Sallapudi Rajesh Vs Padala Ramesh & 2 Others

Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V Act, against^thedecreeand award dated 21.06.2012 in M.V.O.P No. 466 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (District Judge) Rajahmundry, East Godavari District.

¶16

This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and material papers

¶17

in the Suit and upon hearing arguments of Sri Parimi Rama^Rayudu, Advocate for the Appellant and Sri Mangena Sree Rama^{Rao,Advocatefor} Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and of Sri S.A.V Ratnam, Advocate^{forRespondent} No.3

¶18

This Court doth Order and decree as follows:

¶19

That this Appeal be and is hereby allowed in part;

¶20

That the compensation awarded in the impugned award^dated 21.06.2012 of the Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents^Claims Tribunal (District Judgb) at Rajahmundry in M.V.O.P.No.466 of 2010 be and is hereby enhanced from Rs.3,52,309/to Rs.6,07,309/with 7.5% interest per annum from the^date of petition till the date of realization;

¶21

That the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 be and are hereby jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation;

¶22

That the third respondent-insurance Company be and^ishereby directed to deposit the amount after giving due credit^toamounts, if any, deposited already within one month before the^Claims Tribunal;

¶23

That on such a deposit, the appellant/claimant be and^is hereby entitled to withdraw the same along with costs and accrued interest thereon and

¶24

That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal.

¶25

SD/- U.SRIDEVI

¶26

//TRUE COPY//

¶27

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTI C^^^FFICER

¶28

To,

¶29

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,(District Judge) Rajahmundry, East Godavari District

¶30

THREE CD COPIES TAC

HIGH COURT

DATED:06/03/2025

DECREE

MACMA.No.3204 of 2012

¶35

X 0 8 APR 2025 n
09
^ . Current Section

¶36

ALLOWING THE APPEAL IN PART

¶37

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI

¶38

THURSDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH

¶39

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶40

PRESENT

¶41

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR

¶42

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 3204 OF 2012

¶43

Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V Act, against^thedecreeand award dated 21.06.2012 in M.V.O.P No. 466 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (District Judge) Rajahmundry, East Godavari District.

¶44

Between;

¶45

Sallapudi Rajesh, S/o. Late Pllshparaju, Teacher, D.No. 2-242, R/o. Kovvur Mandal, West Godavari District.

¶46

...APPELLANT/PETITIONER

¶47

AND

¶48

Padala Ramesh, S/o. Seshagiri Rao, Driver of Lorry Bearing No. AP 37 Y 1679 R/o. Govardhanagiri Metta, Kapavaram, West Godavari^District.

¶49

Gullapalli Venkata Lakshmi,, W/o. Nagabhushanam, Owner of Lorry bearing No. AP 37 Y 1679, 1-34/1 ,Madduru R/o. Kovvur Mandal, West Godavari District.

¶50

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Rep.by its Divisional Manager, Rajahmundry, E.G.District.

¶51

...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS

¶52

r,

¶53

Counsel for the Appellant : SRI PARIMI RAMA RAYUDU

¶54

/ ^ ^Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1& 2 : SRI MANGENA^SREERAMA RAO

¶55

Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SRI S A V RATNAM

¶56

The Court made the following JUDGMENT :

¶57

APHC010688062012

¶58

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶59

[3365]

¶60

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶61

THURSDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶62

PRESENT

¶63

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR

¶64

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO:

3204/2012

Between:

Sallapudi Rajesh

...APPELLANT

AND

Padala Ramesh 2 Others and Others

¶71

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶72

Counsel for the Appellant:

¶73

1.PARIMI RAMARAYUDU

¶74

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶75

1.SAVRATNAM

¶76

2.MANGENA SREE RAMA RAO

¶77

The Court made the following:

¶78

2 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3204 of 2012

¶79

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR

¶80

M.A.C.M.A.No.3204 of 2012

¶81

JUDGMENT:

¶82

Questioning the inadequacy of compensation, the injured claimant preferred this Appeal under Section 173 of^theMotor Vehicles Act, 1988 impugning the award dated 21.06.2012^ofthe learned Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge) at Rajahmundry (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.466 of 2010.

¶83

Heard arguments of Sri Parimi Rama Rayudu, the learned counsel for appellant and Sri Mangena Sree Rama Rao, the learned counsel appearing online for respondent Nos.1^and2and Smt. S.A.V.Ratnam, the learned counsel for respondent No.3Insurance Company.

