Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Vemula Sivaji vs Kommana Siva Sai Kumar Nani on 20 June, 2025
1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
M.A.C.M.A.Nos.3460 of 2018, 1171 OF 2019 AND 109 OF 2020
COMMON JUDGMENT:
I. Introduction:- 1. [i] One Vemula Sivaji [herein after referred as 'the petitioner'] met
with a road accident on 15.11.2010 at about 11.00p.m., near Jangareddy
Gudem village, within the limits of Jangareddy Gudem Police Station, and
suffered injuries.
[ii] Claim was made for Rs.25,00,000/- vide M.V.O.P.No.566 of
2012 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District
Judge, West Godavari, Eluru [for short “MACT”], for the injuries suffered by
him in the said accident.
[ii] Learned MACT awarded compensation of Rs.13,99,900/-
under the impugned award and decree dated 17.09.2018.
[iii] Before the learned MACT, the 1 st respondent is the owner-cum-
driver of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 37 Y 4747 [hereinafter referred as the
offending vehicle]. 2nd respondent is the APSRTC/hirer. 3rd respondent is
the Insurance Company, with which the offending vehicle was insured.
[iv] MACMA No.3460 of 2018 is filed by the claimant, dissatisfied
with the quantum of compensation, awarded by the learned MACT.
2
[v] MACMA No.109 of 2020 and MACMA No. 1171 of 2019 are
filed by the 2nd respondent-APSRTC and 3rd respondent-Insurance
Company respectively, disputing the quantum of compensation awarded as
excessive in nature and disowning the liability, in their respective appeals.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties will be herein after referred to as
the petitioner and the respondents as and how they are arrayed before the
learned MACT.
II. Case of the claimant /petitioner in brief, is that :
3. [i] The petitioner was hale and healthy aged ’23’ years, working
as cleaner-cum-helper in the bus, earning Rs.6000/- p.m..
[ii] On 15.11.2010 at about 11.00 p.m., while the petitioner was
discharging his duties as cleaner for the offending vehicle/ hired bus. Front
tire of the bus was lifted with jockey, while he was attending grease work
using the grease gun, the driver of the offending vehicle viz., the 1 st
respondent, negligently started the bus, on that the foot board fell on the
petitioner waist, as a result, he suffered spinal card damage and facture of
L1, Vertebra with altered marrow single intensity with loss of posterior
element. The petitioner and others when raised cries, the offending vehicle
was stopped, and the petitioner was shifted to ASRAM hospital, Eluru,
where first-aid was given and the petitioner was shifted to Hyderabad for
better treatment at NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad. He was referred to STAR
3
Hospital, where he was advised to be taken to Madras APPOLLO Hospital,
for further treatment.
[iii] After giving treatment, on 17.11.2011 and 18.11.2010, the
petitioner was shifted to APPOLLO Hospital, Chennai on 19.11.2010, where
operation was conducted by Doctor N. Madan Mohan Reddy, for the
fracture of L1, with parapalesia surgery for D11-L3 and the petitioner was
discharged on 27.11.2010. Due to the accident, the movement of the
petitioner is restricted, particularly due to spinal card fracture.
[iv] He is unable to walk, squat, sit, stand and climb etc.. He has
incurred expenditure at around Rs.8,00,000/- for the treatment at NIMS and
STAR Hospitals, Hyderabad and APPOLLO Hospitals at Chennai. He
became dependent on the family. Hence, he is entitled for just and
reasonable compensation for survival. Since the negligence of the driver of
the offending vehicle i.e., respondent No.1 is the cause for the accident, the
respondent Nos.2 and 3 are vicariously and contractually liable to pay
compensation.
4. The 1st respondent -cum-driver and owner of the offending vehicle
remained ex parte.
III. Case of the Respondent No.2/Appellant-APSRTC, in brief, is that:
5. [i] The petitioner shall prove the pleaded accident, negligence of
the driver of the offending vehicle, age, occupation and income of the
petitioner, nature of injuries suffered, treatment undergone, expenditure
4
incurred, disability suffered, nature, effect, and extent of disability etc., with
cogent evidence.
