefore all the Respondents are
liable.
12(iii). With regard to entitlement of claimant Nos.2to 6 for compensation,
the learned MACT observed that claimant No.1 died on 12.05.2009, whereas, the
date of the accident is 08.01.2007. The statement of PW.1 that the deceased
took treatment is not sufficient to believe the actual cause of death, more
particularly attributable to the accident. There is no evidence as to the treatment
taken immediately before the death of the deceased. There is a considerable gap
between the accident and death. So, the nexus between the death and the
injuries suffered due to accident is not established.
6
12(iv). The survival of cause of action in favour of the legal representatives
is limited to loss of estate, medical expenditure, attendant and transport charges
etc. But, the same does not extend to non-pecuniary damages like pain and
suffering, loss of amenities of life, disfigurement etc.
12(v). After making reference to the precedential guidance covered by
Melepurath Sankunni Ezhuthassain vs. Thekkittil Gopalan Kutty Nair 1,
M. Veerappa vs. Evelon Sequeira and others2, Umed Chand Golcha vs.
Dayaram and others3, Kongara Narayanamma vs. Uppala Chinna
Simhachalam4, United India Insurance Company Ltd., Sangareddy vs.
G. Kishan Rao and others5 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.
Learned MACT found that the claim can be restricted to only to loss of estate,
transportation, medical expenses, transportation charges, extra nourishment and
expenditure for attendants etc. only. Accordingly, concluded the entitlement of
claimants for compensation under the head of medical expenses at Rs.14,500/-,
attendant charges at Rs.1800/-, transportation charges at Rs.5000/- loss of
earning capacity for the survival period for more than two years at Rs.10,000/-
1
1986 AIR 411 ; 1986 (1) SCC 118
2
AIR 1988 SC 506
3
2001 ACJ 966
4
1975 ACJ 448(AP)
5
2004 (1) ALD 626
7and loss of past income at Rs.9,000/- and all in total entitled to compensation at
Rs.40,300/-[Rs.9,000/-+Rs.10,000/-+Rs.14,500/-+Rs.1800/-+Rs.5,000/-].
Arguments in the appeal:-
For Appellants:
13(i). The learned MACT ought to have awarded Rs.2,27,000/- i.e. entire
amount claimed. 40%disability stated in the disability certificate is ignored by the
learned MACT. The learned MACT ought to have considered all the heads such
as medical expenses, attendant charges, loss of earning till death, pain and
suffering and loss of amenities etc. The case involves a lot of guesswork, but the
technical approach of the learned MACT in respect of social welfare legislation
has exposed the claimants to inexplicable sufferings. Hence, they are entitled
for more compensation than what claimed.
For Respondent’s Insurance Company:
13(ii). It is argued for the Respondent Insurance Company that the learned
MACT has properly addressed all the points and the quantum of compensation
awarded does not require any interference and the learned MACT ought to have
considered that the cause of action does not survive and ought to have
dismissed the petition.
8
14. Perused the record. Thoughtful consideration given to the
arguments advanced by both sides.
15. From the factual matrix and the arguments as well as the context of
the case, the following aspects are clear:
(i). There is no cross appeal etc. by the Insurance Company.
Therefore, the liability, negligence etc. are not in dispute.
(ii). Since the appeal is filed by the claimants questioning just and
adequate nature of compensation, entitlement of claimant Nos.2 to 6 for
compensation in respect of injuries etc. suffered by claimant No.1 and
quantification thereof require determination.
16. The points that arise for determination in this appeal are:
(1) Whether the claimant Nos.2 to 6 are entitled for any
compensation, if so, under what heads and to what quantum?
(2) What is the result of the appeal?
Point No.1:
Precedential guidance as to quantum of compensation:
17(i). The legal position as to powers of the Appellate Court particularly
while dealing with an appeal in terms of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, where the award passed by the learned MACT under challenge at the
instance of the Insurance Company (Respondents) and bar or prohibition if any
9to enhance the quantum of compensation and awarding just and reasonable
compensation, even in the absence of any appeal or cross objections was
considered by the Division Bench of this Court in a case between National
Insurance Company Limited vs. E. Suseelamma and others6 in M.A.C.M.A.
No.945 of 2013, while answering point No.3 framed therein vide, para 50 of the
judgment, which reads as follows:
50.In our considered view, the claimant/respondents are entitled for just
compensation and if on the face of the award or even in the light of the
evidence on record, and keeping in view the settled legal position
regarding the claimants being entitled to just compensation and it also
being the statutory duty of the Court/Tribunal to award just
compensation, this Court in the exercise of the appellate powers can
enhance the amount of compensation even in the absence of appeal or
cross-objection by the claimants.