¶84

¶85

The following facts are required to be noticed:

¶86

On 27.01.2009 at about 4:15 P.M. a lorry bearing l^egistration No.AP-37-Y-1679 was driven by Sri P.Ramesh^and by his rash or negligent driving he dashed an opposite^coming

¶87

3

¶88

Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.I/I.A.No.3204 of 2012

¶89

motorcycle and in the collision the rider of the motorcycle Sri S.Rajesh fell down and he suffered a crush injury of the right foot involving right ankle which ultimately led to the amputation upto right ankle. He also suffered grievous injuries to his upper limbs and a simple injury on his forehead. The injured^claimant Sri S.Rajesh filed M.V.O.P.No.466 of 2010 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs.9,00,000/-. The driver of the offending vehicle was made as respondent No.1 and its owner as respondent No.2 and its insurer as respondent No.3. Driver/respondent No.1 therein filed a counter and stated that he was falsely implicated in the case. The owner/respondent No.2 did not file any counter. Respondent No.3-insurance company therein questioned the narration of events as mentioned in the claim petition and further contended that there was no valid and effective driving licence for the driver of the offending vehicle and contended that the accident was out of rash or negligent driving of the injured.

¶90

The learned Claims Tribunal settled the following^issues:

¶91

4

¶92

Dr. VRKS. J M.A.C.M.A.No.3204 of 2012

¶93

1. Whether the petitioner Sallapudi Rajesh sustained injuries in the road accident on 27.01.2009? If so, whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the HGV Lorry bearing registration No.AP-37-Y-1679 by the driver?

¶94

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation?

¶95

1. Whether the respondents 1 to 3 are liable to pay compensation, if any the petitioner is entitled?

¶96

PWs.1 to 3 and Exs.A.1 to A.9 and Ex.X.1 was the evidence brought on record for the claimant. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of any of the respondents. A copy of the insurance policy as per Ex.B.1 was brought on record by consent of both sides.

¶97

After a detailed analysis of the evidence on record and after considering the fact that the subject matter accident^was also registered as a crime as per Ex.A.I-F.I.R. in Crime No.8 of 2009 of Kovvur Rural Police Station and after considering Ex.A.3charge sheet filed against the driver of the offending lorry and based on the oral testimony of the eye witness-cum-injured/PW.1, the learned Claims Tribunal concluded that the accident was not

¶98

5

¶99

Dr. VRKS, J M.A,C.M.A.No.3204 of 2012

¶100

out of rash or negligent driving of claimant and it was solely of the rash or negligent driving of driver of the offending lorry. It found that Ex.B.1-insurance policy was in force at the material point of time. It was also found that there was no material to think that the driver of the offending lorry did not have valid and effective driving licence at the material point of time. It observed^{thattherewere} no policy violations. After considering the evidence^ofPWs.2and 3-the doctors and the documents filed on behalf of the claimant, it

¶101

granted compensation under the following heads:

¶102

Loss of income	Rs. 72,000-00
Pain and suffering	Rs. 92,000-00
Discomfort and inconvenience on account of disability and loss of marital prospects	Rs.1,00,000-00
Medical expenses	Rs. 63,309-00
Removal of implants	Rs. 25,000-00
Total:	Rs.3,52,309-00

¶103

The learned Claims Tribunal passed the award in the

¶104

following terms:

¶105

“IN THE RESULT, the petition is allowed, in part, awarding compensation of Rs.3,52,309/- (Rupees Three

¶106

6

¶107

Dr. VRKS, J M.A,C.M.A.No.3204 of 2012

¶108

lakhs Fifty two thousand three hundred and nine only) to the petitioner, with proportionate costs and with subsequent interest @ 7.5% p.a. (as the prevailing lending rate of interest of RBI is more than 7.5% p.a.) from^thedate of petition till date of realization against the respondents and the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the above compensation amount.

¶109

Respondents 1 to 3 are directed to deposit the above compensation amount within one month from the date of the petition.

¶110

The petitioner is permitted to withdraw Rs. 1,00,000/taking into consideration the amount spent for treatment and medicines, and the remaining compensation amount^is to be deposited in a nationalized bank for a period^ofthree years and the petitioner will be permitted to withdraw^the same in case of necessity or for any just cause.

¶111

Rest of the petition claim is dismissed, without costs.

¶112

Advocate fees is fixed at Rs.2,000/-.

¶113

Dissatisfied with the amounts granted as compensation,^the

¶114

injured claimant has preferred this appeal.

¶115

%

¶116

7

¶117

Dr. VRKS, J IVI.A.C.M.A.No.3204 of 2012

¶118

Various contentions are raised with which we shall deal with.

¶119

Learned counsel for respondent No.3-insurance company urged that the facts and evidence was properly considered by the Claims Tribunal and just compensation was awarded and there is no justification for exorbitant claims made by the injured and seeks dismissal of the appeal.

¶120

The point that falls for consideration in this appeal^is:

¶121

it Whether the Claims Tribunal failed to consider the

¶122

evidence and failed to grant ‘just’ compensation as

¶123

is required under law thereby requiring interference in this appeal?”

¶124

POINT: During hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant cited Sanjay Rajpoot v. Ram Singh^ and Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Gurram Naga Raju^.

