In the result, the appeal is allowed, enhancing the compensation from a sum of Rs.2,05,000/-(Rupees Two lakhs Five thousand only) to Rs.6,08,552/- (Rupees Six lakhs Eight thousand Five hundred and Fifty Two only) with interest @ 7.5% per annum and costs from the date of the petition till the date of realization, payable by the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally.

As per the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India

in Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and others10, under the

provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, there is no restriction

that the compensation could be awarded only upto the amount

claimed by the claimant. In an appropriate case where from the

evidence brought on record, if Tribunal/Court considers that

claimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed, the

Tribunal may pass such an award. There is no embargo to

award compensation more than that claimed by the claimant.

Rather it is obligatory for the Tribunal and Court to award “just

compensation”, even if it is in the excess of the amount claimed

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI

****

M.A.C.M.A.No. 1566 of 2006

Between:

Chinna Obaiahgari Mohan Reddy,

S/o.Venkata Rami Reddy, Aged 35 years, Agriculturist,

R/o.Koilkuntla Village and Mandal, Kurnool District.

 ... Appellant

And

1. S.Madduleti Reddy,

S/o.Madduleti Reddy, Rig Owner,

R/o.T.B.Road, Allagadda, Kurnool District.

2. The New India Assurance Company Limited,

Rep.by its Divisional Manager, Kurnool. ... Respondents

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 18.01.2023

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers

may be allowed to see the judgment? No

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be

marked to Law Reporters / Journals? Yes

3. Whether His Lordship wish to

see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes

DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA, J

2023:APHC:937

2

* THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA

+ M.A.C.M.A.No.1566 of 2006

% 18.01.2023

Between:

Chinna Obaiahgari Mohan Reddy,

S/o.Venkata Rami Reddy, Aged 35 years, Agriculturist,

R/o.Koilkuntla Village and Mandal, Kurnool District.

 ... Appellant

And

1. S.Madduleti Reddy,

S/o.Madduleti Reddy, Rig Owner,

R/o.T.B.Road, Allagadda, Kurnool District.

2. The New India Assurance Company Limited,

Rep.by its Divisional Manager, Kurnool. ... Respondents

! Counsel for Appellant : Sri A.Jaya Sankara Reddy

^ Counsel for 2nd Respondent : Sri G.Vasantha Rayudu

 Ms.T.V.Sridevi

< Gist:

> Head Note:

? Cases referred:

1. (2022) 1 SCC 317

2. (2020) ACJ 1042 (SC)

3. (1879) LR 5 QBD 78

4. 1963 2 WLR 1359

5. (1965) 1 ALL ER 563

6. 2012 ACJ 2694 (SC)

7. 2022 ACJ 2122

8. 2011 ACJ 1 (SC)

9. 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

10. (2003) 2 SCC 274

This Court made the following:

2023:APHC:937

3

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA

M.A.C.M.A.No.1566 of 2006

JUDGMENT:

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act

(for short “the Act”) has been preferred by the appellantclaimant, challenging the Award dated 22.02.2006, in

M.V.O.P.No.575 of 2003 delivered by the Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal –cum- V Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal

(for short „the Tribunal”), granting compensation of

Rs.2,05,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum thereon,

from the date of the petition till the date of realization, to the

petitioner-injured against the 1st & 2nd respondents jointly and

severally, on account of the injuries sustained in a road traffic

accident at Koilkuntla Town.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as

they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The factual context of the case is as under:

a) A 43-year-old Chinna Obaiahgari Mohan Reddy was a

Commission Agent and landlord. At the time of the accident, the

claimant was getting an annual income of more than

Rs.1,00,000/-, as per the income tax returns filed before the

Income Tax Department. On 27.02.2003 at about 3.00 p.m.,

2023:APHC:937

4

while the petitioner was returning to his house on a motorcycle

bearing No.AP 21 D 8729, after attending a function, and when

he reached near the bus stand at Koilkuntla Town, the offending

vehicle (Jeep) bearing No.AP 21 D 8999 belongs to the 1st

respondent driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner,

and hit on the rear side of his motorcycle, as a result, the

petitioner-claimant fell down and sustained a fracture of the left

posterior i.e., left side of the hip. Immediately, he was shifted to

Balaji Nursing Home, Kurnool for treatment. The matter was

reported to the Police alleging that the accident took place as a

result of rash and negligent driving of the said Jeep and based

on the complaint lodged by the petitioner-claimant, Koilkuntla

Police, registered a case in Crime No.16 of 2003 for the offence

under Section 337 IPC and issued F.I.R and after completion of

investigation of the case, a charge sheet was submitted against

the accused driver for having committed an offence punishable

under Section 338 IPC and Section 134 (a) & (b) read with 187 of

M.V.Act and the claimant Ch.Mohan Reddy filed an application

claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.4,75,000/-, but restricted

the claim to Rs.3,00,000/- before the Tribunal, on account of

the injuries sustained by him in the said road traffic accident.

2023:APHC:937

5

b) The 1st respondent, who is the owner of the offending

vehicle, did not contest the matter.

c) The 2nd respondent-Insurance Company filed a counter

contending inter alia that the accident did not take place near

the bus stand at Koilkuntla and it took place somewhere in

Kurnool Town, due to the hit by an unidentified vehicle. It is

further contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was

not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the

accident. It is further contended that the offending vehicle was

not having a valid permit and violated the policy conditions. It is

further contended that this respondent is not at all responsible

for the alleged accident and is not liable to pay the compensation

and prayed to dismiss the petition.

d) Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the

following issues:

1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and

negligent driving of the jeep bearing No.AP 21 D 8999

resulting in injuries to the petitioner?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation?

And if so, to what amount and from which of the

respondents?

3) To what relief?

2023:APHC:937

6

e) During the trial, in order to establish his claim, the

injured-claimant was examined himself as P.W.1, Dr.B.V.Subba

Reddy, Dr.Jai Ramachandra Pingle, who treated and operated

for replacement of the hip, were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3

respectively and C.Obula Reddy, who shifted the injured to the

hospital for treatment, was examined as P.W.4 besides marking

Exs.A.1 to A.8 and Exs.X.1 to X.3 on behalf of the petitioner.

K.Prabhakara Rao, who was the Branch Manager of the 2nd

respondent-Insurance Company, was examined as R.W.1, and

Ex.B.1 was got marked.

