[ad_1]
Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
National Ins Co Ltd., Mumbai, … vs M Mothi Kiran, Chittoor Dist 2 Others on 20 June, 2025
1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
M.A.C.M.A.No.1510 of 2017
JUDGMENT:
I. Introduction:-
1. [i] National Insurance Company Ltd., the 2nd respondent before
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- VIII Additional District Judge,
Chittoor [for short “MACT”], in M.V.O.P.No.47 of 2014, feeling aggrieved by
the Award and Decree dated 10.01.2017 passed therein, filed the present
appeal.
[ii] The 1st respondent herein is the claimant and the 2 nd and 3rd
respondents herein are the owner and driver of the vehicle bearing No.AP
03 AA 5224 [for short the ‘offending vehicle’] and the appellant herein is the
Insurance Company with which the offending vehicle was insured.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties will be herein after referred to as
the claimant and the respondents, with reference to their status before the
learned MACT, as and how they are arrayed in the impugned proceedings.
II. Case of the claimant in brief:
3. [i] Claimant suffered accident on 18.01.2012 on Chittoor – Puttur
road, near Ramanaidupalle village, G.D. Nellore Mandal, within the limits of
G.D.Nellore Police Station.
[ii] By the date of the accident, the claimant was studying II year
B.Tech., at ChandraSekharendra Saraswathi Viswa Maha Vidyalaya,
2
Kancheepuram, Tamil Nadu and aged about ’19’ years. While the claimant
was travelling on a motor Cycle Bajaj Pulsar bearing No.KA 01 EH 5945,
the 3rd respondent, driver of the offending vehicle/ Indica Car bearing No.AP
03 AA 5224, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motor
cycle of the claimant from rear side. Whereby the claimant fell down and
sustained multiple bleeding injures and fractures. Immediately after the
accident, he was shifted to CMC Hospital, Vellore, from there he was taken
to Sri Ramachandra Medical Center, Chennai. He has undergone initially
treatment at CMC Hospital and after shifting to Sri Ramachandra Medical
Center, Chennai undergone operation on 15.02.2012 to D7-D9, D10 pedicle
screw fixation and instrumented stabilization for D8 and D9 wedge
compression of the vertebral body fractures. Doctors have diagnosed of
deep vein thrombosis of the right lower limb. Due to critical injury on his
head, the claimant was in ICU Unit for 15 days.
[iii] He has spent more than Rs.10,00,000/- for his treatment,
surgery and medicines etc., taken the treatment from 18.01.2012 to
24.02.2012 as in-patient at first instances and again he was admitted on
14.03.2012 and visited on 16.03.2012. Even after discharge he is
continuously taking treatment as outpatient as advised by the doctors. Due
to the accident, he has sustained multiple injuries. Though he has taken
treatment, unable to concentrate on his studies. He has to take medicines
throughout the life. Even after discharge, as per doctors’ advice, he has
3
continuously taken treatment and visited as outpatient even on 25.10.2013.
For about 16 times he has attended the Hospitals, for investigation etc.
Although the clamant is survived, there is no scope for complete recovery.
During treatment he has struggled for survival. He cannot travel long
distances, he has to use spinal belt for his journeys. He cannot sit or stand
for long time. He is not fit for driving any vehicle.
[iv] The disability of the claimant is assessed at 55%. The claimant
is getting headache, giddiness, defective memory, anger, inability to
concentrate on studies etc. The disability is permanent in nature. The
misery is inexplicable.
[v] The negligence of the 3rd respondent-driver of the offending
vehicle, is the sole cause for the accident. The offending vehicle is owned
by the 1st respondent and insured with 2nd respondent. Therefore, all the
respondents are liable to pay just and reasonable compensation.
4. The 3rd respondent-driver of the offending vehicle remained ex parte.
1st and 2nd respondents contested the case.
III. Case of the respondents 1 and 2:- Common Defence: 5. [i] The nature, manner and effect of the accident as well as
negligence of the 3rd respondent-driver of the offending vehicle are denied.
Equally, age, occupation and income , nature and effect of injuries, disability
4
etc., pleaded by the claimant and quantum of compensation claimed are all
denied. The claimant is put to strict proof of all the allegations. The
negligence of the claimant in driving the motor cycle is the cause for the
accident and claim petition is fit to be dismissed.
Specific plea of the 1 st respondent:-
[ii] Valid and effective Policy issued by the 2nd respondent was in
force as on the date of accident i.e., 18.01.2012. The Insurance Policy was
covering the period for 13.12.2011 to 28.2.2012. Therefore, the liability if
any is that of Insurance Company to pay compensation.
Specific Case of the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company:-
6. The owner of the offending vehicle, who is the insured, should have
send the information of accident immediately. The owner of the offending
vehicle admitted the accident in his written statement. The 1st respondent/
owner of the offending vehicle and the claimant colluded, and planted the
offending vehicle. There is violation of conditions of the Insurance Policy.
There was (08) months delay in lodging the F.I.R. for the accident.
Therefore, the Insurance Company cannot be made liable.
7. On the strength of pleadings, learned MACT settled the following
issues for trial:
1) Whether the accident that occurred due to rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the Car bearing No.AP 03 AA 5224 of R1? Or
the rider of Motor cycle bearing NO. KA 01 EH 5945?
5
2) Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary
parties?
3) Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of compensation, if
so, to what amount and from whom?
4) To what relief?
IV. Evidence before the learned MACT:
8. Documentary evidence:-
Sl.No. Marked Description Remarks
as
01. Ex.A1 Certified copy of Wound Certificate issued by
Ramachandra Hospital, Chennai
For the
02. Ex.A2 Charge sheet Claimant/
03. Ex.A3 Discharge Summary issued by the Christian petitioner
medical College, Vellore.
04. Ex.A4 Medical Bills issued by the Christian medical
College, Vellore.
05. Ex.A5 Ambulance bills issued by Christian medical
College, Vellore.
