Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Jellipalli Venkata Rao, vs Mohapathi Lakshmaiah, on 6 March, 2025
1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
M.A.C.M.A.No.2908 of 2016
JUDGMENT:
The claimant in M.V.O.P.No.160 of 2012 on the file of learned Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal-I Additional District Judge, Ongole (for short
“MACT”) is before this Court, filed the present appeal invoking Section 173 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the M.V. Act“), feeling dissatisfied with
the compensation of Rs.1,69,473/- with interest @ 6% per annum awarded to
him as against his claim made for Rs.5,00,000/- under the impugned award
and decree dated 26.07.2013, contending that the learned MACT failed in
properly considering the oral and documentary evidence placed by him in
proper perspective.
2. As per the observations in the impugned award and decree, all the
respondents remained ex parte. Respondent No.1 is the driver of a car
bearing No.AP 03 AJ 4517 (hereinafter referred to as “offending vehicle”).
Respondent No.2 is the owner and respondent No.3 is the Insurance
Company, with which the vehicle was insured.
3. In this appeal, for 3rd respondent, appearance is made by the counsels.
4. Heard Advocate Ms.Sanisetty Soumya representing Sri Sanisetty
Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for the appellant and Advocate Sri
2
M.S.Bhanu Prasad Rao representing Sri V.Hemanth Kumar, learned Standing
Counsel for the Insurance Company.
5. For the sake of convenience, parties will be hereinafter referred to as
claimant and respondents as and how they are arrayed in the impugned order.
Case of the claimant in brief:
6. On 28.09.2011, when the claimant was present in front of Nimra
Engineering College, on NH-5 road, for travelling to Ongole and waiting for an
auto, the crime vehicle came in a rash and negligent manner driven by the 1 st
respondent, dashed the claimant causing multiple injuries. Immediately after
the accident, the claimant was shifted to RIMS Hospital, Ongole, from there to
Suraksha Hospital at Vijayawada, where operation was conducted and two
surgeries were done. Subsequently, he was referred to Akruthi Surgery
center and plastic surgery was done there. In all, the claimant incurred
expenditure of Rs.1,70,000/- towards treatment, Rs.25,000/- towards
transportation, suffering disability apart from mental agony, loss of income etc.
Hence, he is entitled for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. Further, it is also
claimed that the claimant was aged about 34 years, lorry driver by profession,
used to get a salary of Rs.15,000/- per month, the accident occurred due to
rash and negligent driving of crime vehicle by the 1st respondent and the same
was owned by the 2nd respondent and insured with the 3rd respondent.
Hence, all the respondents are liable to pay the compensation.
3
7. It can be seen from the record, no counter is filed for the respondents
and they remained ex parte. No cross-examination is done on the witnesses
examined for the claimant.
Findings of the learned MACT:
8. The learned MACT formulated the following points for consideration:
1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in a road accident which
took place on 28.09.2011 at 11.15 A.M. during the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the Car bearing No.AP 03 AJ 4517
by its driver?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as prayed for? If
so, to what amount and against whom?
3. To what relief the petitioner is entitled?
9. Relying on the evidence of claimant as P.W.1, Ex.A1-copy of FIR,
Ex.A2-certified copy of charge sheet, Ex.A3-wound certificate, learned MACT
believed the occurrence of accident, negligence of the driver of the offending
vehicle, observing that there is no rebuttal evidence from the respondents
side, accordingly concluded that the accident occurred due to negligent driving
of the offending vehicle by its driver. With regard to entitlement and
quantification of compensation covered by point No.2, the learned MACT
observed that the evidence of the petitioner shows that he sustained multiple
injuries and recitals of Ex.A3-wound certificate show that the claimant
4
sustained grievous injuries and medical bills covered by Ex.A8 are for
Rs.1,19,473/-, accordingly, the claimant is entitled for Rs.10,000/- towards
non-pecuniary damages, Rs.25,000/- towards grievous injury and Rs.15,000/-
towards pain and suffering, in total Rs.1,69,473/-.
10. Learned counsel for the claimant submitted that there is no evidence
contradicting the stand of the claimant, when the evidence of claimant is clear
that he has spent Rs.1,70,000/- towards medical expenses and undergone
surgery and when there is evidence of the Doctor-P.W.2, as to conducting
surgery, scaling down of medical expenditure and accepting only
Rs.1,19,473/- only by the learned MACT is incorrect and the learned MACT
should have awarded more compensation than what claimed by the
petitioner/claimant in the context of the case.
11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company
submitted that the claim already awarded itself is on high side and that there
are no grounds to enhance the quantum.
12. Perused the record.
13. Thoughtful consideration is given to the arguments advanced by both
sides.
