Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
K V Narayana Reddy, Ananthapuram Dist vs P Vivekananda Reddy, Ananthapuram Dist … on 6 March, 2025
1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
M.A.C.M.A.No.474 of 2016
JUDGMENT:
The claimant in O.P.No.144 of 2014 on the file of learned VI Additional
District Judge-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gooty, Anatapur District
(for short “MACT”), is the appellant before this Court. Feeling dissatisfied by
the award and decree dated 22.09.2015 passed by the learned MACT
wherein a compensation of Rs.1,40,000/- with interest at 7.5 % per annum,
awarded in his favour as against his claim for Rs.4,00,000/-, as in adequate
this appeal is filed invoking Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for
short “the M.V. Act“).
2. Respondents 1 and 3 herein were the respondents 1 and 3 before the
learned MACT being the owner and driver of the Eicher Van bearing
No.AP29V3300 (hereinafter referred to as “offending vehicle”) and they
remained ex parte before the learned MACT. The 2nd respondent herein as
2nd respondent before the learned MACT and contested the matter.
Case of the claimant in brief:
3. On the fateful day viz., 27.02.2014 at about 1-30 p.m., when he was
proceeding on his motorcycle bearing No.AP02Q6477 near Anjaneyaswamy
Temple on Bukkapatnam to Tadipatri Road, the offending vehicle came in
opposite direction and dashed the claimant, causing the accident, whereby the
2
claimant fell down and sustained fractures and bleeding injuries. He was
shifted to Government General Hospital, Tadipatri, from there to YSR
Hospital, Anantapuramu for better treatment, where operation was conducted
by Orthopedic Doctor, steel rods were inserted and he was inpatient for more
than one month, incurred expenditure of Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical,
attendant and other expenses etc, he was advised to take physiotherapy
treatment, he became disabled, unable to sit and walk normally and lost his
earnings. A case in Crime No.22 of 2014 for the offences punishable under
Sections 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “I.P.C.”) was
registered against the driver of the offending vehicle viz., R3. R1 is its owner.
R2 is the insurer. Hence, the claimant is entitled for compensation of
Rs.4,00,000/-.
Case of R2-Insurance Company:
4. The claimant shall prove the pleaded accident, negligence of the driver
of the crime vehicle, nature of injuries, treatment undergone, medical
expenditure incurred, effect of injuries, disability pleaded, loss of earning
capacity etc., clearly. Further, the negligence and contribution of the claimant
are the reasons for the accident and he did not even possess the driving
licence. The claimant shall prove the compliance of conditions of policy, by
R1-owner of the crime vehicle and also valid and effective driving licence to
the driver of the offending vehicle viz., R3. Under any circumstances, the 2 nd
3
respondent-Insurance Company shall not be mulcted with any liability and that
the compensation claimed is excessive.
5. On the strength of the pleadings, the learned MACT settled the
following issues for trial:
1. Whether the road accident occurred on 27.02.2014 at about 1.30 pm
near Anjaneya Swamy Temple on Bukkapatnam to Tadipatri Road
near G.C.Palli, Putlur Mandal due to rash and negligent driving of
Eicher Van bearing No.AP29V3300 by its driver as alleged by the
petitioner?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation? If so, to
what amount and from whom?
3. To what relief?
6. Evidence before learned MACT:
Sl.No. Description Remarks
Oral evidence P.W.1: K.Venkatanarayana Reddy Claimant
P.W.2: Kethireddy Mohan Reddy Doctor
Documentary Ex.A1: Attested Xerox copy of FIR
evidence Ex.A2: Attested Xerox copy of
wound certificate.
Ex.A3: Attested Xerox copy of
charge sheet. On behalf of
Ex.A4: Bunch of medical petitioner
prescriptions and reports.
Ex.A5: Original medical bills.
Ex.A6: Original discharge card.
Ex.A7: X-ray films.
Ex.B1: Copy of Insurance Policy On behalf of
respondents.