(f) The Tribunal, after analyzing the entire evidence of P.Ws.1

to 4 and Exs.A.1 to A.8, Exs.X.1 to X.3, and Ex.B1, came to the

conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and

negligent driving of the offending vehicle (Jeep) bearing No.AP 21

D 8999 by its driver and passed the impugned Award granting

compensation of Rs.2,05,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum

and with proportionate costs to be paid by the 2nd respondentInsurance Company.

g) On appreciation of evidence, the following compensation

was awarded by the Tribunal by applying multiplier „15‟.

2023:APHC:937

7

S.No. Heads of compensation Amount of

compensation awarded

1 Loss of Income for six months Rs.20,000/-

2 Compensation for pain and

suffering

Rs.20,000/-

3 Medical and Transport

expenses

Rs.75,000/-

4 Permanent disability and loss

of future income

Rs.90,000/-

Total Rs.2,05,000/-

(h) Aggrieved by, and dissatisfied with the said award, the

injured/claimant, being the appellant, preferred the present

appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant would submit

that, considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal ought to

have awarded higher compensation. It was further submitted

that the income of the injured was taken on the lower side by

the Tribunal which ultimately resulted in the grant of lesser

compensation. It is further submitted that the Tribunal ought to

have taken into consideration the income tax returns filed by the

appellant-claimant for the assessment year 2002-03, definitely,

the appellant-claimant would have got more compensation than

the awarded amount by the Tribunal. It was further urged that

the compensation under various conventional heads granted by

the Tribunal is very lesser resulting in prejudice to the case of

the appellant-claimant. Therefore, the figures and multiplier

2023:APHC:937

8

applied by the Tribunal are not justified and warrant the

interference of this Court for enhancement of the compensation.

5. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-Insurance

Company would submit that, on proper appreciation of the

evidence on record, the Tribunal had rightly awarded a just and

fair compensation to the appellant. He would further submit

that the figures and multiplier applied by the Tribunal and the

amount of compensation awarded, were absolutely justified.

Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal does not warrant

any interference in the appeal. The learned counsel, therefore,

urges the Court for dismissal of the appeal.

6. In the light of the above rival arguments, the point for

determination in this appeal is:

“Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just

 and reasonable, in the facts and circumstances of the case

 or requires enhancement?”

7. POINT: Considering the above submissions of learned

counsels representing the parties, perused and assessed the

entire evidence including the exhibited documents. A perusal of

the impugned award would show that the Tribunal has framed

Issue No.1 as to whether the accident occurred due to rash and

negligent driving of the offending vehicle (jeep) bearing No.AP 21

D 8999 resulting in injuries to the petitioner, to which the

2023:APHC:937

9

Tribunal after considering the evidence of P.W.1, at Para 20 of

the award, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle (jeep)

bearing No.AP 21 D 8999. Ex.A.4 is the Certified Copy of the

Calendar and Judgment dated 05.04.2003 passed in CC.No.35

of 2003 by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Koilkuntla.

When the trial Court examined the accused (driver of the

offending vehicle) under Section 251 Cr.P.C., as to the

allegations leveled against him in the charge sheet, the accused

admitted the offence voluntarily and pleaded guilty. In view of

the voluntary admission by the accused-driver, the trial Court

convicted the accused and sentenced him to pay a fine of

Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 338 IPC

and Rs.250/- each for the offence under Sections 134(a) and (b)

read with 187 of M.V.Act, totaling the fine amount of Rs.1,500/-,

in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months

each. In view of the admission made by the accused-driver of the

offending vehicle, I see no reason to interfere with the finding of

the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle (jeep)

bearing No.AP 21 D 8999. Therefore, I hold that it was only the

driver of the offending vehicle, who was negligent in driving the

2023:APHC:937

10

vehicle and causing the accident. Even assuming that the driver

of the offending vehicle was not possessing a valid driving

licence by the date of the accident, the Insurance Company

cannot escape from its liability in view of the decision of the

Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Kurvan Ansari @ Kurvan Ali

& Another Vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu & Another1, wherein, at

Para No.17, it was held as follows:

“…………..The entire compensation shall be

paid to the appellants by Respondent 2 insurance

company, and we keep it open to the insurance

company to recover the same from Respondent 1

owner of the motorcycle by initiating appropriate

proceedings as the motorcycle was driven by the

driver who was not possessing valid driving licence

on the date of the accident.

18. Accordingly, this civil appeal is allowed

partly with directions as indicated above. No order

as to costs.”

8. Further, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondentinsurance company would submit that the offending vehicle was

not having a valid permit and violated the policy conditions. On

perusal of Ex.B.1-Insurance Policy, the offending vehicle bearing

No.AP 21 D 8999 was covered with the Insurance Policy by the

date of the accident, as the period of insurance was from

01.08.2002 at 12.00 a.m to the midnight of 31.07.2003.

1

 (2022) 1 SCC 317

2023:APHC:937

11

Therefore, the plea taken by the 2nd respondent-Insurance

Company that the offending vehicle does not cover under the

insurance policy as on the date of the accident, is found to be

false. The Policy taken by the 1st respondent was in existence at

the time of the accident and the same has been proved before

the Tribunal by producing Ex.B.1-copy of the Insurance Policy

issued by the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company. Therefore, I

hold that the offending vehicle (jeep) bearing No.AP 21 D 8999

was covered with an insurance policy at the time of the accident

on 27.02.2003 and there was no violation of policy conditions.

9. In so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned,

while determining the compensation for physical injuries, the

head on which the amount of compensation to be determined,

may be of two types, one is pecuniary damages and the other is

non-pecuniary damages.

10. It is not out of place to state that, by making the payment

of compensation for damages would not revive the claimant into

his original physical position. The compensation towards

wrongful act in terms of money though cannot be decided by the

Court, it may be determined as per the recognized principles. In

the said context, some of the English judgments are relevant,

which may specify why the compensation be paid, what should

2023:APHC:937

12

be the basis for determination, and what may be the reason for

awarding such compensation, applying the uniform methodology

for determination of compensation, comparable to the injuries,

thereby a person can lead his life, though his physical frame

cannot be reversed.

11. This Court perused the record and the impugned award,

and finds that the learned Tribunal has not followed the

contours of just compensation in this matter. The Court has to

make a judicious attempt to award damages so that the

claimant or the victim may be compensated for the loss suffered

by him.