14. In view of absence of counter, cross-examination and rebuttal evidence
from the Insurance Company, accident, negligence of the driver of the
5
offending vehicle, liability of the Insurance Company can be considered as out
of dispute, particularly in the context of evidence of claimant as P.W.1 being
the injured and eye-witness. Further, the crime record vide FIR indicating the
1st respondent as driver of the offending vehicle, Ex.A1-FIR, Ex.A2-charge
sheet, Ex.A9-Insurance particulars indicating the 2nd respondent/Basa
Jawaharlal Nehru as owner of the offending vehicle and the 3 rd respondent as
insurer and the police being in force from 26.04.2011 to 25.10.2012 (date of
accident 28.09.2011).
15. The other points remained for determination are:
(1) Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation and what shall be
the liability of respondents?
(2) Whether the quantification and entitlement of compensation done by
the learned MACT is sustainable?
(3) What is the result of appeal?
16. Point No.1:
The claimant sustained injuries in the motor vehicle accident. His
evidence is clear as to accident and his sustaining injuries. P.W.2-Doctor
stated about the treatment given apart from the injuries suffered by the
claimant, medical bills-Ex.A8, the treatment record – Exs.A4 to A7, wound
certificate-Ex.A3 are reflecting the injuries by the claimant. Further, the
occurrence of the accident and negligence of the driver of the offending
vehicle are very clear. Therefore, the entitlement of claim for compensation is
6also clear. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the claimant
concluding that he is entitled for compensation and the respondents are jointly
and severally liable to pay the same, more particularly, the 3rd respondent
being the Insurance Company is liable as Ex.A9-Insurance policy being in
force on the date of accident and as there is no material to exempt R3.
17. Point No.2:
For quantifying the compensation, this Court finds it proper to refer to
certain precedential guidelines.
Precedential Guidance:
(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. 1, 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.2, referred to
various heads under which, compensation can be awarded, in injuries cases
vide paragraph No.52, the heads are as follows:-
1
2025 AIAR (Civil) 1
2
2020 (04) SCC 413
7S. 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
_________
(ii). 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.
(iii). Hon’ble Apex Court in Yadava Kumar Vs. Divisional Manager,
National Insurance Company Limited and Anr., 3 vide para No.10, by
referring to Sunil Kumar Vs. Ram Singh Gaud4,as to application of multiplier
method in case of injuries while calculating loss of future earnings, in para 16
referring to Hardeo Kaur Vs. Rajasthan State Transport Corporation5, as
to fixing of quantum of compensation with liberal approach, valuing the life and
limb of individual in generous scale in para 17 observed that :-
“The High Court and the Tribunal must realize that there is a distinction between
compensation and damage. The expression compensation may include a claim for
damage but compensation is more comprehensive. Normally damages are given for3
2010(10)SCC 341
4
2007 (14) SCC 61
5
1992(2) SCC 567
8an 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.”
(iv). In Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another 6 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.
6
2011 (1) SCC 343
9
(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…”
(v) In Sidram vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr.7 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.
(vi) In Sidram‘s case, it is also observed by referring to a case in
R.D. Hattangadi V. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd.8 (para 12), 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. (emphasis added).
18. Ex.A3-wound certificate is reflecting the following injuries :
(i) Head injury - Right frontal contusion
(ii) Avulsed scalp injury - Left frontal temporal region.
7
2023 (3) SCC 439
8
1995 (1) SCC 551
10
19. It is mentioned in the wound certificate that the injuries are grievous in
nature. The evidence of P.W.2 is relevant for considering the nature of
injuries etc. His evidence is as follows:
“I am working in Suraksha Hospital as consultant on Neuro Surgeon since
2007. I have seen the patient J. Venkata Rao, 34 years, male on 28th
September 2011. He was admitted with alleged history sustaining injury on 28-
09-2011 at 11-15 A.M. When he was traveling in a Auto and was hit by a car
at Yedugundlapadu village near NIMRA College gate at Maddipadu Mandal of
Prakasam District. Patient was unconscious at the time of admission. He had
avulsed scalp injury in the left frontal region of skull. C.T. Scan of brain
showed intracranial bleeding. Patient underwent surgery for Avulsed scalp
injury. Intracranial bleeding was managed conservative. Patient gradually
improved during the Hospital stay. When he was conscious, alert at the time of
discharge on 12-10-2011. He was advised for the surgery for left face on
below left eye y plastic surgery. He was re-admitted on 26-10-2011 and
underwent plastic surgery for the face wound on 27-10-2011. Patient was in
regularly follow up till he was wounds completely healed. The patient was
discharged after plastic surgery on 29-10-2011. The nature of the injury is
grievous in nature. As patient had intracranial bleeding and fracture of left
Zygoma bone. Exhibit A-8 is the bills issued at our Hospital. The patient might
have spent approximately between 1.5 to 2 lakh towards surgery and Hospital
stay, Radiology and C.T. Scans and formay medicines. 3 C.T. Scans and 2 X-
rays belongs to the patient while taken during the Hospital stay.”