[ii] The 1st respondent is not employed by the 2nd respondent, the
vehicle belongs to the 1st respondent, therefore, there is no vicarious liability
on the 2nd respondent-APSRTC and the owner of the hired bus has to take
the Insurance Policy and comply the conditions of the Policy. The liability if
any, is that of the insurer and owner of the offending vehicle, the claim
against the APSRTC is fit to be dismissed.
Case of the respondent No.3-Insurance Company, in brief, is that:
6. [i] Petition allegations are incorrect and the petitioner is put to
strict proof of all the allegations. There was delay in reporting the matter to
the Police. The 3rd respondent is added as party to the case, after 8 years of
the accident. The petitioner shall strictly prove each and every allegation as
to negligence of driver of the offending vehicle, nature and effect of the
injuries, compliance of the conditions of the Insurance Policy etc., including
proper driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle.
[ii] Specific case of the respondent No.3 is that the Policy does not
cover the risk of cleaner or helper, and it covers owner, driver of the bus
and occupants. The contention of the petitioner that he was working as
cleaner for the offending vehicle. When there is no provision for coverage of
risk of cleaner, Insurance Company cannot be made liable.
5
[iii] Further, specific case of the 3rd respondent is that the offending
vehicle is in total and effective control of the APSRTC. Therefore, the
Insurance Company cannot be made liable to pay any compensation.
[iv] It is also claimed by the 3rd respondent- Insurance Company
that the petitioner shall prove the age, occupation, and income and nature
and effect of the injuries, disability suffered, loss of income, etc., with proper
evidence and in any event, the quantum of compensation claimed is
excessive, and the 3rd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation.
7. On the strength of pleadings, learned MACT framed the issues dated
04.01.2013 and additional issue dated 06.04.2018 for trial, which are as
follows:
1) Whether the accident dated 15.11.2010 occurred due to the rash or
negligent driving of APSRTC Hire bus bearing No.AP 37 X 4747 by the
1st respondent?
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, and if so, to what
amount and from which of the respondents?
3) To what relief?
4) Whether the 3rd respondent has any liability to pay compensation to
the petitioner as the hired bus insured with the 3rd respondent?
IV. Evidence before the learned MACT:
8. Documentary evidence:-
Sl.No. Date Description Marked
as
01. -- Attested copy of F.I.R. Ex.A1
02. 16.11.2010 Radiology Report issued by ASHRAM Ex.A2
Hospital, Eluru
6
03. Prescriptions issued by ASHRAM Hospital, Ex.A3
Eluru
04. 16.11.2010 Original Outpatient Medical Report from Ex.A4
NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad
05. 16.11.2010 Original Progress Report from NIMS Ex.A5
Hospital, Hyderabad.
06. 17.11.2010 Original Diagnosis Report/Clinical Ex.A6
Summary issued by STAR Hospital.
07. 17.11.2010 Doctors Notes issued by STAR Hospital Ex.A7
08. 26.11.2010 Discharge Summary issued by Apollo Ex.A8
Hospitals, Chennai
09. 21.11.2010 Radiology Report issued by Apollo Ex.A9
Hospitals, Chennai
10. 19.11.2010 Lab reports and Mounting Chart issued by Ex.A10
Apollo Hospitals, Chennai
11. — Bunch of Medical Bills by Apollo Hospitals Ex.A11
12. 04.06.2011 Original Receipt from Care Hospital Ex.A12
13. 31.01.2011 Original Medical Certificate issued by Ex.A13
Apollo Hospital, Chennai
14. — Notarized copy of disability certificate Ex.A14
issued by Government Hospital, Eluru.
15. 16.11.2010 MRI Report for Lumbo Sacral Spine with Ex.A15
screening of Dorsal and Cervical spine
screening issued by ASHRAM Hospital,
Eluru
16. 28.07.2014 Original Discharge Summary issued by Ex.A16
ASRAM Hospital, Eluru
17. 20.05.2013 Original Outpatient Card issued by ASRAM Ex.A17
Hospital, Eluru.
18. 28.07.2014 Original Final Bill Ex.A18
19. — Bunch of Photos with C.D. Ex.A19
7
20. — Case Sheet of the Petitioner issued by the Ex.X1
Star Hospitals.