12. In the case of Kajal Vs. Jagdish Chand2, wherein, the

Hon‟ble Apex Court has quoted pertinent observations from a

very old case Phillips Vs. London & South Western Railway

Co.,3 as under:

“You cannot put the plaintiff back again into

his original position, but you must bring your

reasonable common sense to bear, and you must

always recollect that this is the only occasion on

which compensation can be given. The plaintiff can

never sue again for it. You have, therefore, now to

give him compensation once and for all. He has

done no wrong, he has suffered a wrong at the

hands of the defendants and you must take care to

give him full fair compensation for that which he

has suffered.” Besides, the Tribunals should

2

 (2020) ACJ 1042 (SC)

3

(1879) LR 5 QBD 78

2023:APHC:937

13

always remember that the measures of damages in

all these cases “should be such as to enable even a

tortfeasor to say that he had amply atoned for his

misadventure.”

13. The Hon‟ble Apex Court has further quoted pertinent

observations from the case titled H. West & Son Ltd. vs.

Shephard4 as under:

“Money may be awarded so that something

tangible may be procured to replace something else

of the like nature which has been destroyed or lost.

But money cannot renew a physical frame that has

been battered and shattered. All that Judges and

Courts can do is to award sums which must be

regarded as giving reasonable compensation. In the

process there must be endeavour to secure some

uniformity in the general method of approach. By

common assent awards must be reasonable and

must be assessed with moderation. Futhermore, it

is eminently desirable that so far as possible

comparable injuries should be compensated by

comparable awards.

In the same case Lord Devlin observed that the

proper approach to the problem was to adopt a test as to

what contemporary society would deem to be a fair sum,

such as would allow the wrongdoer to "hold up his head

among his neighbours and say with their approval that he

has done the fair thing", which should be kept in mind by

the court in determining compensation in personal injury

cases.”

14. Lord Denning while speaking for the Court of Appeal in

the case of Ward v. James5, laid down the following three basic

principles to be followed in such like cases:

4

 1963 2 WLR 1359

5

(1965) 1 All ER 563

2023:APHC:937

14

“Firstly, accessibility: In cases of grave injury,

where the body is wrecked or brain destroyed, it

is very difficult to assess a fair compensation in

money, so difficult that the award must

basically be a conventional figure, derived from

experience or from awards in comparable cases.

Secondly, uniformity: There should be some

measure of uniformity in awards so that similar

decisions may be given in similar cases;

otherwise there will be great dissatisfaction in

the community and much criticism of the

administration of justice. Thirdly, predictability:

Parties should be able to predict with some

measure of accuracy the sum which is likely to

be awarded in a particular case, for by this

means cases can be settled peaceably and not

brought to court, a thing very much to the public

good.”

15. From a reading of all the above Judgments, it is crystal

clear that, while determining the compensation for physical

injuries, the heads on which the amount of compensation are to

be determined, is an extreme task. What may be the adequate

amount for a wrongful act and can it be compensated by money,

particularly, towards pain and suffering by an arithmetical

calculation, it cannot be decided what may be the extent of the

amount of money, which would represent the pain and suffering

to a person. There has to be a measure of calculated guesswork

and conjecture. An assessment, as best as can, in the

circumstances should be made. The determination of quantum

2023:APHC:937

15

must be liberal, not niggardly since the law values life and limb

in a free country in generous scales.

16. In the case of K.Suresh Vs. New India Assurance Co.,

Ltd.,6 the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held as follows:

“2...There cannot be actual compensation for

anguish of the heart or for mental tribulations. The

quintessentiality lies in the pragmatic computation

of the loss sustained which has to be in the realm

of realistic approximation. Therefore, Section 168 of

the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity „the Act‟)

stipulates that there should be grant of “just

compensation”. Thus, it becomes a challenge for a

court of law to determine “just compensation” which

is neither a bonanza nor a windfall, and

simultaneously, should not be a pittance.”

17. Applying the aforesaid principles laid down in the abovereferred Judgments, now processed to assess the compensation.

While assessing the compensation by the Court-Tribunal, one of

the factors, which must be careful in a case like the present one,

is that the claim can be awarded only once. The claimant cannot

come back to the Court for enhancement of the award at a later

stage praying that something extra has been spent. Therefore,

the Court should have to take a liberal view of the matter while

awarding compensation.

6

 2012 ACJ 2694 (SC)

2023:APHC:937

16

18. In the instant case, the Tribunal committed an error while

awarding compensation to the claimant by taking the annual

income of the petitioner-injured as Rs.40,000/-. A perusal of

Ex.A.5-Income Tax returns of the petitioner-injured at Column

Nos.23 and 24, would show that the income of the petitioner is

Rs.57,100/- and Rs.62,600/- respectively, and in total

Rs.1,19,700/- per annum. The Tribunal ought to have taken the

annual income of the injured as Rs.1,19,700/-, but committed

an error by taking the annual income as Rs.40,000/-. At least

the Tribunal ought to have taken 60% of the annual income out

of the amount shown in Ex.A.5-Income Tax Returns. It is

relevant to refer to a decision in Royal Sundaram Alliance

Ins.Co.Ltd., Vs. Vinaya Udaybabu Shah and others7 wherein,

at Para-33, held as follows:

“Learned counsel for the appellant during the

course of argument also submitted that learned

Member has wrongly relied upon the income tax

returns for the financial year 2003-04 to assess the

income of deceased. According to learned counsel

the accident in question took place on 23.02.2003

and, therefore, the income taken for assessment of

compensation should have been based on previous

year‟s return.”

7

 2022 ACJ 2122

2023:APHC:937

17

19. According to the above said decision, it is crystal clear that

the income tax returns have to be taken into consideration for

the assessment of compensation, based on the previous year‟s

returns. In the instant case, the petitioner-injured filed income

tax returns for the assessment year 2002-03, and the alleged

accident occurred on 27.02.2003. In view of the above said

decision, the income tax returns filed by the petitioner have to

be taken into consideration, while determining the

compensation. This Court is of the view that 60% of the annual

income shown in Ex.A.5-Income Tax Returns has to be taken

into consideration, which comes to Rs.71,820/- (Rs.1,19,700 x

60%).

20. In the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar8 the Hon‟ble

Supreme Court of India, held as under:

“In Raj Kumar (supra), the Supreme Court has

held that award of compensation should, to the

extent possible, fully and adequately restore the

claimant to the position prior to the accident. A

person is not only to be compensated for the

physical injury, but also for the loss which he

suffered as a result of such injury. This would

include compensation for his inability to lead a full

life, enjoy those normal amenities which he would

have enjoyed but for the injuries, as also his

inability to earn as much as he used to earn or

could have earned. The WP(C) No.7856/2010 Page

5 Supreme Court further laid down the heads under

8

2011 ACJ 1 (SC)

2023:APHC:937

18

which the compensation is to be awarded in

personal injury cases as under:

“(5) The heads under which the 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.