17(ii). 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.7, arising out of SLP(c).No.10996 of 2018 on
11.12.2024, considered the scope and powers of the Tribunal in awarding just
and compensation within the meaning of Act, after marshaling entire case law,
more particularly with reference to the earlier observations of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court made in Kajal V. Jagadish Chand and Ors.8, referred to various
6
2023 SCC Online AP 1725
7
2025 AIAR (Civil) 1
8
2020 (04) SCC 413
10
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
_________
17(iii). A reference to parameters for quantifying the compensation under
various heads addressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court is found necessary, to have
standard base in the process of quantifying the compensation, to which the
claimant is entitled.
17(iv). Hon’ble Apex Court in Yadava Kumar Vs. Divisional Manager,
National Insurance Company Limited and Anr.,9 vide para No.10, by referring
to Sunil Kumar Vs. Ram Singh Gaud10, as to application of multiplier method in
case of injuries while calculating loss of future earnings, in para No16 referring to
Hardeo Kaur Vs. Rajasthan State Transport Corporation11, as to fixing of
9
2010(10)SCC 341
10
2007 (14) SCC 61
11
1992(2) SCC 567
11
quantum of compensation with liberal approach, valuing the life and limb of
individual in generous scale in para No.17 observed that :-
“The High Court and the Tribunal must realize that there is a distinction between
compensation and damage. The expression compensation may include a claim for
damage but compensation is more comprehensive. Normally damages are given for
an injury which is suffered, whereas compensation stands on a slightly higher footing.
It is given for the atonement of injury caused and the intention behind grant of
compensation is to put back the injured party as far as possible in the same position,
as if the injury has not taken place, by way of grant of pecuniary relief. Thus, in the
matter of computation of compensation, the approach will be slightly more broad
based than what is done in the matter of assessment of damages. At the same time it
is true that there cannot be any rigid or mathematical precision in the matter of
determination of compensation.”
17(v). In Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another12 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 of12
2011 (1) SCC 343
12permanent 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…”
17(vi). In Sidram vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr.13
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.
18. In Sidram‘s case, reference is made to a case in R.D. Hattangadi
V. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd.14 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
13
2023 (3) SCC 439
14
1995 (1) SCC 551
13
must exclude all considerations of matter which rest in awarding speculation or
fancy, though conjecture to some extent is inevitable.
19. The purpose of any system of justice is to provide remedies to the
victims and to restore the parties involved in litigation to their original positions to
the extent possible. Therefore, the concerns of all stakeholders connected to the
process of redress and reparation should focus on providing adequate
compensation. The development and culture of any society will be seen from
how it treats its criminals and victims. The evolution of legal system from
retribution to restoration is clear in this century. If the aim of the law is to restore
what is lost and to undo the wrong, then providing compensation should be
considered as important as punishing or reforming the wrongdoer. With this
philosophy of law in mind, the claims for compensation from victims of any crime
or tort require careful consideration and appreciation.
20. Depending on the context of the case, the quantum and the heads
under which compensation can be awarded may vary. But, broadly, the heads
under which the compensation is awarded in personal injuries are :
A) Pecuniary damages (Special Damages) :
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines,
transportation, nourishing food and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have
made had he not been injured, comprising:
14
(a) Loss of earnings during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
(B) Non-pecuniary damages (General damages) :
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequences of the
injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities.
(vi) Loss of expectation of life.
Analysis of evidence:
21(i). Claimant Nos.2 to 6 are children of the deceased. Relationship of
claimant Nos.2 to 6 with the deceased is not in dispute. P.W.1 is claimant No.2
deposed about relationship of himself and other claimants with the deceased.
Claimant Nos.2 and 3 are said to be the sons and claimant Nos.4 to 6 are said
to be daughters of claimant No1. Claimant No.1 used to run petty kirana
business and tea bunk near FCI Godown, Silagam Singuvalasa Village and
earning Rs.3,000/- per month. The accident was followed by the treatment at
hospital at Srikakulam as inpatient and claimant No.1 suffered 40% disability, she
was restricted to house and unable to attend the business. Thus, there is loss of
income etc. for herself and the family. P.W.2 stated about both negligence of
the driver of the offending vehicle and occupation of claimant No.1
21(ii). P.W.3 doctor stated that on 07.12.2007 he has issued disability
certificate to claimant No.1 assessing disability at 40%. During cross
examination of PW.3, he has denied the suggestion that disability on her higher
15side and he has also denied the suggestion that bills are created. Case sheet is
indicating the admission of claimant No.1 in hospital on 08.01.2007 and date of
discharge on 19.01.2007 details of the treatment are also mentioned. It is
relevant to note that the discharge was on the request of the patient and her
attendants and that hospital was not responsible if anything happens. However it
appears that the treatment was taken subsequently at Srikakulam. Disability
certificate Ex.A4 is indicating particulars and disability.
21(iii). Medical bills covered by Ex.A5-A31 bunch 27 Nos. are placed and
the total of which is Rs.14,468/- as per the observations in para No.25 of the
judgment for the same the learned MACT has awarded Rs.14,500/- towards
medical expenses. However, the same is rounded to Rs.15,000/-.