06. Ex.A6 Discharge Summary issued by Ramachanda
Hospital, Chennai for the period from
18.01.2012 to 24.02.2012.
07. Ex.A7 Discharge summary issued by Ramachandra
Hospital, for the period from 14.03.2012 to
16.03.2012.
08. Ex.A8 Inpatient bill issued by Ramachandra Hospital
09. Ex.A9 Inpatient bill issued by Ramachandra Hospital
10. Ex.A10 5-Nutrition foods receipts issued by
Ramachandra Hospital.
11. Ex.A11 154 Pharmacy bills issued by Ramachandra
6
Hospital.
12. Ex.A12 19–Xrays issued by Ramachandra Hospital
13. Ex.A13 5-Xrays issued by Ramachandra Hospital.
14. Ex.A14 8-CT Scan reports issued by Ramachandra
Hospital.
15. Ex.A15 3-ECG reports issued by Ramachandra
Hospital.
16. Ex.A16 5-Radiology and imaging sciences
investigation reports
17. Ex.A17 Outpatient prescriptions plus 16 cash bills.
18. Ex.A18 Permanent disability certificate.
19. Ex.A19 Certificate issued by Chandrasekhara
Saraswathi Visva Maha vidayalaya
Engineering College, Kancheepuram
20. Ex.A20 11-Pharmacy and service bills issued by
Ramachandra Hospitals
21. Ex.A21 17-Private Pharmacy Bills
22. Ex.A22 Receipt issued by Kalam Travels.
23. Ex.A23 The Spine belt cash receipt issued by
Ramachandra Hospital.
24. Ex.B1 Attested copy of Insurance Policy For the
Respondents
25. Ex.B2 Office Copy of legal notice dated 30.12.2014.
26. Ex.B3 Reply notice 19.01.2015
27. Ex.B4 Office copy of rejoinder notice dt.20.1.2015.
28. Ex.X1 Outpatient prescriptions and Bills
29. Ex.X2 Doppler report
30. Ex.X3 EEG report
31. Ex.X4 EEG report
32. Ex.X5 X-ray
7
9. ORAL EVIDENCE:
Sl.No. Name of the Examined Remarks
Witness as
1. M.Mothi Kiran PW.1 Claimant/injured
2. Dr.K.Selva Kumar PW.2 Doctor, who treated the
claimant/injured
3. Dr.A.Sudhakar PW.3 Doctor, who attended the follow
up treatment for the claimant.
4. R.Ravindra Prasad RW.1 Assistant Manager of Insurance
Co./ 2nd respondent
10. Claimant was examined as PW.1. He has reiterated his pleadings
about the accident, injuries suffered, treatment taken, disability etc.. One
Dr.K.Selva Kumar working as Professor, Department of Neuro Surgery at
Sri Ramachandra Medical College, Chennai was examined as PW.2. One
Dr.A.Sudhakar Reddy, working as Neuro Surgeon in SVRRGG Hospital,
Triupati was examined as PW.3, who attended the follow-up treatment for
the claimant. RW.1 is the Assistant Managing Officer of the 2nd respondent,
Chittoor Branch Office.
V. Findings of the learned MACT:-
A. On Negligence:-
11. [i]. Claimant as an eye-witness to the accident, examined as
PW.1. He has stated about the negligence of the driver of the offending
vehicle. Ex.A2 is the Charge sheet laid against the driver of the offending
vehicle/3rd respondent. Suggestions given by the respondents 1 and 2 are
8
not of any use, particularly with regard to the absence of the negligence and
the ignorance of the PW.1 about the name of driver of the crime vehicle at
the time of giving of the report, is in consequential.
[ii] The evidence of Rw.1, on behalf of the 2nd respondent, who is
not an eye witness, is also not helpful to advance the case of the
respondents. Therefore, the negligence on the part of the driver of the
offending vehicle is fit to be accepted.
B. With regard to non-joinder Of owner and the Insurance Company
of the motor cycle, in which the claimant was driver:-
[iii] Since it is shown that the negligence of the driver of the
offending vehicle is the cause for the accident and it is not shown that there
is negligence on the part of the clamant, the objection of non-joinder, is fit to
be ignored.
C. With regard to entitlement for compensation:-
[iv] Negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle is the cause for
the accident. Vehicle is insured with the 2 nd respondent, owned by the 1st
respondent, therefore, they are liable to pay compensation.
D. With regard to quantum:
[v] The documentary evidence is sufficient to believe the injuries
suffered by the claimant due to the accident, particularly covered by Exs.A3,
9A6 and A7-Discharge Summaries, Exs.A12 and A13-X-rays, Ex.A14-C.T.
Scan report and Exs.A15 and A16-Labioratory reports.
[vi] The entitlement of claimant for compensation under various
heads is, for medical expenses Rs.10,000/-,for extra nourishment-
Rs.10,000/-, damages to cloths Rs.5000/-, for medical bills etc. –
Rs.5,65,200/-, for grievous injuries Rs.25,000/-. The income is taken at
Rs.12,000/- per month, multiplier applicable is ’18’. Therefore, the total
entitlement is Rs.14,25,600/- under the head of permanent disability. In all
the entitlement is for Rs.20,15,800/-.
E. With regard to liability:-
[vii] The Policy was in force as on the date of accident. As per
Policy-Ex.B1-N. Nanda Kumar is the owner. Evidence of PW.1, coupled
with Ex.A2-charge sheet are sufficient to believe the negligence of the
driver. The 2nd respondent-Insurance Company taken no effective steps to
show that name of the driver is planted. The evidence of RW.1 is not of any
use. Delay in giving complaint is not fatal particularly in the context of
observations of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in New India Assurance
Co. Ltd. Vs. Anela Sathyamma and Others1 and K.Rajani and Others
1
2015 ACJ 1352
10Vs.M.Sathyanrayana Goud and another2 and that the Insurance
Company is also liable to pay the compensation.