(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) Loss of future earnings on account of

permanent disability.

(iii) Future medical expenses.

Non-pecuniary damages (General damages):

(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a

consequence of the injuries.

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

marriage)

(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 Iii) (b), (iii), (v) and

(vi) relating to loss of future 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.”

21. In the light of the above Judgments, it is well settled that

the income on the date of the accident, ought to have been taken

into consideration, after deducting the income tax payable by

the claimant. Admittedly, as the accident occurred on

2023:APHC:937

19

27.02.2003, this Court is of the opinion that the learned

Tribunal was not right in taking into consideration 1/3rd of the

income tax returns of the petitioner for the assessment year

2002-03. At least, the learned Tribunal ought to have taken

60% of the annual income of the claimant under Income Tax

Returns for the assessment year 2002-03.

22. As regards the disability suffered by the petitionerclaimant for his whole life, in view of the evidence of P.W.3-

Dr.Jai Ramachandra Pingle, who treated and operated on the

claimant deposed that he was working as Senior Orthopedic

Surgeon at Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad. The petitioner-injured

was admitted in the hospital on 22.02.2004 due to pain in the

left hip joint, a fracture in the left hip, and that in the year 2003,

he was operated with A O screws and X-ray showed a vascular

nerve of the left hip with orthocities. He further deposed that

the injured was operated on 23.02.2004 and total hip

replacement uncemented was done and the injured was

discharged on 26.02.2004. The injured had severe pain in the

hip and joint defect in the patient, there was a collapse head

femoral due to „AVN‟ femur. The hip joint was replaced. P.W.3

identified Ex.A.8-discharge summary card and he also issued

Ex.X.1-Emergency Certificate. The medicines in Ex.A.6 bills of

2023:APHC:937

20

Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad, were all prescribed by him (P.W.3).

Further, he stated that, as a result of the injuries sustained, an

operation of total hip replacement with an artificial joint was

done. Therefore, the injured has a permanent disability of 30%.

23. Therefore, as per the evidence of P.W.3-Doctor, the

petitioner-claimant sustained permanent disability of 30%. But,

the petitioner did not file the disability certificate issued by the

Medical Board or issued by the Doctor, except the evidence of

P.W.3-Doctor. In the absence of any disability certificate, it

cannot be considered that the petitioner-injured sustained 30%

disability. However, this Court is of the view that 15% of

disability has to be taken, as per Raj Kumar‟s case (supra).

24. To award compensation, it is the duty of the Court to

ensure that the petitioner-claimant is paid “just compensation”.

No amount of money can compensate the injured for the injuries

suffered by him. The injured can never be put back to the same

position, however, the compensation has to be determined in

terms of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Act

refers to the determination of payment of “just compensation” to

the injured.

25. In the facts of this case, looking to the beneficial purpose

of the enactment of the Motor Vehicles Act, and further having

2023:APHC:937

21

regard to the principles laid down in the aforesaid Judgments,

the Tribunal failed to consider the gravity of the injuries

sustained by the petitioner and thereby, committed an illegality

in awarding a meager amount of compensation to the claimant

under the head of “loss of future earnings”.

26. In the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport

Corporation9, while determining the multiplier applicable with

reference to the age of the petitioner-injured, the Hon‟ble Apex

Court, held as follows.

21. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should

be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared

by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and

Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for

the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by

one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30

years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then

reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for

51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65

years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.

27. In Ex.A.5-Income Tax Returns, the total annual income of

the petitioner-injured is Rs.1,19,700/- ( Rs.57,100 + Rs.62,600),

out of which, this Court has taken 60% as his annual income,

which comes to Rs.71,820/- (Rs.1,19,700 x 60%). The

petitioner-injured suffered permanent disability of 30% as stated

9

 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

2023:APHC:937

22

supra, but in the absence of a disability certificate, this Court

assessed the loss of earning capacity of the petitioner-injured as

15%. In Ex.A.8-Discharge Summary Card issued by Apollo

Hospital, Hyderabad, the age of the petitioner-injured is „43‟

years at the time of the accident. But, the learned Tribunal

committed an error and illegality in taking the annual income of

the petitioner-injured as Rs.40,000/-, and also in taking 15% of

the annual income i.e., Rs.6,000/-. The Tribunal applied the

multiplier „15‟ for the age group of 41 – 45 years, and awarded

an amount of Rs.90,000/- (Rs.6,000 x 15) towards permanent

disability and loss of future earnings, which is not in accordance

with the proposition laid down by Hon‟ble Apex Court in Sarla

Verma‟s case (supra). In the instant case, the multiplier „14‟

should be applied.

28. In the light of the principles laid down in Raj Kumar‟s case

(supra), the calculation of compensation under the head of loss

of future earnings is as follows:

a) Annual income before the accident : Rs.71,820/-

b) Loss of future earnings per annum

(15% of the prior annual income) : Rs.10,773/-

c) Multiplier applicable with reference

to the age group of 41- 45 years : 14

d) Loss of future earnings

(Rs.10,773 x 14) : Rs.1,50,822/-

2023:APHC:937

23

29. This Court finds that the Tribunal has not awarded

appropriate compensation towards permanent disability and loss

of future earnings. A reading of the Tribunal‟s award, makes it

appear that the Tribunal‟s approach does not accord at all with

current judicial opinion. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to a

sum of Rs.1,50,822/- under the head of loss of future earnings.

30. As can be seen from the award passed by the Tribunal, the

petitioner-injured was under medical care from the date of the

accident. Later he was admitted in Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad

on 22.02.2004, and on 23.02.2004 he was operated for total hip

replacement of hip joint and discharged on 26.02.2004.

Considering the nature of the injuries and the period of

treatment undergone by the petitioner-injured, a meager amount

of Rs.20,000 was awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and

suffering. The loss of income of the petitioner-injured from the

date of the accident till the date of hip replacement of left hip

joint operated on 23.02.2004 is for nearly 12 months and after

the hip replacement definitely, he would have lost the income for

at least six months which needs to be just. Therefore, a total

period of 18 months has to be calculated on monthly income.