21. — Police C.D. Ex.X2
FOR RESPONDENTS:
1. 10.04.2012 copy of Agreement Ex.B1
2. — Policy copy along with data sheet. Ex.B2
3. 30.01.2010 Certificate issued by Banjara Hills Police Ex.B3
Station, Hyderabad.
9. ORAL EVIDENCE:
Sl.No. Name of the Examined Remarks
Witness as
1. Vemula Sivaji PW.1 Petitioner/injured
2. Dr.Adnan Aziz PW.2 Doctor, at STAR Hospital.
3. Dr.A.V.R.Mohan PW.3 Doctor, who treated the
petitioner
4. Vemula Subbarao PW.4 Father of the petitioner
5. K.Ramachandra Rao PW.5 ASI of Police, who conducted
investigation.
6. Swarnala Dharmadas PW.6 Eye witness
@Dasu
7. Kuriyala Sivaji @ PW.7 Eye witness
Siva Krishna
8. J.U. Bhaskaram RW.1 Examined on behalf of the
respondents.
V. Findings Of The Learned MACT:-
With regard to negligence and accident:-
10. [i] Oral evidence of the petitioner as PW.1, as to manner of
accident and the documentary evidence particularly Ex.A1-F.I.R. and the
evidence of PW.5-ASI of Police, and Ex.X2-Case Diary discloses that the
offending vehicle was stationed at the time of accident, the Jackey was
fixed by the petitioner and the same has slipped. Bus foot rest fell on him,
8the involvement of the driver of the bus is not specific, therefore, no charge
sheet could be filed. The evidence of PW.5 suggests that there is defect in
investigation done. Ex.X2-Case Diary is disclosing nonfatal accident. The
petitioner was discharging his duties at the time of accident.
[ii] PW.6 and PW.7 are third party eye witnesses. Their evidence
is also disclosing that the petitioner was applying greese as assistant for the
bus, and all of sudden the Jackey slipped and foot board of the bus fell
down on the petitioner, causing injuries to back bone etc..
[iii] The 1st respondent-driver of the bus should have been more
careful and he could have avoided the accident. Therefore, there is
negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and contention
contra of the 2nd and 3rd respondents cannot be accepted.
On quantum of compensation:-
11. [i] The evidence of Doctors- PW.2, PW.3, and father of the
injured, PW.4 disclosing the nature of injuries, disability suffered at 90%,
treatment undergone, income of the petitioner is claimed at 60,000/-. But,
income of the petitioner is fit to be taken at Rs.3000/- per month, age at ’23’,
future prospects are to be added at 50%, multiplier applicable is ’18’, and
claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.11,66,400/- under loss of income
due to permanent disability, and Rs.5000/- toward the loss of cloths,
Rs.25,000/- towards transportation, Rs.1,03,500/- under medical
expenditure. In all claimant is entitled to Rs.13,99,900/-.
9
With regard to Liability:-
[ii] Non-filing of charge sheet in a properly registered crime is not
relevant, when negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle shown
before the Court. The contention as to non-payment of premium for the
cleaner is fit to be ignored as the premium of Rs.25/- is collected. The
seating capacity is 56+1, i.e., 56 passengers and one driver and also the
Insurance Policy was in force as on the date of accident. It is a
comprehensive Policy. IMT 40 is also shown, premium is collected under
IMT 40. It is not specifically mentioned in the Policy that it covers owner,
driver, alone. Further, APSRTC is vicariously liable. In view of the
Insurance Policy, 3rd respondent is also liable. All the respondents are
liable for the compensation.
VI. Arguments in the appeal:- For the Petitioner:- 12. [i] Petitioner sustained severe injuries. The effect of injuries is
permanent. Disability is 90%. There is clear evidence indicating the nature
and effect of injuries suffered.
[ii] As per the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in a case
Baby Sakshi Greola vs. Manzoor Ahmad Simon and Anr.1, arising out of
SLP(c).No.10996 of 2018 on 11.12.2024, where the disability is shown at
75% in respect of mental retardation, the same was considered at 100% for
the purpose of disability considering the loss of earning capacity, likewise,
1
2025 AIAR (Civil) 1
10the compensation to be awarded under different heads are not considered
by the learned MACT. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for compensation
under all the heads.
