Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
The Ap State Road Transport Corporation vs Garikapati Nageswara Rao on 14 August, 2025
1
APHC010447892012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3520]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 4201/2012
Between:
1. THE AP STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REP BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR O/O.MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD,
HYDERABAD M.M.C.
...APPELLANT
AND
1. GARIKAPATI NAGESWARA RAO, S/o.Alluraiah R/o.Ratnagiri NAgar,
Gunru, guntur D.M.C.
...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. SANISETTY VENKATESWARLU SC For APSRTC
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. CKR ASSOCIATES
The Court made the following:
2
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
M.A.C.M.A.No.4201 of 2012
JUDGMENT:
1. Respondents in M.V.O.P.No.390 of 2011 on the file of Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge-cum-Judge, Family Court, Guntur
(for short “the learned MACT”), feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree
dated 29.11.2011 filed the present appeal. Under the impugned award, against a
claim made by the claimant for Rs.3,00,000/-, the learned MACT awarded
compensation of Rs.4,86,500/- for the injuries sustained by him.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as
the claimant and the respondent, as and how they are arrayed before the learned
MACT.
Case of the claimant:
3. On 23.02.2011, when the claimant was proceeding on a motorcycle near
Cumbum Bus Stand Centre in Markapur Town, A.P.S.R.T.C Bus bearing AP 28
Z 898 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”), driven by its driver
came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant. Thereby,
the claimant fell on the road and the bus tyre ran over his right hand, resulting in
amputation at the right hand shoulder joint. The claimant was hospitalized for 20
days and took follow up treatment for about two months as outpatient. The
claimant suffered severe mental agony and suffering disability. Negligent driving
3
of the offending vehicle is the cause for the accident. Hence the claimant is
entitled for just and reasonable compensation.
4. Claim was resisted by Respondent/ A.P.S.R.T.C disowning negligence of
the driver of the offending vehicle and attributing negligence to the claimant.
5. On the strength of evidence covered by Ex.A1-FIR, Ex.A2-Wound
Certificate, Ex.A3-Charge Sheet, Ex.A4-Discharge summary, Ex.A5-Disability
Certificate issued by the Medical Board, Government General Hospital, Guntur
and oral evidence of PW.1-the claimant, P.W.2-the doctor and after referring to
the evidence of R.W.1-the driver of the offending vehicle learned MACT found
that the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle is the cause for the
accident and that the claimant suffered 75% disability and awarded a
compensation Rs.4,86,500/- with the brake up of Rs.4,32,000/- under the head of
permanent disability, Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.4,500/- towards
actual loss of earnings for 45 days at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month with
incidental directions as to interest, costs, disbursement etc.
Arguments of the appellant:
6(i). When the claim is made for Rs.3,00,000/-, arriving and granting of
compensation at Rs.4,86,500/- is not correct.
6(ii). Negligence of the claimant in riding the motorcycle is ignored.
6(iii). There is no rationality in acceptance of income and disability by the
learned MACT.
4
Arguments in the appeal:
For the claimant:
7(i). Compensation awarded is insufficient.
7(ii). Although the disability is 75%, it shall be taken as 100%.
7(iii). There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned decree and judgment,
except for enhancement of the compensation already awarded.
7(iv). The income taken at Rs.3,000/- is very low and the compensation should
have been awarded under various heads, which the learned MACT has missed.
7(v). There are good grounds to enhance the compensation.
8. Perused the record. Thoughtful consideration is given to the arguments
advanced by both sides.
9. Now the points that arise for determination in this appeal are:
1) Whether the claimant suffered injuries due to the pleaded accident and
whether the accident has occurred due to negligent driving of the offending
vehicle bearing No.AP 28 Z 898 by its driver?
2) Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation? If so, to what
quantum? And whether the compensation of Rs.4,86,500/- awarded by the
learned MACT is just and reasonable or requires any interference? if so to
what extent?
3) What is the result of the appeal?
5
Point No.1:
10. The evidence of P.W.1/ the claimant as to negligent driving of the
offending vehicle by its driver when seen along with Ex.A1-FIR, Ex.A3-charge
sheet in the light of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 476 of
the A.P. Motor vehicles Rules and with the aid of observations made by the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Bimla Devi and others vs. Himachal Road
Transport Corporation1 vide para No.15, the negligence of the driver of the
offending vehicle found fit to be accepted.