31. This Court has taken the annual income of the petitionerinjured as Rs.71,820/-, as stated above and the monthly income

2023:APHC:937

24

of the petitioner-injured would be Rs.5,985/- (Rs.71,820/12 =

Rs.5,985/-). Thus, the loss of income for a period of 18 months

would be Rs.1,07,730/-(Rs.5,985 x 18). The Tribunal has

committed an error in awarding an amount of Rs.20,000/-

towards loss of earnings for six months. Therefore, the petitioner

is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,07,730/- under the head of loss of

earnings during the period of treatment i.e., for 18 months.

32. The Tribunal has committed illegality in awarding a

meager amount of Rs.75,000/- towards medical and transport

expenses. Since the petitioner-injured was admitted in Apollo

Hospital, Hyderabad, and was inpatient for four days, and

underwent surgery for hip replacement, definitely, he would

have spent more amount than the amount awarded by the

Tribunal. The petitioner deposed that he spent Rs.1,59,000/-

towards the medical expenditure, he restricted his claim to only

Rs.50,000/- and Rs.25,000/- towards transport expenses, in

total Rs.75,000/-, as observed by the Tribunal in Para No.26 of

the award. The claimant who is not well educated, is not

supposed to be that much of meticulous so as to maintain the

bills for any future use. The claimant has remained in Balaji

Nursing Home, Kurnool and later he was admitted in Apollo

Hospital, Hyderabad, and operated for hip replacement and he

2023:APHC:937

25

must have incurred that much of expenses, and this Court‟s

interference is required on the compensation awarded towards

medical and transport expenses. Therefore, this Court is of the

view that the petitioner is entitled to an amount of

Rs.1,75,000/- under the head of medical and transport

expenses, which is just and reasonable.

33. The Tribunal has committed illegality in awarding a

meager amount of Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering. The

petitioner-claimant suffered from pain and suffering for not less

than 18 months from the date of the accident till operated for

hip replacement as stated supra. Taking into consideration of

the pain and suffering already undergone by the petitioner and

to be suffered in the future, mental and physical shock,

hardship, inconvenience, and discomforts due to the hip

replacement, the amount of compensation needs to be enhanced

to Rs.1,50,000/- under the head of pain and suffering.

34. The learned Tribunal has not awarded the amount under

the head of extra-nourishment. When the petitioner-injured

underwent hip replacement, extra nourishment needs to be

provided to the petitioner-injured for a speedy recovery. As such,

an amount of Rs.25,000/- needs to be awarded under the head

of extra-nourishment.

2023:APHC:937

26

35. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at

providing relief to the claimant. The compensation is only the

means to grant some support for the loss suffered with which he

is expected to live and the amount awarded under the above

heads has to be commensurate with the injury and its impact on

the claimant.

36. In Sarla Verma‟s case (supra) the Hon‟ble Apex Court,

while elaborating the concept of „just compensation‟ observed as

under:

“Just compensation is adequate compensation which is

fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the

case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the

wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well

settled principles relating to award of compensation. It is

not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of

profit.”

37. On an overall re-appreciation of the pleadings, material on

record, and the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court

and this Court in the aforesaid decisions, I am of the definite

opinion that the appellant-claimant is entitled to enhancement

of compensation as modified and re-calculated above and given

in the table below for easy reference.

2023:APHC:937

27

S.No.

Heads of compensation Amount of

compensation

awarded

1 Loss of future earnings Rs. 1,50,822/-

2 Loss of earnings during the period of

treatment

Rs. 1,07,730/-

3 Medical and Transport expenses Rs. 1,75,000/-

4 Pain and Suffering Rs. 1,50,000/-

5 Extra-nourishment Rs. 25,000/-

Rs. 6,08,552/-

(-) Compensation already awarded by the

Tribunal

Rs. 2,05,000/-

Rs. 4,03,552/-

38. The amount of compensation enhanced by this Court in

appeal shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of

filing of the claim petition till the realization of the amount.

39. As per the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India

in Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and others10, under the

provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, there is no restriction

that the compensation could be awarded only upto the amount

claimed by the claimant. In an appropriate case where from the

evidence brought on record, if Tribunal/Court considers that

claimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed, the

Tribunal may pass such an award. There is no embargo to

award compensation more than that claimed by the claimant.

Rather it is obligatory for the Tribunal and Court to award “just

compensation”, even if it is in the excess of the amount claimed.

10

 (2003) 2 SCC 274

2023:APHC:937

28

The Tribunals are expected to make an award by determining

the amount of compensation that should appear to be just and

proper. The compensation as awarded by the Claims Tribunal,

against the background of the facts and circumstances of the

case, is not just and reasonable, and the claimant is entitled to

more compensation, as stated supra, though he might not have

claimed the same at the time of filing of the claim petition.

40. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the award

passed by the Tribunal warrants interference by enhancing the

compensation from Rs.2,05,000/- to Rs.6,08,552/-.

41. In the result, the appeal is allowed, enhancing the

compensation from a sum of Rs.2,05,000/-(Rupees Two lakhs

Five thousand only) to Rs.6,08,552/- (Rupees Six lakhs Eight

thousand Five hundred and Fifty Two only) with interest @ 7.5%

per annum and costs from the date of the petition till the date of

realization, payable by the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and

severally.

(ii) The 2nd respondent is directed to deposit the

compensation amount within two months from the date of this

judgment, failing which execution can be taken out against it.

2023:APHC:937

29

(iii) The appellant-claimant shall pay the requisite Courtfee in respect of the enhanced amount awarded over and above

the compensation claimed.

(iv) The appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire

amount with accrued interest.

 (v) The impugned award of the learned Tribunal stands

modified to the aforesaid extent and in the terms and directions

as above.

As a sequel, interlocutory application(s) pending for

consideration, if any, shall stand closed.

 JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA

Date: 18.01.2023

L.R.Copy to be marked

Dinesh

2023:APHC:937

30

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA

M.A.C.M.A.No.1566 OF 2006

18.01.2023

L.R.Copy to be marked

Dinesh

2023:APHC:937

writ petitioners in all these Writ Petitions is the action of the official respondents in not permitting the petitioners-institutions to fill up the vacant aided posts in their institutions in accordance with law.

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY

Writ Petition Nos.30927, 2888, 4938, 8014, 8197, 30548, 31010,

31039, 31730, 33163, 35592, 37415, 37467,

37508, 38250, 38924, 40923 and 42367 of 2022

C O M M O N O R D E R:-

As the issue involved in all these writ petitions is inter-related,

all these writ petitions are taken up together and are disposed of

through this common order.