[iii] Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rushi V. Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd., and another2, while assessing the quantum of
compensation in respect of the Hemiparesis taken the disability at 75%,
awarded the compensation of Rs.34,00,000/- and in another case the
Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Simla, in Shriram General
Insurance Co. Ltd., V. Deep Kumar and another3, while considering the
Paraplegia of injured taken the disability at 100%.
[iv] There is no bar for awarding more compensation than what
claimed. Even in the appeals of Insurance Company and owner of the
offending vehicle, the compensation can be enhanced in favour of the
claimant.
On behalf of the 2nd respondent-APSRTC:-
13. The vehicle is hired bus, no liability can be fastened on APSRTC in
respect of the hired vehicle. The Insurance Company cannot avoid the
liability. Compensation awarded by the learned MACT is excessive and
there is no basis for taking the income and adding of future prospects. The
learned MACT ought to have dismissed the claim against 2nd respondent-
RTC.
2
2024 ACJ 2518
3
2021 ACJ 2310
11
On behalf of the Insurance Company -Respondent No.3:
14. Policy covers the risk of 56 passengers + one, the driver. Cleaner is
not covered as per the Policy conditions. The offending vehicle at
relevant time was under the control of APSRTC. Further, the routes are
also designed by RTC only, the vehicle was not in use at relevant time.
Therefore, the negligence of the driver of the bus does not arise. The
quantification of compensation done is neither rational nor in tune with the
evidence. The compensation awarded is excessive and in any event the
Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation, as the risk is not
covered by Insurance Policy and that the driver did not possess valid driving
licence.
15. Perused the record and the findings of the learned MACT.
16. Thoughtful consideration given to the arguments advanced by the
both sides.
17. Now the points that arise for determination in this appeal are that –
1) Whether the pleaded accident dated 15.11.2010 is attributable to
the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle?
2) Among the 2nd respondent- APSRTC and 3rd respondent-
Insurance Company who is liable to pay the compensation?
3) What is the just and reasonable compensation to which the
petitioner is entitled? And whether the compensation of
Rs.13,99,900/- awarded by the learned MACT, is just and
reasonable? Or, require any interference by this Court for
enhancement or reduction? If so, to what tune?
12
4) What is the result of the MACMA No.109 of 2020 filed by the
APSRTC?
5) What is the result of the MACMA No.1171 of 2019 filed by the
Insurance Company?
6) What is the result of the MACMA No.3460 of 2018 filed by the
Claimants?
Point No.1:-
Negligence:-
18[i]. 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. In Bimla Devi and
others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation4, the Hon’ble Apex
Court observed that :
“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 of4
2009 (13) SCC 530
13preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond
reasonable 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..”
18[ii]. It is relevant to note that the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989
are applicable in deciding the cases by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
and they are made in exercise of powers conferred under Section 176 of the
Motor Vehicles Act. Section 176 of M.V. Act reads as follows:
“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.”
18 [iii]. Chapter XI of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 deals with
the Claims Tribunal and examination, consideration and disposal of the
claim applications. Rules under Chapter-XI are covered under Rule 455 to
476-A. Sub-rule (7) of Rule 476, provides that the claims Tribunal shall
14
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;
(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.”
Analysis of Evidence:-
19. There is no dispute about the petitioner associating with the crime
vehicle at relevant time as cleaner. Evidence of PW.1, 5 and 6 is clear as to
the petitioner attending the greasing work for the offending vehicle and the
failure of jockey. The 1st respondent, driver of the offending vehicle is also
responsible for taking care of the greasing work and attending the works
relating to the offending vehicle, particularly when Jockey etc., are used for
lifting the tire of the bus. Negligence is attributable to the driver of the
offending vehicle, but he was not examined by the respondents as a
witness and he remained ex parte before the learned MACT.
20. The crime record vide Exs.A1-FIR, Ex.X2-Police C.D., apart from the
evidence of ASI are vindicating the involvement of the crime vehicle, in the
15
accident. The findings of the learned MACT that the absence of Charge
Sheet does not by itself sufficient to discard the negligence. The
appreciation of evidence in respect of Motor Vehicle Accidents claims
pursuant to social welfare legislation shall be purposive and preponderance
of probability is sufficient. The findings of the Learned MACT as to fixing
the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and
believing the occurrence of accident found fit for concurrence. Therefore,
the findings are accepted. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered against the
APSRTC-2nd respondent, and Insurance Company-3rd respondent and in
favour of the petitioner.