11. The evidence of R.W.1, the driver of the offending vehicle, indicates that a
case was registered against him and the same was filed by the date of his
evidence.
12. The attribution of the drunken state of the claimant, spoken by R.W.1, was
denied during cross-examination and there is no other evidence.
13. It is pertinent to note that there is reference to Section 163-A of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 in the claim petition. However, both parties adduced evidence
on negligence also. Since, by their conduct and assertions, the parties invited the
findings on the issue of negligence, the learned MACT has answered the issue
relating to the negligence in favour of the claimant and against the respondent
while mentioning that in terms of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, there
1
2009 Supreme (AP) 136; 2010 (2) ALD 403; 2009 (3) ALT 260
6is no need to prove the negligence. The findings of learned MACT found fit for
concurrence on negligence.
14. Upon perusal of the evidence and reasons stated above, the point
touching the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle is answered against
the respondent and in favour of the claimant confirming the findings of the
learned MACT.
Point No.2:
15. The claimant suffered injuries in the accident, and the same is not in
dispute. However, the evidence of claimant as P.W.1 and the evidence of
P.W.2-Dr. M. Prasanth and the other medical records i.e. Ex.A2-Wound
Certificate, Ex.A4-Discharge Summary, Ex.A5-Disability Certificate and Ex.X1-
Case sheet are vindicating the stand of the claimant that he suffered injuries due
to the accident. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for compensation.
16. It is found relevant to note the guidance of Hon‟ble Supreme Court as to
quantifying the compensation before analyzing the evidence.
Precedential Guidance:
17. 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.
7
(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.2, 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.3, 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.,4 vide para No.10, by referring
to Sunil Kumar Vs. Ram Singh Gaud5,as to application of multiplier method in
case of injuries while calculating loss of future earnings, in para 16 referring to
2
2025 AIAR (Civil) 1
3
2020 (04) SCC 413
4
2010(10)SCC 341
5
2007 (14) SCC 61
8Hardeo Kaur Vs. Rajasthan State Transport Corporation6, 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 Another7, 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. In para 19, it is observed
as follows:
19. 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.
6
1992(2) SCC 567
7
2011 (1) SCC 343
9
(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 the percentage of loss of earning capacity is
the same as the 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 to 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.8
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.9. From the observations made therein, it can
be understood that while fixing amount of compensation in cases of accident, it
8
2023 (3) SCC 439
9
1995 (1) SCC 551
10
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.
Analysis of Evidence:
18. Ex.A2-Wound Certificate is reflecting the crush injury of right upper limb.
Ex.A4-Discharge summary is indicating admission of the claimant to the Hospital
on 24.02.2011, date of surgery on 24.02.2011 and 31.03.2011 and discharge on
09.04.2011. Ex.A5-Disability certificate is indicating nature of disability and the
disability at 75%. Details mentioned in the disability certificate are as follows:
Name of the candidate : G. Nageswara Rao
Father’s Name : Alluraiah
Sex(Male / Female) : Male
Approximate Age : 35
Identification Marks : 1) A mole on the right hand shoulder
Nature of Disability :
Mild : Less than 40% and diability.
Moderate : 40% and above
Sevare : 75% and above
Prefound : 100%
19. The case sheet-Ex.X1 indicates the nature of investigation done and the
treatment given etc.
20. The evidence of P.W.2 / Dr.M. Prasanth is as follows:
11
Chief examination:
I am working as Professor of Orthopedic GGH, Guntur since 2003. P.W.1 was
admitted in the hospital on 24.02.2011 with the following injuries.
1. Crush injury of the right arm and fore-arm with multiple fractures.
I have conducted operation on 24.02.2011 on 31.03.2011. The patient was
disability is permanent is partial to 75%. I am one of the members of the
medical discharged on 09.04.2011. There is amputation to the right arm
above elbow, the board and issued disability certificate. Ex.-A4 is the
discharge summary and Ex.A5 is the disability certificate issued by Medical
Board (already marked). Ex.X1 is the case sheet.
Cross-examination by PMB Advocate for respondent:
It is not true to suggest that the disability is mentioned by me is excessive. The
treatment is free of cost.