4
Findings of learned MACT:
7. [i] Contributory negligence on the part of the claimants is not
proved. The claimant is the injured and eyewitness, stated about his moving
on extremely left side of the road and the offending vehicle hitting him by
coming in opposite direction and the consequences i.e., accident and
sustaining injuries etc.. A case in Crime No.22 of 2014 for the offences
punishable under Sections 337 and 338 I.P.C. was registered against the
driver of the offending vehicle, vide Ex.A1 and under Ex.A3, the said driver
was charge sheeted. There is no evidence to accept the suggestion as to
negligence of the claimant. Therefore, the negligence on the part of the crime
vehicle is believed.
[ii] With regard to entitlement of claim for compensation and liability,
the learned MACT found that there is negligence of R3 in driving the vehicle.
R1 is the owner. The vehicle was insured with R2. Violations are not proved.
Therefore, the claimant is entitled for compensation and R2 is liable.
[iii] While quantifying the compensation, the learned MACT found
that the claimant as P.W.1 stated about medical expenditure as Rs.2,00,000/-,
advise for removal of rods costing to Rs.50,000/-, evidence of Doctor as to
nature of injuries suffered by the claimant, treatment done, grievous nature of
injuries, medical bills standing for Rs.1,16,000/- and concluded the entitlement
of claimant for compensation, at Rs.50,000/- for pain and suffering,
Rs.50,000/- towards hospital and treatment charges, Rs.15,000/- towards
5
transport, attendant charges and extra nourishment and Rs.25,000/- towards
loss of earnings during the treatment and in total, awarded Rs.1,40,000/-,
while permitting 50% of withdrawal on deposit.
Arguments in this appeal:
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the medical bills are
standing for Rs.1,16,000/-. Hospitalization, treatment, nature of injuries being
grievous are spoken. The quantification of compensation done by the learned
MACT is unjust and inadequate. The quantum of Rs.4,00,000/- compensation
claimed by the appellant itself is very low and the learned MACT should have
awarded more compensation than what claimed.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company
submitted that the compensation already awarded itself is excessive and the
contribution of negligence on the part of the claimant in riding the motorcycle,
ought to have been taken into note and the compensation should have been
scaled down to the extent of negligence on the part of the claimant. There is
no disability either pleaded or proved with proper evidence, therefore, the
compensation awarded by the learned MACT need not be interfered and
appeal is fit to be dismissed with costs.
10. Perused the record.
11. Thoughtful consideration is given to the arguments advanced by both
sides.
6
The scope of appeal:
12. Although it is argued by the respondent-Insurance Company that the
negligence on the part of the claimant ought to have been considered by the
learned MACT, there is neither cross-appeal nor cross-objections from the
Insurance Company. Further, the evidence on record is clear as to the
negligence of R3-driver of the offending vehicle, no steps were taken to
examine R3. The claimant as P.W.1 being eyewitness, categorically stated
about the negligence. Therefore, the arguments on the point of negligence
advanced on behalf of the respondent Insurance Company deserved to be
ignored. Accordingly, not considered.
13. The other arguments as to want of driving licence etc., also out of scope
of appeal since the appeal is by the claimant, questioning the quantum of
compensation @Rs.1,40,000/- granted as against Rs.4,00,000/- claimed.
Even entitlement of compensation of claimant is also out of dispute as he
being victim of accident.
14. Now the points that arise for determination in this appeal are:
1. Whether what is just and reasonable compensation to which the
claimant is entitled and whether the compensation of Rs.1,40,000/-
awarded by the learned MACT require any enhancement, if so to
what tune and on what grounds?
2. What is the result of the appeal?
7
15. 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:-
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
_________
(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.
1
2025 AIAR (Civil) 1
2
2020 (04) SCC 413
8
(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 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.”