VI. Grounds/Arguments in the Appeal:
For the Appellant- Insurance Company/2nd respondent:-
12. [i] The delay in lodging the complaint is fatal but the learned
MACT did not consider the same.
[ii] Mis-matching the name of the driver of the offending vehicle is
ignored by the learned MACT, charge sheet is showing the name of the
driver of the offending vehicle as N.Hariprakash Reddy, but as per the claim
petition one Nanda Kumar is the driver-cum-owner.
[iii] Income taken at Rs.12,000/- per month for the II year
Engineering Student is not proper.
[iv] The F.I.R. is not filed and suppressed. Therefore, petition is fit
to be dismissed.
For the claimant/petitioner:-
13. [i] The learned MACT has addressed all the points clearly and
carefully.
[ii] There cannot be charge sheet without registration of the crime
and F.I.R.
[iii] Injuries suffered are grievous and having serious
consequences.
2
2015 ACJ 797
11
[iv] Fixing of liability and quantification of compensation are all
sustainable and there are no grounds to interfere in this appeal, except for
enhancement of compensation.
14. Perused the record and thoughtful consideration given to the
arguments advanced by the both sides.
15. Now the points that arise for determination in this appeal are that –
1) Whether non-filing of F.I.R. is fatal? and Whether the delay in
registration of F.I.R. creates doubt over the entire occurrence of
the accident and the claim made? And whether the pleaded
accident is the result of the exclusive negligence of the driver of
the offending vehicle? Or was there any contribution from the
injured/claimant? If so, to which extent?
2) What is the just and reasonable compensation to which the
claimant is entitled? And what is the liability of the respondent
No.2/appellant-Insurance Company?
3) Whether the compensation of Rs.20,15,800/- awarded by the
learned MACT require any modification? If so, to what tune?
4) What is the result of the appeal?
Point No.1 :-
A. Statutory Guidance:-
16. Section 176 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides that for the purpose
of implementation of provisions of Section 165 to 174 of the Act, the State
Government may make Rules, on various aspects, provided thereunder.
For better appreciation, Section 176 of the M.V. Act, reads as under:-
12
“176. Power of State Government to make rules. – A State
Government may make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the
provisions of sections 165 to 174, and in particular, such rules may
provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:
(a) the form of application for claims for compensation and the
particulars it may contain, and the fees, if any, to be paid in respect of
such applications;
(b) the procedure to be followed by a Claims Tribunal in holding an
inquiry under this Chapter;
(c) the powers vested in a Civil Court which may be exercised by a
Claims Tribunal;
(d) the form and the manner in which and the fees (if any) on
payment of which an appeal may be preferred against an award of a
Claims Tribunal; and(e)any other matter which is to be, or may be,
prescribed.
17. In terms of provisions of Section 176 of M.V. Act, the A.P. Motor
Vehicle Rules, 1989 are framed. Chapter XI of the Rules deals with the
claims Tribunal and the examination, consideration and disposal of the
claim applications, covered under Rule 455 to 476-A. Sub-rule (7) of Rule
476, provides that the claims Tribunal shall proceed to award the claims on
the basis of material contemplated under the said provisions.
Rule 476 sub-Rule(7) reads as under :-
“476. (7) Basis to award the claim :- The Claims Tribunal shall
proceed to award the claim on the basis of;-
(i) Registration Certificate of the Motor Vehicle involved in the
accident;
(ii) Insurance Certificate or Policy relating to the insurance of
the Motor Vehicle against the Third party risk;
13
(iii) Copy of First Information Report;
(iv) Post-mortem certificate or certificate of inquiry from the
Medical Officer; and
(v) The nature of the treatment given by the Medical Officer
who has examined the victim.
B. Precedential Guidance:- 18.. It is relevant to note that in view of the summary nature and mode of
enquiry contemplated under Motor Vehicles Act and social welfare nature of
legislation the Tribunal shall have holistic view with reference to facts and
circumstances of each case. It is sufficient if there is probability. The
principle of standard of proof, beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied
while considering a claim seeking compensation for the death or the injury
on account of road accident. The touch stone of the case, the claimant shall
have to establish is preponderance of probability only. The legal position to
this extent is settled and consistent.
19. This Court finds it relevant to note the observations of the Hon’ble
Apex Court made in Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road
Transport Corporation3, which reads as under:
“15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a
holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that
strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular
manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The
claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of
preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond3
2009 (13) SCC 530
14reasonable doubt could not have been applied. For the said purpose,
the High Court should have taken into consideration the respective
stories set forth by both the parties..”
20. As per rule 476, one of the important material for consideration of the
claim for compensation, in terms of Motor Vehicles Act, is F.I.R.. In the
present case, charge sheet is filed. It is natural that F.I.R. precedes charge
sheet. Charge Sheet is stronger material when compared to F.I.R. The
grievance of the Insurance Company is that F.I.R. is not filed. It is relevant
to note that certain entrees in Charge Sheet/Ex.A2, shows the F.I.R.No.59
of 2012 against the entry No.1 in first page of final report, filed in terms of
173 of Cr.P.C.. The date on which charge sheet is forwarded, as per column
No.11 is on 14.08.2012, whereas the date of the accident is 18.01.2012.
Charge sheet is also filed under Section 134 of M.V.Act, which indicates
that the accused is charge sheeted for not furnishing information necessary
as to the accident.