Re-examination: -Nil
21. From the evidence the following aspects are clear:
(i) The claimant suffered a crush injury
(ii) The claimant‟s right upper limb above the elbow was amputated.
(iii) The disability is permanent, partial, to the extent of 75%
(iv) The disability certificate was issued by the Medical Board.
22. As per the evidence of the claimant, he was working as a driver of the
tractor. The income of the claimant during the year 2011, with reference to socio-
economic circumstances of the year and also minimum wages etc., although
there is no proof as to status of the claimant as a driver, considering his age
around „35‟ years, his income can be taken notionally at Rs.3,000/- per month, as
rightly adopted by the learned MACT. Rs.3,000/- per month even if considered
as excessive, the same can be considered as inclusive of future prospects. Then
the annual income comes to Rs.36,000/-. Multiplier applicable is „16‟. Therefore,
the compensation under the head of loss of earning capacity due to disability at
12
Rs.4,32,000/- found fit for confirmation. No medical bills are produced, however,
notionally Rs.5,000/- is awarded under the head of medical expenditure.
However, with regard to pain and suffering, loss of amenities, transportation,
expenditure, attendant charges etc., there is need to award reasonable
compensation, in tune with the precedential guidance referred above.
23. In the light of the precedential guidance and 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 the compensation awarded by the learned MACT is found as
follows:
Sl. Head Granted by Fixed by this
No. the learned Appellate
MACT Court
1. Loss of earning capacity Rs.4,32,000/- Rs.4,32,000/-
due to disability
2. Loss of earnings during Rs.4,500/- Rs.10,000/-
the period of treatment
etc.
3. Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/- Rs.50,000/-
4. Loss of amenities -Nil- Rs.5,000/-
5. Transportation -Nil- Rs.5,000/-
6. Attendant charges -Nil- Rs.5,000/-
7. Extra nourishment -Nil- Rs.10,000/-
8. Medical expenditure -Nil- Rs.5,000/-
Total: Rs.4,86,500 /- Rs.5,22,000/-
13
24. For the reasons aforesaid and in view of the discussion made above, the
point framed is answered in favour of the claimant concluding that the claimant is
entitled for compensation of Rs.5,22,000/- and the impugned order and decree
dated 29.11.2011 passed by the learned MACT in M.V.O.P.No.390 of 2011
require modification accordingly.
25. Awarding more compensation than what claimed and awarding
compensation to the claimant even in the absence of any appeal or cross
objections by the claimant require examination.
Enhancement of compensation in the absence of appeal:
26(i). Whether the compensation can be enhanced in the absence of an appeal
or cross appeal by the claimant. 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 others 10 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:
10
2023 SCC Online AP 1725
14
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.
26(ii). Observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in National
Insurance Company Limited vs. E. Suseelamma and others (10 supra) case
are in compliance with the observations of Hon‟ble Apex Court in Surekha and
Others vs. Santosh and Others11.
26(iii). In Surekha and Others vs. Santosh and Others (11 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.
11
(2021) 16 SCC 467
15
Granting of more compensation than what claimed, if the claimant is
otherwise entitled:-
27. 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 Others12, 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.”
(2) Kajal Vs. Jagadish Chand and Ors.13 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
Others14 at para 5 of the judgment, as follows:-
12
(2003) 2 SCC 274
13
2020 (04) SCC 413
14
(2019) 2 SCC 192
16“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.”
Point No.3:
28. For the aforesaid reasons and in view of the findings and conclusions
drawn under point Nos.1 and 2, point No.3 is answered as follows:
In the result,
(i) The appeal is dismissed.
(ii) The compensation awarded by the learned MACT at Rs.4,86,500/-
with interest at the rate of 6% per annum is modified and enhanced to
Rs.5,22,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date
of petition till the date of realization.
(iii) Time for deposit of balance compensation amount is two months.
(iv) The claimant is entitled to withdraw the amount at once on deposit.
(v) The claimant is liable to pay the Court fee for the enhanced part of the
compensation, before the learned MACT.
17
(vi) There shall be no order as to costs, in this appeal.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeal shall
stand closed.
____________________________
A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J
Date:14.08.2025
Knr
18
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
M.A.C.M.A No.4201 of 2012
14th August, 2025
Knr