(iv). In Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another6 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
3
2010(10)SCC 341
4
2007 (14) SCC 61
5
1992(2) SCC 567
6
2011 (1) SCC 343
9
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…”
(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,
7
2023 (3) SCC 439
8
1995 (1) SCC 551
10
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).
Analysis of evidence:
16. Oral Evidence:-
[i] Claimant as PW.1 stated that due to impact of the accident, he fell
down, received factures, bleeding and simple injuries. He was shifted to
Government Hospital, Tadipathri, thereafter Dr.Y.S.R. Hospitals, Anantapur,
operation was conducted, steel rods inserted by the Orothopaedic Doctor. He
has incurred expenditure of Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical, hospital, travelling
and other expenses. He became disabled could not work normally. Unable to
lift heavy weights, sit or squat normally. Further operation may costs about
Rs.50,000/- by way of surgery etc.. During the Cross-examination, it was
suggested to him that he was doing his work usually without any difficulty. No
rods were inserted. He did not incurred Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical,
hospital, travelling etc., expenses, he has created bills/Ex.A4 to Ex.A7 and his
claim is excessive.
[ii] PW.2, the Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon and Managing Director
of Y.S.R. Hospital, Anantapur, deposed as follows:-
11
“The patient Mr.K.Venkata Narayana Reddy, S/o.K.Lakshmi Reddy, age
47 years was admitted in our Hospital, due to RTA on 27.02.2014 at 3.40
p.m. with the following injuries :
1. The fracture of transverse process of TI vertebra.
2. Fracture of posterior part of right 1st and 2nd ribs.
3. Fracture of posterior part of left 2nd, 3rd and 4th ribs.
The patient was admitted in ICU and Inter costal drainage tube was
placed into chest cavity. He was treated with I.V. antibiotic,
Neubulisation and physiotherapy. He was discharged after one week.
He was under regular follow up treatment. He sustained injuries were
of grievous nature. My treatment was related to the blunt injury of chest
wall as mentioned in Ex.A2. The Ex.A4 is the Medical reports, medical
Investigation relates to the patient. The Ex.A5 contains pharma and
consultant and Hospital charges belong to their Hospital. The medical
bills were purchased by the patient in our hospital pharmas as
prescribed by me. The Ex.A7 is the X-ray, and C.T. Scan, M.R.I. scan
reports belongs to the patient. The Ex.A6 is admission and discharge
card of the patient issued by me. He underwent debridement and
traders repair by surgery of the leg. The patient also had fracture of
lateral malleolus of right ankle treated P.O.P. cast. Because of the
multiple ribs fracture and lung damage during injury patient will have
compromised lung function and breathing problems. ”
During the Cross examination, he has denied the suggestion that the bills
were issued by his hospital to help the claimant and the patient was treated
under Aarogyasri Scheme.
Documentary Evidence:-
[iii] Ex,A2 is the wound certificate reflecting the following injuries:
1) “A laceration measuring around 10x3x1 cm bone deep on left leg.
12
2) An abrasion measuring around 1 x 1 cm present over left knee
3) Blunt injuries over the right side of chest.”
[iv] Ex.A4 is consisting of bunch of laboratory reports and tests
conducted including E.C.G. etc., apart from referral letter from the DM&HO,
Tadipartri to the Government General Hospital, Anantapur. Further, the
observations as to the tests conducted on Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad and
STAR Hospital, Anantapur etc., during the period from April, to July of 2014 are
available.
[v] Ex.A5 is the bunch of medical bills of various Hospitals, the
totaling is done @Rs.1,16,225/-, Ex.A6 is Discharge Card of YSR Hospital,
indicating Admission of Hospital on 27.02.2014 and discharged on 05.03.2014.
Future medical treatment etc., are not spoken by PW.2. Insertion of rods and
removal of them etc., are also not clearly stated by PW.2. However,
hospitalization for one week, follow up treatment for more than two to three
months etc., are clear from the evidence on record.