21. As per the contents of the charge sheet, the information was
furnished on 01.08.2012 at 9.00 a.m., pursuant to the endorsement by the
III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor in terms of Section
156(3) of Cr.P.C. and a case in Crime No.59 of 2012 under Section 337 and
338 of IPC r/w156(3) of Cr.P.C. was registered. It is a case of reference by
the Court for registration of crime. Further, the charge sheet reflects that
during the course of investigation, (05) witnesses were examined and the
statements were recorded vide part-2 of Case Diary and on 14.08.202, the
15
accused was arrested on surrender. Further, the wound Certificate Ex.A1
is reflecting that the injuries are caused due to the road traffic accident and
that the injured was first examined on 18.01.2012 and that the accident said
to have caused on 18.01.2012. The wound certificate is issued by the
Officer in the cadre of C.M.O., Dr.K.Vamsi Krishna. No steps are taken to
examine the said Vamsi Krishna. The date of accident is 18.01.2012 the
claimant was initially shown at C.M.C. Hospital on18.01.2012, Ex.A3 is
Discharge Summary dated 18.01.2012 issued by the C.M.C. Hospital and
Ex.A6 is the Discharge Summary indicating treatment at Ramachandra
Hospital, Chennai from 18.01.2012 to 24.02.2012 as in-patient. Ex.A3 is
Discharge Summary issued by the C.M.C. Hospital, Vellore, Department of
Accident and Emergency Medicine, indicating that the history of road traffic
accident. Ex.A6 also suggests that the claimant was immediately taken to
Ramachandra Hospital at Chennai. It is pleaded that for over 7months, the
treatment process has taken places for over 6 to 7 months.
22. In the context of the case and factual developments, non-filing of
F.I.R. need not be taken as fatal as rightly opined by the learned MACT, for
the following reasons:-
1) Treatment to the victim is the 1st priority, is the settled position of law.
2) Delay in F.I.R. creates doubt but does not vitiate the crime/incident
itself.
3) Complaint filed before the concerned Magistrate was forwarded under
Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for investigation.
16
4) Police in due discharge of their functions conducted investigation and
filed charge sheet covered by Ex.A2/original charge sheet.
5) Written statement of 1st respondent/owner of the offending vehicle
would show that “it is true the accident took place on18.01.2012 at
about 5.50 a.m. on Chittoor-Puttur Road, near Ramanaidupalle
village, within the limits of G.D.Nellore Police Station but not due to
rash and negligent driving of the driver of this respondent.” However,
the 1st respondent denied the negligence of the driver of the offending
vehicle. There is further reference to criminal record in the written
statement of 1st respondent. Written statement is indicating that the
negligence of the claimant as the cause for the accident when he
tried to cross the road, in that scenario the driver of the offending
vehicle was unable to control. Hence, the accident has occurred.
6) The 1st respondent admitted the accident and also admitted the
involvement of the driver of the offending vehicle. The 3rd
respondent, driver of the offending vehicle, who is proper person to
deny about the negligence and the accident, remained ex parte.
7) The tribunal should have holistic view of the matter and the material
indicated under Rule 476 can be the basis to arrive at conclusion.
8) RW.1 is an official of the Insurance Company and not an eye witness
to the accident.
9) What prevented the Insurance Company from examining any of the
witnesses cited in the charge sheet under Ex.A2, is not even
whispered.
10) Evidence of driver of the offending vehicle, which would throw
some light is not placed.
11) In view of the reasons mentioned above, it can be concluded
that the 2nd respondent [appellant/Insurance Company] lamentably
17failed in placing the require information and that material available on
record, both oral and documentary, is sufficient to believe occurrence
of accident, and negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle.
12) To the claimant, during the cross-examination on behalf of the
1st respondent, owner of the offending vehicle, it was suggested that
the claimant’s negligence is the cause for the accident. There was
nothing diluting the evidence of claimant as to occurrence of the
accident. On behalf of the Insurance Company, during the cross-
examination, the claimant has stated that he gave report to Police on
15.06.2011, he was treated in Hospital for about 03 months, he has
filed private complaint before the Magistrate Court and the same was
forwarded. It was suggested to him that owner of the Car is
mentioned as Nandakumar in the report of the claimant. The
claimant do not know the name of the driver of the car by that time
but subsequently police has entered the name as Hariprakash Reddy,
that he has denied the suggestion that he was given complaint to
police, mentioning that one Nandakmar is the driver of the Car.
Nothing more is elicited from the cross-examination of PW.1 that the
delay was unintentional and such delay contributes to doubt and
reject the entire claim of the claimant.
23. Therefore, Point No.1 is answered in favour of the claimant.
Summary of reasons is as follows:
18
[i] F.I.R. may be a material piece of evidence. But it cannot be
said as it is the only material of which the claim has to be decided, where
the circumstances and other material justify the registration of F.I.R. and its
culmination into other crime record like charge sheet etc., in the particular
facts and situation like in the present case, non-filing of F.I.R., is not fatal for
the claim made by the petitioner.
[ii] Delay in registration of F.I.R. cannot be considered as basis to
doubt the tenability of the claim and truth in the case, if the material is
indicating the occurrence of the crime and involvement of the accused,
injured etc., concerned. Delay can be ground to doubt but delay by itself
cannot improbablise the case itself.
[iii] Considering the evidence on record, for deciding the culpability
of the accused is different from considering the same for examining the
entitlement of the victim for compensation in terms of social welfare
legislation like M.V. Act, standard of proof necessary is only the
preponderance of possibilities in contra distinction to necessity of evidence
proving the guilt, beyond reasonable doubt, for culpability.
[iv] There is enough material, both oral and documentary, on
record including the inferences that can be drawn from the evidence and
conduct of the parties reflected in the record to conclude that the claimant is
able to show the exclusive negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle
19being the cause for the accident and absence of any contribution from the
claimant.
[v] Point No.1 is decided and answered accordingly in favour of
the claimant.
Point No.2:-
24. Since the claimant suffered injuries to the accident, the accident
caused involvement of the offending vehicle and negligence of its driver/3 rd
respondent and as ownership of the 1st respondent over the offending
vehicle and the same was insured with the 2nd respondent, covering the
relevant period viz., the date of accident, the entitlement for compensation
and liability of respondents to pay compensation are clear, particularly in the
context of the doubts objections, projected by the 2nd respondent-Insurance
Company are not tenable, which have been considered and answered at
length under point No.1 above.