 2. The petitioners in these cases are the management of

private Schools. The grievance of the writ petitioners in all these Writ

Petitions is the action of the official respondents in not permitting the

petitioners-institutions to fill up the vacant aided posts in their

institutions in accordance with law.

 3. Facts in nutshell :

 All the petitioners-Institutions are private aided schools.

All the institutions got recognition and thereafter, some posts have

admitted into Grant-in-aid by the Government. The appointment of

staff in the Aided institutions is governed by Rule-12 of G.O.Ms.No.1,

Education, dated 01.01.1994. As per the terms in the said G.O., as and

when vacancy arises, the Management shall make an application to the

Competent authority, who in turn would grant permission to the

2023:APHC:1120

 2

Management to constitute staff selection committee consisting of

nominee of District Educational Officer (DEO) as well as the subject

experts. Thereafter, the Management is free to make appoint from

among the selected candidates after following procedure of giving

notification in newspaper and also drafting the candidates from

concerned employment exchange.

 (ii) Subsequently, the government issued a memo, dated

20.10.2004 imposing ban on recruitment of staff into Aided institutions.

Thereafter, batch of Writ Petitions were filed i.e., W.P.No.9503 of

2005 and batch. After elaborate hearing, all the writ petitions were

allowed and the ban imposed by the State government was set aside,

vide common order, dated 30.07.2013. Thereafter, the Government

filed Writ Appeal No.216 of 2014, which was also dismissed by the

Division Bench of this Court. Subsequently, the Government preferred

appeal in S.L.P.No.8547 of 2014 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India, which was also dismissed on 14.09.2015. As there is no other go,

the Government issued memo, vide Memo No.18836/SC.PS/A1/2012,

dated 04.01.2017 permitting the Aided Institutions, who approached

the Court to fill up the vacant posts by lifting the ban.

 (iii) Subsequently, the government issued G.O.Ms.No.40,

School Education (PS) Department, dated 30.06.2017 and as per the

2023:APHC:1120

 3

said G.O., the Commissioner of School Education has issued

proceedings in Rc.No.90/PS-1/2010-3, dated 20.07.2017 directing all

the Regional Joint Directors of School Education and District

Educational Officers to take necessary action in filling up all the

vacancies in the schools. As per the said G.O., and consequential

proceedings of the 2nd respondent, dated 20.07.2017, all the

petitioners-institutions requested the Competent authorities to permit

them to fill up the vacant posts and to that effect, they made

applications on various dates to the respective competent authorities.

(iv) Subsequently, as per the instructions of the Government,

the 2nd respondent once again issued proceedings, dated 12.09.2017

keeping the recruitment in abeyance. Subsequently, the said

proceedings were challenged in W.P.No.1041 of 2018 and this Court

suspended the said abeyance proceedings, vide orders in I.A.No.1 of

2018 in W.P.No.1041 of 2018, dated 29.02.2020. Thereafter, all the

petitioners-institutions made several applications to the Competent

authorities seeking permission to fill up vacancies in Aided Schools.

Till now, the Competent authorities did not take any decision or

granted permission to fill the vacancies in Aided Schools. Aggrieved by

the same, all these writ petitioners have come up with the batch of

Writ Petitions.

2023:APHC:1120

 4

 4. Perused the entire material on record. This Court has also

passed interim orders in most of the Writ Petitions directing the

Competent authorities to permit the petitioners-Institutions to fill up

vacancies in Aided Schools by considering the proposal submitted by

them. In spite of interim orders, the Competent authorities have not

permitted the petitioners-institutions to fill up the vacancies.

Consequently, some of the petitioners-institutions filed contempt cases

before this Court and they are pending.

 5. Learned Government Pleader for School Education filed

counter-affidavit, inter alia contending that Aided schools should

maintain teacher-student ratio as 1:40 for filling up of vacancies and

that the petitioners-institutions have to fill up vacancies in Aided

schools as per the provisions prescribed under Rule 12(3)(A) of

G.O.Ms.No.1, Education (PS2) Department, dated 01.01.1994.

 6. Sri N.Subba Rao, learned Senior Counsel, scrupulously

submitted that so far as the contention of the official respondents with

regard to teacher-student ratio is concerned, the same is governed by

the schedule prescribed under Sections 19 & 25 of the Right of Children

to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (for short, ‘the Act of

2009). For better appreciation, the said Schedule is extracted

hereunder :

2023:APHC:1120

 5

THE SCHEDULE

(See Sections 19 and 25 )

Norms and Standards for a School

Sl.No. Item Norms and Standards

Number of teachers Admitted children Number of teachers

(a) For First

class to 5th

Class

Up to Sixty

Between sixty-one to ninety

Between Ninety one to one

hundred and twenty

Between one hundred and

twenty one to two hundred

Above one hundred and fifty

Children

Above two hundred Children

Two

 Three

 Four

 Five

Five Plus one

Head Teacher

Pupil-Teacher

Ratio (excluding Head

Teacher) shall not exceed

forty.

(b) For Sixth

class to

eight class

(1) At least one teacher per

class so that there shall be

at least one teacher each

for –

(i) Science and

Mathematics ;

(ii) Social Studies ;

(iii) Languages

(2) At least one teacher for

every thirty-five children

(3) Where admission of

children is above one

hundred—

(i) A full time headteacher

(ii) Part time instructors

for

(A)Art Education

(B) Health and

Physical

Education

(C) Work Education

2023:APHC:1120

 6

 7. As such this being the Central Enactment, the State

government is bound to follow the said Schedule. Further, so far as

Rule-12(3)(A) of the Rules, 1993 is concerned, the petitionerinstitutions have no objection to follow the Rule 12(3)(A) of the

Rules,1993. For better appreciation of the said provision, the same is

extracted hereunder :

12.Appointment of Staff :-

“Rule 12(3A) : Before filling up of the aided teaching or

non-teaching posts, the educational agency shall

necessarily obtain clearance from the Competent

authority, to the effect that, there are no surplus posts in

the concerned district, and if there are suitable surplus

candidates, they should be deployed against the said

vacancies as per the subject requirements. The

competent authority shall however obtain the permission

from the Government before issuing clearance for filling

up of any aided posts”.