17. As per the averments in the petition, the claimant is aged about 46 years,
he was attending cultivation cum business works. However, indicating
involvement of claimant in the business, there is no documentary evidence.
Solitary, oral assertion of the claimant alone is the basis. In the context of the
case, considering the age and other aspects, earning of the claimant including
further prospects, particularly considering the date of the accident etc., can be
accepted at Rs.5,000/- per month.
13
18. Evidence indicating permanent disability etc., is not there on record
except oral evidence of the claimant. The Disability Certificate issued by the
Medical Board etc., are the usual and standard material guides to the Courts to
believe the disability, otherwise only guess work has to be done. Guess work is
permissible in respect of non-pecuniary damages but in respect of pecuniary
damages like specific loss of income, a reasonable calculation with some
rational basis is necessary. There cannot be much guess work. Pain and
suffering, nervous short, loss of amenities, attendant charges, possibility of
travelling expenditure, are the aspects where some guess work is possible.
Likewise, the income also to some extent can be notionally taken, where
placing of clear evidence is not possible. Even for that, age, occupation etc.,
shall be the guidance factors.
19. In the light of the material available on record, the entitlement of the
claimant for compensation under various heads concluded by the learned
MACT, require re-examination. The compensation awarded by the learned
MACT at Rs.50,000/- for pain and suffering, require enhancement to
Rs.80,000/- in view of the treatment, follow up etc., for around 3 months.
20. Towards medical expenditure, the amount covered by the medical bills/
Ex.A5, Rs.1,20,000/- is fit to be accepted as PW.1 and PW.2 in one voice
confirmed about the same. For future medical needs, reasonable amount can
be awarded as the assertion of appellant/claimant is not put to PW.2 by the
14
Insurance Company. Hence, under the head of future medical needs
Rs.25,000/- can be awarded to the claimant.
21. Towards Transportation etc., sum of Rs.15,000/- awarded can be
enhanced to Rs.25,000/-, and for attendant charges, nourishment, extra
nourishment compensation granted can be enhanced to Rs.25,000/- in view of
follow up treatment for 3 to 4 months.
22. Loss of earnings during the period of treatment can be considered for 5
months, @Rs.5,000/- per month, totaling to Rs.25,000/-. On that count, the
compensation amount awarded by the learned MACT, found fit to be confirmed.
However, under the head of loss of income, due to permanent disability, no
compensation can be awarded to the claimant.
23. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the interest awarded by the
learned MACT, @7.5% is also fit to be enhanced to 9% per annum.
24. In the light of the discussion made above, the compensation awarded by
the learned MACT and the amount found just and reasonable by this Court are
tabulated as follows:-
Sl. Head Granted by MACT Found just by this
No Appellate Court
1. Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/- Rs.80,000/-
2. Medical Rs.50,000/- Rs.1,20,000/-
Expenditure
4. Future medical Nil Rs.25,000/-
expenditure
15
5. a)Attendant Charges Rs.15,000/- Rs.25,000/-
& Extra Nourishment
c)Transportation -
Rs.25,000/-
charges
6. Loss of earnings Rs.25,000/- Rs.25,000/-
during treatment etc
8. Loss of income due Nil Nil
to permanent
disability
Total: Rs . 1,40,000/- Rs.3,00,000 /-
In view of the discussions made and for the aforestated reasons, point
No.1 is answered in favour of the appellant.
Point No.2:-
26. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part as follows:
1) the Compensation amount awarded by the learned MACT
@Rs.1,40,000/- with interest @7.5% per annum is enhanced to
Rs.3,00,000/- with interest @9% per annum.
2) Costs etc., awarded by the MACT are confirmed.
3) Appellant is entitled for withdrawal of the amount at once, on deposit.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeal shall
stand closed.
____________________________
A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J
Date: 06.03.2025
Arr/Pnr
16
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
M.A.C.M.A.No.474 of 2016
Dt. 06.03.2025
Arr/Pnr
[ad_1]
Source link