25. The other aspect remains for consideration is quantum of
compensation to which the claimant is entitled.
What is just and reasonable compensation, that can be awarded to the
claimant?
Precedential Guidance:-
26[i]. 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.
20
(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.4, 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.5, 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 Disability xxxxx
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). Hon'ble Apex Court in Yadava Kumar Vs. Divisional
Manager, National Insurance Company Limited and Anr.,6 vide para
No.10, by referring to Sunil Kumar Vs. Ram Singh Gaud7,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
4
2025 AIAR (Civil) 1
5
2020 (04) SCC 413
6
2010(10)SCC 341
7
2007 (14) SCC 61
21Transport Corporation8, 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.”
(iii). In Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another9 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 the8
1992(2) SCC 567
9
2011 (1) SCC 343
22percentage 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…”
(iv) In Sidram vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and
Anr.10 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.
(v) In Sidram‘s case, reference is made to a case in R.D.
Hattangadi V. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd.11. From the observations
made therein, it can be understood that while fixing amount of
compensation in cases of accident, it involves some guess work, some
hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the
nature of the disability caused. But, all these elements have to be viewed
with objective standards. In assessing damages, the Court must exclude all
10
2023 (3) SCC 439
11
1995 (1) SCC 551
23
considerations of matter which rest in awarding speculation or fancy, though
conjecture to some extent is inevitable.
27. Whether the compensation can be enhanced in the absence of an
appeal or cross appeal by the claimant is the next question. 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 to
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 others12 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.
28. Observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in National
Insurance Company Limited vs. E. Suseelamma and others (12 supra)
12
2023 SCC Online AP 1725
24
case are in compliance with the observations of Hon’ble Apex Court in
Surekha and Others vs. Santosh and Others13.
29. In Surekha and Others vs. Santosh and Others (13 supra) case, in
Civil Appeal No.476 of 2020 vide judgment dated 21.01.2020, three judges
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that “it is well stated that in the
matter of Insurance claim compensation in reference to the motor accident,
the Court should not take hyper technical approach and ensure that just
compensation is awarded to the affected person or the claimants”. While
addressing a case where the High Court has declined to grant enhancement
on the ground that the claimants fail to file cross appeal above observations
are made.
30. The legal position with regard to awarding more compensation than
what claimed has been considered and settled by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court holding that there is no bar for awarding more compensation than
what is claimed. For the said preposition of law, this Court finds it proper to
refer the following observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court made in:
(1) Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and Others 14, at para 21 of the
judgment, that –
“..there is no restriction that the Tribunal/Court cannot award
compensation amount exceeding the claimed amount. The function of
the Tribunal/Court is to award “just” compensation, which is reasonable
on the basis of evidence produced on record.”
13
(2021) 16 SCC 467
14
(2003) 2 SCC 274
25
(2) Kajal Vs. Jagadish Chand and Ors.15 at para 33 of the judgment,
as follows:-
“33. We are aware that the amount awarded by us is more than the
amount claimed. However, it is well settled law that in the motor
accident claim petitions, the Court must award the just compensation
and, in case, the just compensation is more than the amount claimed,
that must be awarded especially where the claimant is a minor .”
(3) Ramla and Others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and
Others16 at para 5 of the judgment, as follows:-
“5. Though the claimants had claimed a total compensation of Rs
25,00,000 in their claim petition filed before the Tribunal, we feel that
the compensation which the claimants are entitled to is higher than the
same as mentioned supra. There is no restriction that the Court cannot
award compensation exceeding the claimed amount, since the function
of the Tribunal or Court under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 is to award “just compensation”. The Motor Vehicles Act is a
beneficial and welfare legislation. A “just compensation” is one which is
reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record. It cannot be
said to have become time-barred. Further, there is no need for a new
cause of action to claim an enhanced amount. The courts are duty-
bound to award just compensation.”
Analysis of Evidence:
Oral Evidence:-
31. [i] Claimant as PW.1 pleaded that he has suffered multiple
bleeding injuries and fractures and took the treatment, the details of which
are as follows:
15
2020 (04) SCC 413
16
(2019) 2 SCC 192
26“1. Defuse Axonal injury with deep vein thrombosis of the right lower
limb, D8 & D9 wedge compression of the vertebral body. The injury is grevious in
nature.
CT Scan brain plain done – right high frontal hemorrhagic contusion and
doctors have given opinion with regard to the injuries sustained on the head of the
claimant as detailed:
i. On 19.01.2012 – Resolving intraparenchymal hemorrhagic contusion to
the right high frontal region. Linear undisplaced fracture of the anterior
arch of the atlas.
ii. CT doral spine done on 18.01.2012 -Anterior wedge compression
fracture of D8 and D9 vertebral bodies without evidence of retropulsed
fracture fragments or bony canal stenosis at these levels.
iii. CT cervical spine done on 18.01.2012 -Undisplaced fracture of the
anterior arch of atlas.
iv. CT scan brain plain done on 28.01.2012 as compared to previous scan
dated 23.01.2012 – Hemorrhagic contusion noted in the right frontal
lobe has been resolved.
v. MRI dorsolumbar spine with whole spine screening done on
20.01.2012-Anterior wedge compression fracture of D8 and D9
vertebral bodies without evidence of retropulsion or spinal canal
stenosis at these levels.
vi. CT scan brain done on 23.01.2012 -Resolving hemorrhagic contusion
noted in right frontal lobe.
vii. Doppler rights lower limb veins done on 05.02.2012 – Acute deep vein
thrombosis of the right external Iliac vein, common femoral vein,
superficial femoral vein, popliteal vein and partially occluding the
anterior tibial vein and posterior tibial vein extending into
saphenofemoral junction and saphenopopliteal junction.
viii. Doppler right lower limb venous study done on 14/02-2012 – restitution
of flow in distal anterior tibial vein and posterior tibial vein. Partial
restitution of flow in proximal anterior tibial vein and posterior tibial vein,
proximal suphenofemoral junction. No restitution of flow in external ilias
vein, common femoral vein, saphenofemoral junction and popliteal
vein.”