21(iv). As per Ex.A3 wound certificate, there are two injuries. Injury No.1 is
grievous in nature, whereas injury No.2 is simple in nature. The injuries
sustained in the accident contributing for death of claimant No.1 is not
established. The gap between the date of death and the date of accident is more
than two years. As rightly observed by the learned MACT, continuation of
treatment from the date of accident and the treatment if any taken just preceding
the death indicating the proximity between the accident injuries and the death is
not placed on record.
16
21(v). Postmartem certificate or any evidence indicating the cause for
death being attributable to the injuries sustained in the accident is not placed on
record. Therefore, claimant Nos.2 to 6 are not entitled for compensation under
the heads of loss of dependency etc. Even otherwise claimant No.2 and 3 are
major sons and claimant Nos.4 to 6 are married daughters, their entitlement is
only to the extent of loss of estate, medical expenditure etc. incurred for the
purposes of treatment and what could have been the compensation claimant
No.1 entitled for the period of her survival from the date of accident till her death.
22. The date of accident is 08.01.2007. During the pendency of the
petition, claimant No.1 died on 12.05.2009. Legal Representatives are added
pursuant to the orders in I.A.Nos.145 and 146 of 2011, dated 17.02.2011 passed
by the learned MACT. Therefore, the survival of claimant for around 2 years,
four months after the accident can be believed.
23. The contention of the appellants that they are entitled for
compensation under the heads of pain and suffering, loss of amenities, extra
nourishment etc. Non-pecuniary damages is not acceptable. However, the
compensation awarded by the learned MACT requires some enhancement in
respect of the heads under medical expenditure, transport charges, loss of
income for the survival period of around two year, total loss of income during the
17period of treatment which could be the estate of deceased to which the claimant
Nos.2 to 6 are entitled.
24. The disability is spoken by the Doctor at 40% while calculating the
loss of income learned MACT has awarded Rs.9,000/- for three months this
suggest that the income is accepted at Rs.3,000/- per month. From the evidence
on record, the total loss of income to claimant No.1 can be believed for atleast six
months whereby the loss of income during the period of treatment etc. can be
considered at Rs.18,000/- instead of Rs.9,000/- awarded by learned MACT. 40%
of the income at the rate of Rs.3000/- per month comes to Rs.1,200/- per month
i.e.Rs.14,400/- per annum. She survived for two years four months. For 22
months excluding bed rest for six months entitlement comes to around
Rs.27,000/- and the same can be considered as loss of estate. The
compensation amount under the head of attendant charges required to be
enhanced to Rs.20,000/- considering the socio economic circumstances etc.
Under transportation charges, the compensation at Rs.10,000/- is found just and
reasonable. Under other heads like pain and suffering etc., no amount can be
awarded under the compensation as rightly held by the learned MACT.
25. In the light of precedential guidance and in view of the reasons and
evidence referred above, the entitlement of the claimants found by the learned
18MACT and just and reasonable compensation to the claimants are entitled is as
follows:
S.No. Head Granted by MACT Granted by this
Appellate Court
1. a)Pain and Nil Nil
suffering
b) Fractures
&grievous
injuries
2. Simple injuries Nil
3. Medical Rs.14,500/- Rs.15,000/-
Expenditure
4. Future medical Nil Nil
expenditure
5. a)Extra Nil Nil
Nourishment
b)Attendant Rs.1,800/- Rs.20,000/-
Charges
c)Transportation Rs.10,000/-
charges and Rs.5,000/-
special diet
6. Loss of Nil Nil
earnings during
treatment etc.
7. Permanent Rs.10,000/- Rs.27,000/-
disability and
Loss of earning
capacity for
balance life
8. Loss of income Rs.9,000/- Rs.18,000/-
during bed rest
period
9. Loss of Nil Nil
amenities
10. Loss of Nil Nil
expectation of
life.
Total: Rs.40,300/- Rs.90,000/-
26. For the reasons stated above, Point No.1 is answered in favour of
the claimants / appellants concluding that they are entitled for compensation of
19Rs.90,000/-. Hence, compensation awarded by the learned MACT require
enhancement to Rs.90,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Point
No.1 is answered accordingly.
Point No.2:
27. For the aforesaid reasons and in view of the findings of point No.1,
Point No.2 is answered as follows:
(i). In the result, the appeal is allowed-in-part. The compensation is
enhanced to Rs.90,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
(ii) The apportionment made by the learned MACT equally, among all
the claimants is confirmed.
(iii) The claimants are entitled to withdraw the compensation amount at
once of deposit.
As Sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand
closed.
____________________________
A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J
10th March, 2025
Knr
20
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
M.A.C.M.A No.2952 of 2016
10th March, 2025
Knr