 8. As per Rule 12 (3A) of the above said Rules, vacancies will

be filled up by surplus candidates. At this juncture, learned Senior

Counsel states that respondent authorities are not sending surplus

candidates and they are sending candidates only by way of adjustment

and thereafter, recalling them, which happened in many cases. At this

juncture, this Court directed the learned Government Pleader to

2023:APHC:1120

 7

inform the stand of the Government with regard to sub-rule 3(A) of

Rule 12. In such circumstances, learned Government Pleader filed

affidavit of the Commissioner of School Education. Para-5 of the said

affidavit reads as follows :

“…..Further to submit that instructions were

issued to all the Regional Joint Directors of

School Education and District Educational

Officers with a request to identify the

surplus teachers/ existing teachers of

defunct aided schools as per Rule 10(12) in

G.O.Ms.No.1, Education, dated 01.01.1994

and transfer the surplus teachers as per

Rule 10 (17) in G.O.Ms.No.1, Education,

dated 01.01.1994 on a permanent basis

and the same is under process”.

 9. In view of the above stand taken by the Government, all

the Writ Petitions are disposed of with the following directions :

i) The respondent-authorities are hereby directed to permit

the petitioners-institutions to fill up all the Aided

vacancies in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1, Education, dated

01.01.1994 and also as per the Schedule prescribed under

Sections 19 & 25 of the Act,2009 ;

2023:APHC:1120

 8

ii) In future also, whenever vacancies arise, the institutions

have to make applications to the Competent authorities

for filling up the vacancies ;

iii) On such applications, the Competent authorities shall

inform the institution about the availability of qualified

surplus staff, within a period of four (04) weeks from the

date of application and allot said surplus staff on

permanent basis ;

iv) If surplus staff are not available, the Competent authority

shall inform the same and permit the petitionersinstitutions to fill up the vacancies in accordance with the

above said Rule, preferably within a period of two (02)

months ;

v) So far as minority institutions are concerned, the above

procedure is not applicable insofar as allotment of surplus

staff are concerned, in view of the Judgments of Division

Bench of this Court rendered in Modern High School,

Zamisthanpur V. Government of Andhra Pradesh

and Others1 and Ester Axene Res. High School

and Others V. State of Andhra Pradesh and

Others2.

1

 2002 (1) ALD 96

2

 MANU/AP/0045/2019

2023:APHC:1120

 9

vi) The entire exercise shall be completed by the

respondent-authorities within a period of three (03)

months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order ;

 No order as to costs.

 Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall

stand closed.

_______________

K.SURESH REDDY,J

5

th day of January,2023.

Note : LR Copy to be marked

 B/o

 RPD

2023:APHC:1120

 10

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY

Writ Petition Nos.30927, 2888, 4938, 8014, 8197, 30548, 31010,

 31039, 31730, 33163, 35592, 37415, 37467,

 37508, 38250, 38924, 40923 and 42367 of 2022

Dated: 05.01.2023

Note : LR Copy to be marked

 B/o

 RPD

2023:APHC:1120

 11

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

****

WRIT PETITION Nos.30927 of 2022 and Batch

Between:

P.L.K.Aided Elementary School

Rep. by its Correspondent Smt.B.Mercy Bai

Palakole, West Godavari District

Andhra Pradesh. ---Petitioner

And

The State of Andhra Pradesh

Department of School Education

4

th Block, 1st Floor, Room No.267

Secretariat Buildings, Thullur

Velagapudi, Guntur District-522 501

Represented by its Principal Secretary & three others

 ----Respondents

DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED : 05.01.2023

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL :

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY

1. Whether the copy of order may be

marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes

2. Whether His Lordship wish to

see the fair copy of the order? Yes

______________________________

2023:APHC:1120

 12

 K.SURESH REDDY, J.

* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY

+WRIT PETITION Nos.30927 of 2022 and Batch

% 05.01.2023

# Between:

P.L.K.Aided Elementary School

Rep. by its Correspondent Smt.B.Mercy Bai

Palakole, West Godavari District

Andhra Pradesh. ---Petitioner

And

The State of Andhra Pradesh

Department of School Education

4

th Block, 1st Floor, Room No.267

Secretariat Buildings, Thullur

Velagapudi, Guntur District-522 501

Represented by its Principal Secretary & three others

 ----Respondents

! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri N.Subba Rao

^ Counsel for the Respondent : GP for School Education

< Gist:

> Head Note:

? Cases referred:

1. 2002 (1) ALD 96

2. MANU/AP/0045/2019

2023:APHC:1120

It is held that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.5,63,600/- (Rupees Five Lakhs, Sixty Three Thousand and Six Hundred only) with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit, instead of Rs.2,94,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Ninety Four Thousand only). The respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount of Rs.5,63,600/- (Rupees Five Lakhs, Sixty Three Thousand and Six Hundred only), along with the accrued interest thereon, within one month from the date of judgment.

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

WEDNESDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JANUARY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

PRSENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2 OF 2016

Between:

1. SYED KALESHA, CHITTOOR DIST. & ANOTHER S/o Baba Saheb

Muslim

R/o Aravapalem Veedhi, Sodum Town and Mandal

Chittoor District.

2. S. Ameerunnisa W/o Syed Kalesha

Muslim

R/o Aravapalem Veedhi, Sodum Town and Mandal

Chittoor District.

...PETITIONER(S)

AND:

1. A. SREENIVASULU, NELLORE & 3 OTHERS S/o Venkataswamy

Major, Hindu

R/o D.No. 3/1256/2A1

Nagendra Nagar, Setygunta Road, Nellore Town and

District (Owner of the Lorry Bearing No. AP 07 T 1510

3. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Branch Manager

D.No. 16/1154, 1st Floor, Nellore

4. S. Munaf Sahib S/o Khader Basha

age not known

D.No. 13/34, Thimmanayanapale

H/o Utupalle , Sodum Mandal, Chittoor District.

5. ICICI Lombord General Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Branch Manager,

Tirupathi

Chittoor District.

...RESPONDENTS

Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA

Counsel for the Respondents: P PHALGUNA RAO

The Court made the following: ORDER

2023:APHC:1225

BVLNC,J MACMA 2 of 2016

Page 1 of 20 Dt: 18.01.2023

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

****

M.A.C.M.A.No.2 OF 2016

Between:

1. Syed Kalesha, S/o.Baba Saheb,

 Aged 50 years, Muslim.

2. S.Ameerunnisa, W/o.Syed Kalesha,

 Aged 40 years, Muslim.

Both are R/o.Aravapalem Veedhi,

Sodum Town and Mandal,

Chittoor District.