32. Ex.A1-wound certificate is the wound certificate reflecting the injuries.
Discharge summaries covered by Ex.A6, Ex.A7 reads as follows:-
A6 -Discharge Summary dated 24.02.2012, issued by
SriRamachandra Medical Center is as follows:
DOA : 18-Jan-2012 DOD: 24-Feb-2012
Final Diagnosis: AXONAL INJURU WITH DEEP VEIN
THROMBOSSI OF THE RIGHT LOWER LIMB,
27D8 AND D9 WEDGE COMPRESSION OF THE
VERTEBRAL BODY.
PROCEDURE DONE: D7-D9, 10 PEDICLE
SCREW FIXATION AND INSTRUMENTAL
STABILIZATION UNDER GA ON 15/02/12.
Admission Complaints Chief Complaints: Alleged history of RTA on
& Brief history of 18/01/2012 around 5:50 a.m.
presenting illness:
HOPI: 18-year-old male patient was brought to
ER with alleged history of RTA while driving a two
wheeler on 18/01/12 around 5:50 a.m.. History of
LOC present, ENT bleed present. No history of
seizures or vomiting.
Physical Examination: Moderately built and nourished.
Temperature afebrile.
PR-80/min.
RR-16/min.
BP-110/80mmHg
No pallor, icterus, cyanosis, clubbing,
lymphadenopathy, edema or thyromegaly.
CVS-S1,S2+,
RS-Normal vesicular breath sounds present,
CNS-Patient drowsy and not obeying commands.
Patient is restless.
GCS-10/15.
Pupils bilaterally 2mm reacting to light.
C spine tenderness present.
Chest and pelvic compression test negative.
No long bone deformity.
P/A -Soft. BS+
Ex.A7 -Discharge Summary dated 16.03.2012 issued by the
SriRamachandra Medical Center, is as follows
DOA : 14-Mar -2012 DOD: 16-Mar -2012
Final Diagnosis: KNOWN CASE OF DIFFUSE AXONAL INJURY
WITH D8 AND D9 WEDGE COMPRESSION
FRACTURE POSTOPERATIVE STATUS WITH
RIGHT LOWER LIMB DEEP VENOUS
THROMBOSIS.
Admission Complaints Chief Complaints: Known case of diffuse axonal
& Brief history of injury with D8 and D9 wedge compression
presenting illness: fracture postoperative status with right lower limb
DVT came for follow up and rehabilitation.
28
HOPI: 18-year-old male patient who is a known
case of diffuse axonal injury with D8to D9 wedge
compression fracture. Postoperative status with
right lower limb DVT vame for follow up and
rehabilitation. No history of recent trauma or
seizures or fever.
Past Medical History Patient had underwent D7 to D9-D10 pedicle
screw fixation and instrumental stabilization on
15.02.2012 under GA.
Physical Examination: Temperature afebrile.
PR-80/min.
RR-16/min.
BP-110/80mmHg
No pallor, icterus, cyanosis, clubbing,
lymphadenopathy, edema or thyromegaly.
CVS-S1,S2+,
RS-Normal vesicular breath sounds. BAE+.
Conscious, obeying.
GCS-15/15
Pupils bilaterally 2mm reacting to light.
No neck stiffness.
33. [i] Ex.A4, A8, A9, A10, A11 [154 Nos.], A12,A13,A14,A15 and
A16 are indicating the medical expenditure incurred and treatment
undergone by the claimant Ex.A17 is that the prescription and cash bills.
Ex.A18 is the disability certificate issued by Dr.A.Sudhakar Reddy, Neuro
Surgeon, indicating the disability of the claimant. It is containing the
reasons for the disability along with the history of the case and treatment
given, Dr.Sudhakar Reddy, who issued Ex.A5, assessed the disability at
55% and he has been examined as PW.3. Doctors, who treated the
claimant are examined as PWs.2 and 3. Summary of their evidence is as
follows:-
29
1) PW.2 identified the claimant and the admission of claimant on
18.01.2012 with polytrauma injuries, including head injury and spinal
injury due to the history of road traffic accident, dated 18.01.2012.
2) claimant was admitted in ICU.
3) On 15.02.2012 surgery was conducted for the spine like fixation and
stabilization,
4) claimant was discharged on 24.02.2012 with an advise to follow up.
5) Again claimant was admitted on 14.03.2012, which signs of deep vein
thrombus at lower limb.
6) claimant was in continuous follow up, even as out-patient on
03.09.2014.
7) Claimant was advised to have spinal brace, for travel purposes.
8) Ex.A6, Ex.A7 and Ex.A1 was issued by their Hospital.
9) As per the wound certificate theinjury has been grievous in nature.
Ex.A8, Ex.A9,Ex.A10,Ex.A11, Exs.A15 to 17 and Ex.A23 are issued by
their Hospital.
10) Ex.A15 is the ECG report which issued by their Hospital.
11) Ex.A14 is Eight CT reports taken by their Hospital.
12) Ex.A13 is Five x-rays taken by their hospital.
13) Ex.A12 is Nineteen X-rays taken by their hospital.
14) Ex.X1 issued out-patient prescriptions and bills issued by their
Hospital marked through the witness dated 15.05.2015. The
prescriptions contains treatment Ex.X-2 to Ex.X4 is the Doppler and EEG
30
reports X-5 is the X-ray marked through the witness.
[ii] During the cross-examination of PW.2, it is elicited that the
patient regained sensorium improved from 26.01.2012. the patient
underwent only one surgery i.e., 15.02.2012. While discharging patient on
16.03.2012 due to “DVT” he was advised to continue treatment and it is
ture that the in-patient bills are inclusive of pharmacy bills. In their hospital
there is no separate department for issuance of disability certificate but the
concerned doctor will issue disability certificate. He was advised spinal
belt whenever necessary. Now the patient became in a normal position.