Point No.2:-
Liability :
21. Legal position as to liability of the Insurance Company, to pay
compensation in respect of vehicle hired for a Corporation, is settled vide
Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation V. Kulsum and Ors.5
and Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs. National
Insurance Company Ltd. And Others6.
22. In view of the legal position settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
cases cited above, the Insurance Company cannot escape its liability on the
grounds of vehicle being under the control of the APSRTC.
The objection as to coverage of risk of cleaner:
5
2011 (8) SCC 142
6
2021(6) AWC 5583=2021 (0)Supreme (SC) 891
16
23. The Policy under Ex.B2, is comprehensive in nature and the
occupancy contemplated under the Insurance Policy 56+1. It is not the
case of the Insurance Company that there were more persons. The
category of insured/petitioner, does not fall under the permitted category is
the objection. Policy is disclosing the schedule of premium and the liability
as follows:-
Insured’s declared Value (IDV)
For the For Non Electrical Electrical Value of CNG Total Value
Vehicle Trailers Accessories Accessories LPG Kit
12,00,000 – – – – 12,00,000SCHEDULE OF PREMIUM
A. OWN DAMAGE B. LIABILITY
BASIC OD COVER 20,422.00 Add: BASIC TP COVER 16,320.00BASIC OD TOTAL 20,422.00 BASIC TP TOAL 16,320.00
OD TOTAL 20,422.00 ADD: PA FOR OWNER 100.00
DRIVER-GR36A
MOTOR TOTAL OD 20,422.00 ADD: INDEMNITY TO HIRER- 125.00
IMT-44
ADD:LL-PAID DRIVER 25.00
CONDUCTOR, CLEANER
IMT-40
TP TOTAL 16,570.00
TOTAL PREMIUM 36,992.00
ADD:SERVICE TAX 3,810.00
STAMP DUTY 0.50
TOTAL AMOUNT 40,802.00
24. Conductor, cleaner, column is striked out under Ex.xB2 containing an
initial. Whether it is a unilateral striking out or with the consent of both sides
the same was striked out is not known. As against the column meant for
Additional Premium for owner driver-GR36A, Rs.100.00/- is collected and
under Column Additional LL-Paid Driver, Conductor, Cleaner IMT-40,
17
Rs.25.00/- is collected, the totaling is made at 16,570/- which shows
inclusive of ’25’ collected. Basic coverage is shown at Rs.20,422/-. The
Policy is also disclosing that IMC endorsement is attached what is the effect
of these heads IMT-6, IMT-36, IMT-21, IMT-22, IMT-40, IMT-44 are not
placed with any specific evidence before the learned MACT.
25. The Insurance Company relied on the evidence of
RW.1,Dr.J.U.Bhaskar, Assistant Manager of Respondent No.3-Insurance
Company, Ex.B2 is the Policy for the offending vehicle, valid from 11.1.2010
to 10.01.2011. The accident dated is covered by this period of coverage.
Registration of FIR with 22 days delay is first objection. This has been
sufficiently and satisfactorily answered by the learned MACT. It is settled
law that treatment of the victim shall be priority than registration of crime
and the prosecution of the offender. The delay is not fatal. Additional
premium for cleaner and helper is not paid is the specific evidence of RW.1.
During the cross-examination, he has admitted that, Ex.B2, is
comprehensive Policy and that in page No.1 of Policy, conductor, cleaner,
IMT 40 is striked down by the Branch Manager. In the copy generated by
the computer there is no strike, striking out is only a manual. It was
suggested to him that for every bus there should be a conductor and driver.
He has admitted that premium was collected under IMT 40.
26. On behalf of the APSRTC it was suggested that Ex.B2 filed before
the Court is not true copy of original supplied to the 2nd respondent and as
18
original copy, the risk of the cleaner is also covered. He has stated during
the cross-examination on behalf of respondent No.2 that “the full form of
IMT 40 is Indian Motor Tariff, IMT 40 means not only covered the risk of
driver and also risk of the cleaner. It is true we did not clearly mentioned in
IMT 40 in 2nd page of the Ex.B2-Policy covers only for driver.”