¶125

'2025 INSC 188 ' 2024 APHC 67630 '

¶126

V

¶127

8

¶128

Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3204 of 2012

¶129

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India extensively dealt^with claims of compensation for injured in the automobile^accident in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumai^. Paragraph No.6 is extracted^here:

¶130

“6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following: Pecuniary damages (Special Damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.

¶131

(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising: (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b)^Lossof future earnings on account of permanent disability, (iii) Future medical expenses.

¶132

Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages)

¶133

(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.

¶134

(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).

¶135

'(2011) 1 see 343

¶136

9 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3204 of 2012

¶137

(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity). In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any^of the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to^lossoffuture earnings on account of permanent disability, future^medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects^of marriage) and loss of expectation of life.”

¶138

In Sanjay Rajpoots case^ the Hon’ble Supreme Court^of India held that adequate compensation is required to be given for loss of marriage prospects in those cases where the injured suffered permanent disability. In all the rulings the^Courtshave been exhorting to grant necessary expenses towards attendant charges and loss of amenities and loss of expectation of life. Keeping those principles in mind the matter under consideration must be scrutinized.

¶139

The undisputed finding of the Claims Tribunal is that the claimant/appellant has been a private teacher earning Rs.6,000/-

¶140

supra 1

¶141

10

¶142

Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3204 of 2012

¶143

per month. The evidence of doctors and Ex.A.9-disability certificate disclosed that the appellant/claimant suffered disability of 60% on account of amputation of right lower limb. It was stated to be structural and functional disability in respect of the whole body.

¶144

Learned counsel for the injured appellant contends^thatthe claimant having suffered 60% permanent disability lost his power of earnings. Had he not suffered such an injury he^wouldhavein his lifetime secured much better employment in the^Government sector or corporate sector. The Claims Tribunal ought^tohave applied multiplier procedure and granted appropriate compensation but it completely failed in granting any^amountof compensation. The further submission is that the learned^Claims Tribunal failed to grant any compensation for loss of expectation of life, loss of marital prospects and towards transportation charges and extra nourishment. A perusal of the impugned award indicates the correctness of the above submissions. At paragraph No. 15 in theTmpugned award the learned Chairman^of the Claims Tribunal observed that for a year the injured was

¶145

11

¶146

\ \ • N

¶147

Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3204 of 2012

¶148

under treatment and there was actual loss of earnings and accordingly it granted Rs.72,000/towards actual loss of earnings. Having done so, it omitted to grant anything^towards transportation to the hospital and from hospital to^hishome. An injured patient having spent about a year for his treatment must have spent a lot of money towards his transportation. Therefore, towards transportation charges Rs.25,000/is granted, The injured claimant suffered injuries to his head and his both arms and his leg. His clothes must have been spoiled. The Claims Tribunal did not consider it. Therefore, towards damage to clothes Rs.5,000/- is granted. Having spent so much time on his treatment and to withstand the surgery and the medicines he required additional nutrients and food. The Claims Tribunal did not consider this. Therefore, Rs.25,000/- is granted towards extra nourishment. Having lost his leg, he required an attendant^to help him at least during the period of one year treatment. The Claims Tribunal did not consider this, Therefore, towards attendant charges, Rs.50,000/- is granted.

¶149

12

¶150

Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3204 of 2012

¶151

Learned Claims Tribunal granted Rs. 1,00,000/- towards discomfort and inconvenience and loss of marital prospects. Considering the nature of the injury the appellant/claimant suffered and the fact that such disability would affect his life throughout, adequate compensation to meet the loss of expectation of life and loss of marital prospects and loss of amenities ought to have been granted. In the opinion of this Court Rs.1,00,000/- that was granted is meager and^anadditional amount of Rs.1,50,000/- is granted.

¶152

The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant about possibility of the petitioner to secure a better employmentis an imponderable since the opposite is also quite possible. There was no evidence brought on record by him to say what^otherwork he was capable of doing. He did not show that he lost his employment as a private teacher. Thus, he being a teacher^did not suffer loss of employment or loss of earning capacity. The Claims Tribunal in such circumstances rightly refused to apply multiplier procedure.

¶153

13 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3204 of 2012

M

t-

<br>

Therefore, the point is answered accordingly granting an additional amount of Rs.2,55,000/-.

¶158

In the result, this Appeal is partly allowed enhancing^the compensation awarded in the impugned award dated 21.06.2012 of the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge) at Rajahmundry in M.V.O.P.No.466 of 2010 from Rs.3,52,309/- to Rs.6,07,309/- with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. The third respondent-insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount after giving due credit to amounts. if any, deposited already within one month before the Claims Tribunal. On such a deposit, the appellant/claimant is entitled to withdraw the same along with costs and accrued interest thereon. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal.

¶159

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any shall stand closed.

SD/- U.SRIDEVI

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,