20. Ex.A8 are bunch of medical bills standing for different amounts of
different dates and they are inclusive of several medicines purchased,
labotatory report, laboratory expenditure etc. They are 45 bills in number.
The claimant as P.W.1 stated that he spent Rs.1,50,000/- for first surgery,
Rs.20,000/- for second surgery and Rs.25,000/- for transportation charges.
The learned MACT vide para No.13 of the Judgment, referred total at
Rs.1,19,473/-. But the exercise taken up in totaling the amount is not clear.
Anyway, there is no contest. But the claimant is stating that it is
Rs.1,70,000/-. There is total of 45 medical bills covered by Ex.A8. P.W.2-
Doctor has referred about the treatment given and that Ex.A8 bills were issued
11
at their hospital. His evidence is that the patient might have spent
approximately Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/- towards surgery, hospital stay,
rationality, CT scans, medicines etc., at the hospital. So, in view of the
evidence of P.W.2, the entitlement of the claim for medical expenditure can be
safely believed at Rs.1,50,000/- particularly in the context of no cross-
examination of P.W.2. Hence, medical expenditure fixed at Rs.1,19,473/- by
the learned MACT require enhancement.
21. Awarding compensation under the head of pain and suffering,
Rs.15,000/- and Rs.25,000/- for one grievous injury, how far rational is one
question. Awarding of compensation for grievous injury separately and pain
and suffering separately and rationality thereof are not addressed by the
learned MACT in the impugned orders. As observed in the authorities cited
above, certain guess work is permissible. But that can be done in respect of
non-pecuniary damages like pain and suffering, loss of amenities, nervous
shock, loss of marriage prospects, loss of expectation of life etc. But in
respect of loss of earning during the period of treatment, loss of earning on
account of permanent disability, medical expenditure, etc., there must be
some evidence. Claimant is driver by profession, aged 34 years. No disability
is proved. However, loss of income for two months @ Rs.6,000/- per month
can be believed under the period of rest and treatment etc.
22. In the present case, relevant material available on record indicating one
grievous injury, two surgeries, treatment and evidence of P.W.2 as to
12
treatment, documents indicating the treatment vide Exs.A4 to A8. In the light
of the same, the entitlement of claimant for compensation under various
heads require consideration. Comparative chart of what is award of learned
MACT and what is the entitlement can be just and reasonable, is tabulated as
follows:
Sl. Head Granted by MACT Fixed as just by this
No Appellate Court
1. a)Pain and suffering Rs. 15,000/- Rs.30,000/-
b)Fractures and Rs. 25,000/-
grievous injuries Rs. 40,000/-
2. Non-pecuniary Rs. 10,000/- Separately head wise
damages awarded
3. Simple injuries Nil
4. Medical Nil
Expenditure
5. Medical Bills Rs.1,19,473/- Rs.1,50,000/-
6. Future medical Nil Rs. 20,000/-
expenditure
7. a)Extra Nil Rs. 10,000/-
Nourishment
b)Attendant Nil Rs. 10,000/-
Charges
c)Transportation Nil Rs. 10,000/-
charges
8. Loss of earnings Nil Rs. 12,000/-
during treatment etc
9. Permanent disability Nil Nil
10. Loss of amenities Nil Rs. 5,000/-
11. Disfigurement of Nil Nil
face (social stigma)
12. Marriage prospects Nil Nil
13. Loss of expectation Nil Nil
of life.
14. Mental Agony Nil Rs. 10,000/-
Total: Rs . 1,69,473/- Rs.2,57,000/-
13
23. For the reasons aforesaid, this court finds that the claimant is entitled
for compensation at Rs.2,57,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
Respondent No.3 Insurance Company is liable to pay the same. Point No.2 is
answered accordingly.
24. Point No.3:
In the result,
(i) the appeal is allowed-in-part.
(ii) compensation is awarded by the learned MACT in a sum of
Rs.1,69,473/- is modified and enhanced to Rs.2,57,000/-.
(iii) 6% interest awarded by the learned MACT is enhanced to 9% per
annum.
(iv) Rest of the relief granted as to costs by learned MACT holds
good.
(v) The claimant is entitled to withdraw the amount at once on
deposited.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall
stand closed.
____________________________
A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J
Date: 06.03.2025
ARR
14
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
M.A.C.M.A.No.2908 of 2016
Dt. 06.03.2025
ARR