27. It cannot be said that the cleaner is an unauthorised person. Further,
it is relevant to note that he was attending the work of the offending vehicle.
Merely because the offending vehicle was not in movement, one cannot say
that it is not in use. For the purpose of putting the vehicle in use, the
greasing was being done by the petitioner at the time of incident. Hence,
the expression use of vehicle notionally extends to all relevant situations like
1) parking, 2) greasing, 3) loading, 4) unloading, any other use not
prohibited under M.V. Act, which shall also includes the context of vehicle
undergoing preparatory works like painting, decoration, cleaning. The
owner under vicarious liability or insurer under contractual liability cannot
escape the liability, on the ground that the vehicle was not in use, when the
use of vehicle can be notionally extended. For considering whether vehicle
was in use for the purpose of addressing claim for compensation, the above
mentioned circumstances are only illustrative but not exhaustive.
28. The defence of the Insurance Company that the cleaner, who was
attending certain work of the bus, do not come under the purview of IMT-40,
and that the Policy does not cover the risk of such person, who is attending
19
the work of the vehicle, is not proved and such defence found not
acceptable either in principle or on evidence available on record.
29. Further, the burden to prove absence of driving licence lies on the
Insurance Company but no evidence is adduced. Hence, the defences of
Insurance Company is found not tenable. Accordingly, discarded.
Therefore, this Court finds that the Insurance Company cannot escape from
its liability. Point No.2 is answered accordingly, holding that the Insurance
Company is liable to pay the compensation.
Point No.3:-
Precedential Guidance:
30. 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 petitioner/claimant is entitled.
(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.7, arising out of SLP(c).No.10996 of 2018
on 11.12.2024, considered the scope and powers of the Tribunal in
awarding just and compensation within the meaning of Act, after marshaling
entire case law, more particularly with reference to the earlier observations
7
2025 AIAR (Civil) 1
20
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court made in Kajal V. Jagadish Chand and
Ors.8, 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.,9 vide para
No.10, by referring to Sunil Kumar Vs. Ram Singh Gaud10, as to
application of multiplier method in case of injuries while calculating loss of
future earnings, in para 16 referring to Hardeo Kaur Vs. Rajasthan State
Transport Corporation11, 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 intention8
2020 (04) SCC 413
9
2010(10)SCC 341
10
2007 (14) SCC 61
11
1992(2) SCC 567
21behind 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 Another12 vide para No.19,
the Hon’ble Apex Court summarized principles to be followed in the process
of quantifying the compensation after referring to socio economic and
practical aspects from which, the claimants come and the practical
difficulties, the parties may face in the process of getting disability assessed
and getting all certificates from either the Doctors, who treated, or from the
medical boards etc., it is observed that :-
“…We may now summarise the principles discussed above :
(i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss
of earning capacity.
(ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a
person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it
differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the
percentage 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.
12
2011 (1) SCC 343
22
(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.13 vide para No.40, the Hon’ble Apex Court referred to the general
principles relating to compensation in injury cases and assessment of future
loss of earning due to permanent disability by referring to Rajkumar‘s case,
and also various heads under which compensation can be awarded to a
victim of a motor vehicle accident.
(v) In Sidram‘s case, reference is made to a case in R.D.
Hattangadi V. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd.14. 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
considerations of matter which rest in awarding speculation or fancy, though
conjecture to some extent is inevitable.
(vi) 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
13
2023 (3) SCC 439
14
1995 (1) SCC 551
23
Court finds it proper to refer the following observations of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court made in:
(1) Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and Others 15, 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.16 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
Others17 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 a15
(2003) 2 SCC 274
16
2020 (04) SCC 413
17
(2019) 2 SCC 192
24beneficial 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. As per the petitioner/PW.1, foot board was fell on his waist and a)
spinal card was damaged and b) fracture of L1, Vertebra with altered
marrow single intensity with loss of posterior element. He has taken
treatment in a) Asramam Hospital, Eluru, b) NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad,
c) STAR Hospital, Hyderabad and d) Apollo Hospital, Chennai and
undergone several operations. During operations, steel plates, rods,
screws were fixed. He has spent Rs.12,00,000/- for the injuries, treatment,
medicines etc.. Doctors i.e., Dr.A.V.R. Mohan, Dr.Jayasree, V.S.Janardhan
Rao, attended his treatment, the disability assessed at 90%.