34. The evidence of PW.3, Dr.A.Sudhakar, working as Neuro Surgeon in
SVRRGG Hospital, Tirupati is as follows:
“The petitioner had met with RTA on 18.01.2012 he sustained
severe head injury, dorsal spine injury. He was treated initially at CMC
Hospital, Vellore on 18.01.2012 and then he was treated in Sri
Ramachandra Medical Center, Porur, Chennai from 18.01.2012 to
24.02.2012 as in-patient. CT Scan brain shown hemorrhagic contusion in
right frontal lobe, x-ray of dorsal spine wedge compression fracture D8, D9
vertebral bodies.
On 15.02.2012 D7, D9,D10 pedicle screw fixation and
instrumental stabilization done. He developed DVT (Deep vein
Thrombosis) of Right Lower Limb on 5-2-2012 Doppler study revealed
thrombosis of external ioliac vein, common femoral vein, superficial
femoral vein, poplital vein and anterior tibial vein and posterior tibial vein,
which was treated conservatively. He wad discharged on 24.2.2012. He
was readmitted in SRMC, Chennai for followup treatment on 14.03.2012
and discharged on 16.3.2012 last followup treatment was given on
16.08.2013 in SRMC Chennai after discharge from SRMC, Chennai, the
31petitioner came to me, for follow up treatment on 18.03.2012. Since the
accident the petitioner had head-ache, giddiness, defective memory,
anger and inability to concentrate on studies, pain in middle of back and
difficulty in walking and unable to lift weight.
At present on clinical neurological examination of the petitioner, I found
the following permanent disabilities:
(1) Post traumatic head-ache
(2) Post traumatic vertigo (giddiness)
(3) Post traumatic defective memory
(4) Post traumatic anger irritability and bheavioiur disorder.
(5) Inability to concentrate on studies
(6) Pain in middle of the back and difficulty in walking and unable to lift
weight.
(7) Disfiguration due to scars over face
Basing on the above diabliteis the percentage of permanent disability
is assessed as 55% (fifty five percent).
It is true that the petitioner is advised to use dorsal spine corset
support of fracture dorsal spine. I have issued Ex.A18, the permanent
disability certificate to the petitioner. I have issued permanent disability
certificate basing on the Hospital records of the SRMC, Porur, Chennai and
also clinical neurological examination of the petitioner.
Cross-examination by respondent NO.1:
It is true that I have not treated the petitioner initially I have given
only follow up treatment after discharged from SRMC. It is not true to
suggest that my assessment of permanent disability is higher side.
Cross-examination by respondent nO.2:
I have not maintained any records with regarding follow-up
treatment. I have given the follow-up treatment in my private clinic to the
petitioner. It is true I don’t have equipment like X-ray, CT Scan etc., in my
private clinic. It is true that I have not mentioned in Ex.A18 the details of
clinical examination that was conducted on the petitioner. It is true that
SVRR Hospital there is medical board, I am also a member in the board. It
32is true that there is prescribed format for issuing disability certificate. It is
tre that I have reproduced all the treatment details which was mentioned in
SRMC Hospital records. I have no personal knowledge about the contents
i.e,, the accident and the treatment given in SRMC, Chennai. I have
mentioned the same in my permanent disability certificate basing on the
SRMC records. It is not true to suggest that as per the SRMC records the
petitioner discharged in good condition. I have not given any advice to the
petitioner to come to medical board to take permanent disability certificate.
Witness volunteers the patients can take disability certificate either in
medical board or at private clinic. It is not true to suggest that permanent
disability certificate should not be issued in private clinic. It is not true to
suggest that I have not examined the petitioner clinically or physically and
issued the disability certificate at the request of the petitioner to help the
petitioner. It is not true to suggest that the petitioner is not sustained any
permanent disability as mentioned in Ex.A18 and the assessment of the
disability is excessive and exorbitant. It is not true to suggest that I am
deposing false to help the petitioner.”
35. From the pleadings and oral and documentary evidence placed by
the claimant, the following points are clear:-
1) Claimant suffered grievous injuries during the accident.
2) He has undergone surgeries.
3) He was in-patient for quite good time.
4) He was taken to Vellore and Chennai for treatment purposes.
5) He has suffered disability.
6) Claimant is student and aged about ’18’ years..
7) Doctor, PW.2 stated about the disability.
8) PW.3 stated that he is also member to Medical Board.
33
9) It was simply suggested to him that the disability is excessive and
exorbitant.
10) No steps are taken to refer the claimant to any other hospital for
having a different basis for the disability.
11) PW.3, who spoke about the disability as attended the claimant since
PW.3 claims that he is also a member of Medical Board, interference
with his findings as to disability cannot be notionally done.
12) There shall be some basis to take a contra view.
13) The income of the claimant, considering the year of accident 2012,
and as the claimant was aged about ’19’ years, studying B.Tech II year,
in context to the facts in case B.Ramulamma and Ors. v. Venkatesh
bus Lingarajapuram and another17, wherein the claimant was
studying B.E. computers final year, aged ’21’years and even in that
case, the income claimed was around Rs.7,500/- per month, where as
the Court has adopted Rs.12,000/- per month considering various
aspects. It was a case of death and deducted 50% of the amount
towards expenses of the individual while awarding compensation to the
parents etc.
14) The factual scenario in the present case is somehow different as this
case a case of boy, aged about ’19’ years and studying II year
Engineering. No doubt there will be progress in the income, it will
depend on the performance of the individual. However, optimistic and
17
2009 (6) ALD 684 = 2011 ACJ 1702
34positive approach shall be there in considering the claims in terms of
social welfare legislations, where empethetical perspective is
necessary. One way the Insurance Company is claiming that income
adopted is excessive, on the other way the claimant is studying that
future prospects are not added. The income at Rs.12,000/- adopted in
B.Ramulamma’s case [cited supra] was disposed of somewhere in
2008. The accident in the present case is of the year 2012. Difference
in age and the year in which the individual is studying, difference in the
years of accident and possibility of increased in the cost of living,
escalation of market prices etc., are required to taken out.