32. As per the evidence of petitioner/PW.1, during cross-examination, he
has stated that he was discharged from Apollo Hospitals, after the wounds
were healed. After 3 years, again he went for follow up treatment at
Asramam Hospital. There is no proof that he has been taking medicines
between 3 years period. He has denied the suggestion that he was treated
under Aarogyasri Health Card. He has not filed medical bills for
25
Rs.12,00,000/-. Medical Bills were available for Rs.3,02,500/- and
Rs.38,800/-. There is no proof that by working as cleaner he was earning
Rs.6000/- per month. The Insurance Company was added after 8years of
the accident.
33. The evidence of PW.2, Dr.Adnan Aziz, is as under:
“Chief-examination by petitioner/s counsel:-
The petitioner was admitted in our hospital on 16.11.2010. Our hospital
authorities rendered treatment to the petitioner and surgery for spine fixation
was advised to the petitioner. The petitioner left against the medical advice
from our hospital. The petitioner sustained serious injuries as per the case
sheet. Exs.A-6, and A7 were issued by our hospital. Dr.T.V.R.K. Murthy
treated the petitioner. Ex.X1 is the case sheet of the petitioner.
Cross-examination by counsel for the respondent-2:-
I am working in STAR Hospitals, Hyderabad. Ex.A6 was not issued by me. It
is true on the date of issuing Ex.A6 I was not working in STAR Hospital. It is
true I have no personal knowledge about the treatment given to the petitioner.
It is true on the basis of the case sheet, I am deposing evidence.”
34. The evidence of PW.3, Dr.A.V.R.Mohan, is as under:
“Chief Examination:-
I have been working as Medical Superintendent, District Hospital, Eluru. I am also
Civil Surgeon Specialist, Orthopedic. I am also the Member of the District Medical
Board, West Godavari District for assessment of orthopedic disability. On 18-10-
2010 I issued Disability Certificate to PW.1 by assessing disability as 90%. Ex.A-
14 is the Disability Certificate issued by me. He is suffering with postrunatis para
paresis. He is not able to move.
Cross-examination by counsel for the 2nd respondent:
26
It is true I never treated the patient and not conducted any surgery to
PW.1. it is true I did not mention the date of surgery and treatment of PW.1 under
Ex.A14. it is true I also did not mention in Ex.A-14 document that I obtained x-ray
from the radiologist for assessing the disability of PW.1. I also not mentioned in
Ex.A-14 about Ex.A8 i.e., discharge summary issued by Apollo Hospital, Chennai.
It is true Ex.A-14 is computer generated copy and after information feeded as the
information supplied by the patient record and my examination. It is not true to
suggest that I did not verify the record and not examined PW.1 by the time of
issuing Ex.A-14, disability certificate and also got x-ray of the patient. It is not true
to suggest that the disability is not a permanent disability. It is not true to suggest
that assessment of disability at 90% is not correct. It is true in colum No.5 of
Ex.A14 is typed in computer. It is true I did not mention in Ex.A14 that PW.1 is not
able to discharge his duties as mentioned in Column No.5.
35. PW.4, Vemula Subba Rao, father of claimant, deposed about the
treatment taken by the petitioner/claimant at various hospitals and denied
the suggestion that the petitioner was covered by the Aarogyasri Scheme
and the claimant became normal and he can attend his duties as usual.
36. As per the evidence of PW.1, PW.2, PW.3 and PW.4, it is clear that
the petitioner was working as cleaner and suffered injuries in the accident at
90% disability and he was taken treatment at various hospitals.
Documentary Evidence:-
37. Ex.A2-Radiology Report, Ex.A3 to Ex.A9, Ex.A10 are indicating the
treatment taken by the petitioner at various hospitals. Ex.A11 for
Rs.3,02,359.66/-, Ex.A12 for Rs.38,800/- and Ex.A18 for Rs.900/- indicating
the medical expenditure incurred. Ex.A14 is indicating the disability
27
suffered. Ex.X1 and other documents, Ex.A15, Ex.A16 and Ex.A7 and
Ex.A19 are corroborating the oral evidence of the petitioner and PWs.2 to
PW.4 as to nature of the injuries and the treatment undergone by the
petitioner.