15) Upon taking note of all relevant figures, it can be concluded that the
income of the claimant taken at Rs.12,000/- by the learned MACT and
the disability adopted at 55%, does not require any addition, deletion or
modification and they are fit to be maintained intact.
16) However, the compensation awarded towards damages, pain and
suffering, cloths and articles, extra nourishment transportation etc.,
require some interference.
17) The medical expenditure addressing para 24 of the judgment of the
learned MACT with reference to the documents
Exs.A4,A5,A8,A9,A10,A11,A17, A20, A23, necessity of interference is
not found in respect of medical bills also. However, with regard to pain
35and suffering, loss of amenities, transportation, expenditure, attendant
charges etc., there is need to award reasonable compensation.
36. In view of the reasons and evidence referred above, the entitlement
of the claimant for reasonable compensation under various heads as
contemplated by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in comparison to compensation
awarded by the learned MACT is as follows:
S.No. Head Granted by the Fixed by this
learned MACT Appellate
Court
1. Medicines and Medical Rs.5,40,200/- Rs.5,40,200/-
Treatment [Medical Expenditure]
2. Loss of earning capacity due to Rs.14,25,600/- Rs.14,25,600/-
disability [loss of future earnings]
3. Loss of Income during treatment -Nil- -Nil-
period
4. Pain and suffering Rs.25,000/- Rs.50,000/-
5. Future Treatment -Nil- -Nil-
6. Attendant Charges -nil- -Nil-
7. Loss of amenities of Life and -nil- Rs.25,000/-
discomfort
8. Loss of Future Prospects -nil- Rs.50,000/-
9. a) Conveyance and Rs.10,000/- Rs.20,000/-
b) special diet/ Extra Rs.10,000/- Rs.25,000/-
nourishment of food
10. Loss of Marriage Prospects -Nil- Rs.50,000/-
11. Damages towards cloths and Rs.5,000/- -Nil-
articles
Total Rs.20,15,800/- Rs.21,85,800/-
37. For the aforestated reasons and discussions made, it is found that
the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs. 21,85,800/- with interest
@7.5% p.a.. Both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the
same. Point No.2 is answered accordingly.
36
Point No.3:- Whether the compensation of Rs.20,15,800/- awarded by the
learned MACT require any modification? If so, to what tune?
38. In view of the above discussion and the conclusions drawn under
points 1 and 2, the impugned Award and Decree dated 10.01.2017 required
to be modified, and the compensation awarded by the learned MACT is
enhanced to Rs.21,85,800/-. Accordingly, point No.3 is answered
accordingly.
Point No.4:
39. In the result, appeal is dismissed.
[i] However, the compensation of Rs.20,15,800/- with interest
@7.5% p.a. awarded under the impugned decree and order dated
10.01.2017 is modified and enhanced to Rs.21,85,800/- with interest
@7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.
[ii] The claimant/petitioner shall pay the Court fee in respect of
enhanced part of compensation, before the learned MACT.
[iii] The claimant/petitioner is entitled to withdraw the compensation
amount at once, on deposit.
[iv] No costs in the facts and circumstances.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal
shall stand closed.
____________________________
A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J
Date: 20.06.2025
Pnr
37
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
M.A.C.M.A.No.1510 of 2017
Dt. 20.06.2025
Pnr
38
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
M.A.C.M.A. No.1510 of 2017
% 20.06.2025
# National Insurance Co. Ltd. Mumbai, Rep by its Branch Manager, Office
at TATA Pebo, Dept. of Motor Tie Up business, Royal Insurance Building
2nd Floor, 14 J TATA Road Church Gate, Mumbai,
Maharashtra State- 400038.
. .... Appellant Versus
$1. M.Mothi Kiran, S/o P. M. Babu, aged about 23 years, Hindu, B. Tech
Student residing at Kotagaram Village, Etteri Post, GD Nellore
Mandal, Chittoor Distrcit and 02 Others.
…. Respondents
!Counsel for the Appellant : Sri A.Jayanthi
! Counsel for the Respondents : Sri M.Vidya Sagar
Sri Naresh Byrapaneni
< Gist:
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
2015 ACJ 1352;
2015 ACJ 797
2009 (13) SCC 530
2025 AIAR (Civil) 1
2020 (04) SCC 413
2010(10)SCC 341
2007 (14) SCC 61
1992(2) SCC 567
2011 (1) SCC 343
2023 (3) SCC 439
1995 (1) SCC 551
2023 SCC Online AP 1725
(2021) 16 SCC 467
(2003) 2 SCC 274
2020 (04) SCC 413
(2019) 2 SCC 192
2009 (6) ALD 684 = 2011 ACJ 1702
39* THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
M.A.C.M.A.No.1510 of 2017
# National Insurance Co. Ltd. Mumbai, Rep by its Branch Manager, Office
at TATA Pebo, Dept. of Motor Tie Up business, Royal Insurance Building
2nd Floor, 14 J TATA Road Church Gate, Mumbai,
Maharashtra State- 400038
. …. Appellant/sVersus
$1. M.Mothi Kiran, S/o P. M. Babu, aged about 23 years, Hindu, B. Tech
Student residing at Kotagaram Village, Etteri Post, GD Nellore
Mandal, Chittoor Distrcit and 02 Others.
.... Respondent/s DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED: 20.06.2025 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may
be allowed to see the Order? Yes/No
2. Whether the copies of Order may be marked
to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No
3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair
copy of the Order ? Yes/No____________________________
A. HARIHARANADHA SARMA, J
40
[ad_2]
Source link