38. The income taken at Rs.3000/- by the learned MACT is found as low.
Adding future prospects at 50% when the employment is private non-regular
basis, though not self-employment, found to be inaccurate. Therefore,
income can be taken at Rs.5000/- per month. Future prospects can be
added at 40%. Then the annual income of the petitioner can be taken,
[[Rs.5000/- x 12] = Rs.60,000/- Plus 40% of the same i.e., Rs.24,000/-], in total at
Rs.84,000/-. Disability fit to be taken at 100%, in view of the injuries to
spinal card etc., spoken by the doctors. Age of the petitioner is ’21’ as per
the medical records. Multiplier applicable is ’18’. Therefore, the loss of
income comes to [Rs.84,000/- x 18] = Rs.15,12,000/-.
39. Although the bills are valued around Rs.3,52,000/-, considering the
nature of injuries and the treatment taken at various hospitals as well as
doing some guess work, the entitlement of the claimant under the head of
medical treatment is found at Rs.5,00,000/-.
40. In the light of precedential guidance and in view of the reasons and
evidence referred above, the entitlement of the petitioner/claimant for
28
reasonable compensation 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.1,03,500/- Rs.5,00,000/-
Treatment [including special
diet and attendant
charges]
2. Loss of Earning Capacity due to Rs.11,66,400/- Rs.15,12,000/-
disability
3. Pain and suffering and Mental Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.1,00,000/-
agony
4. Future Treatment Nil Rs.1,00,000/-
5. Attendant Charges Nil Rs.50,000/-
6. Loss of amenities of Life Nil Rs.3,00,000/-
7. Loss of Future Prospects Nil Rs.2,00,000/-
8. Conveyance and Diet Nil 1,00,000/-
9. Loss of Marriage Prospects Nil 3,00,000/-
10. Damage to clothes and 5000/- 5000/-
particulars
11. Transportation and General 25,000/- 5000/-
Expenses
Total: Rs.13,99,900 /- Rs. 31,72,000/-
41. For the reasons aforesaid it is found that claimant is entitled for
compensation for Rs.31,72,000/- with interest at 9% per annum. The date
3rd respondent/Insurance Company was added on 11.12.2017. Hence, the
award under challenge require modification accordingly. However, the
liability of the Insurance Company is to pay the interest from the date of its
adding to the petition, as it has been added belatedly. Point No.3 is
answered accordingly.
29
Points No.4 to 6:-
42. In view of the reasons stated and conclusion drawn under Point
Nos.1 to 3, in the result,
[i] MACMA No.109 of 2020 filed by the APSRTC /2nd respondent
before the learned MACT is allowed and the claim petition in
M.V.O.P.No.566 of 2012 is dismissed against APSRTC/the 2nd respondent.
[ii] MACMA No.1171 of 2019 filed by the Insurance Company/3rd
respondent is dismissed and the liability imposed by the learned MACT in
M.V.O.P.No.566 of 2012 against the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company is
confirmed.
[iii] MACMA No.3460 of 2018 filed by the claimant is allowed, as
follows:-
1) The compensation awarded by the learned MACT at Rs.13,99,900/-
with interest @7.5% p.a. is modified and enhanced to Rs.31,72,000/-
with interest @7.5% p.a. from the date of adding of 3rd respondent/
Insurance Company viz., 11.12.2017 till the date of realization.
2) Although the respondent Nos.1 and 3 are jointly and severally liable
to pay compensation, in view of the Insurance Policy, the 3rd
respondent is liable to pay.
30
3) The petitioner/claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire compensation
amount at once, on deposit.
4) The petitioner/claimant is liable to pay the Court fee for the enhanced
part of compensation before the learned MACT within a period of six
(06) weeks.
5) The 2nd respondent-APSRTC is entitled to refund the compensation
amount, if any deposited or paid earlier, out of the amount payable by
the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company.
6) There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeal
shall stand closed.
____________________________
A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J
Date: 20.06.2025
Pnr
Note:-
L.R. Copy to be marked
B/o:- Pnr