 ….Appellants/ Claim Petitioners

 Versus

1. A.Sreenivasulu, S/o.Venkataswamy,

 Major, Hindu, R/o.D.No.3/1256/2A1,

 Nagendra Nagar, Setygunta Road,

 Nellore Town and District

 Owner of lorry No. AP 07 T 1510.

2. National Insurance Company Limited,

 Rep. By its Branch Manager,

 R/o.D.No.16/1154, 1st floor, Nellore.

3. S.Munaf Sahib, S/o.Khader Basha,

 R/o.D.No.13/34, Thimanayanapalle,

 H/o.Utupalle, Sodum Mandal,

 Chittoor District.

4. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited,

 Rep. By its Branch Manager, Triupathi,]

 Chittoor District.

….Respondents/Respondents

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 18.01.2023

2023:APHC:1225

BVLNC,J MACMA 2 of 2016

Page 2 of 20 Dt: 18.01.2023

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers

 may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No

2. Whether the copy of Judgment may be

 marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No

3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the

 fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No

 ____________________________

 B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI, J

2023:APHC:1225

BVLNC,J MACMA 2 of 2016

Page 3 of 20 Dt: 18.01.2023

* HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

+ M.A.C.M.A.No.2 OF 2016

% 18.01.2023

# Between:

1. Syed Kalesha, S/o.Baba Saheb,

 Aged 50 years, Muslim.

2. S.Ameerunnisa, W/o.Syed Kalesha,

 Aged 40 years, Muslim.

Both are R/o.Aravapalem Veedhi,

Sodum Town and Mandal,

Chittoor District.

 ….Appellants/ Claim Petitioners

 Versus

1. A.Sreenivasulu, S/o.Venkataswamy,

 Major, Hindu, R/o.d.No.3/1256/2A1,

 Nagendra Nagar, Setygunta Road,

 Nellore Town and District

 Owner of lorry No. AP 07 T 1510.

2. National Insurance Company Limited,

 Rep. By its Branch Manager,

 R/o.D.No.16/1154, 1st floor, Nellore.

3. S.Munaf Sahib, S/o.Khader Basha,

 R/o.D.No.13/34, Thimanayanapalle,

 H/o.Utupalle, Sodum Mandal,

 Chittoor District.

4. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited,

 Rep. By its Branch Manager, Triupathi,]

 Chittoor District.

 ….Respondents/Respondents.

2023:APHC:1225

BVLNC,J MACMA 2 of 2016

Page 4 of 20 Dt: 18.01.2023

! Counsel for the Appellants : Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava

^ Counsel for the

 2nd Respondent : Sri P.Phalguna Rao

< Gist:

> Head Note:

? Cases referred:

1. 2008 ACJ 1488

2. 2009 ACJ 1298

3. (2017) 16 SCC 680

4. 2018 ACJ 2782

5. 2019 ACJ 1849 (SC)

6. 2022 Livelaw (SC) 734

This Court made the following:

2023:APHC:1225

BVLNC,J MACMA 2 of 2016

Page 5 of 20 Dt: 18.01.2023

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

M.A.C.M.A.No.2 OF 2016

JUDGMENT:

 This appeal is preferred by the Appellants/claimants,

challenging the award dated 07.02.2011 passed in

M.V.O.P.No.153/2008 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunalcum-VII Addl.District Judge (Fast Track Court), Madanapalle, wherein

the Tribunal while partly allowing the petition, awarded compensation

of Rs.2,94,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition, till

the date of deposit to the petitioners/claimants, for the death of Syed

Bavaji, in a motor vehicle accident.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as parties in

the lower Court.

3. As seen from the record, originally the petitioners filed an

application U/s.166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”)

claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- on account of the death of

Syed Bavaji, who is son of the petitioners in a motor vehicle accident

that occurred on 19.04.2008.

4. The facts show that the petitioners are the parents of deceased

Syed Bavaji. On 19.04.2008 at about 06.30 a.m., the deceased Syed

2023:APHC:1225

BVLNC,J MACMA 2 of 2016

Page 6 of 20 Dt: 18.01.2023

Bavaji, who was driver of Tempo bearing No.AP 03X 2522 was

returning to Srikalahasthi after unloading the cows at Satyavedu and

when the vehicle reached near Tangellapalem on the extreme left side

of the road, one lorry bearing No.AP7T 1510 was coming opposite, and

the driver drove the said lorry in a rash and negligent manner, without

following the traffic rules and regulations, dashed against the tempo,

as a result of which, the deceased Syed Bavaji and two others

sustained fatal injuries and one K.A.Gurubalan also died on the spot.

Bavaji and other injured were shifted to Government Hospital through

ambulance and on the way to hospital, Syed Bavaji died due to the

injuries sustained by him in the accident. Syed Bavaji was only the

son to the petitioners and they were very affectionate towards him and

death of their beloved son caused them frustration and depression.

The deceased used to earn Rs.4,000/- per month and also used to get

Rs.100/- per day as batta. The petitioners spent huge amount for

funeral and incidental expenses. The Station House Officer,

B.N.Kandrika P.S. registered Cr.No.39/2008 for the offence punishable

U/s.304-A of Indian Penal Code against the driver of the lorry. The

driver of the said lorry has valid and effective driving license to drive

the crime lorry. The 1st respondent insured the said lorry with the

2023:APHC:1225

BVLNC,J MACMA 2 of 2016

Page 7 of 20 Dt: 18.01.2023

2nd respondent and the insurance policy was in force at the time of

accident.

5. Before, the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company

filed counter denying the material averments of the petition, and

contended that the amount of compensation claimed by the petitioners

is excessive and arbitrary. The liability of 2nd respondent is subject to

existence of policy terms and conditions. The accident was occurred

only due to the negligence of the driver of Tempo bearing No.AP 03X

2522 in a rash and negligent manner without observing the road traffic

rules and that it is not liable to pay any compensation to the

petitioners.

6. The 4th respondent/ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company,

Tirupathi, filed written statement resisting, while traversing the

material averments with regard to proof of age, avocation, monthly

earnings of the deceased, manner of accident, rash and negligence on

the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, and liability to pay

compensation, contended that the 1st respondent has not followed the

rules and regulations as laid down in section 3 of M.V.Act, 1988 and

no owner or person incharge of motor vehicle shall cause permit any

person who does not satisfy the provisions of sections 3 and 4 of

M.V.Act to drive the vehicle, that the Police Officer, who investigated

2023:APHC:1225

BVLNC,J MACMA 2 of 2016

Page 8 of 20 Dt: 18.01.2023

the offence failed to follow the rule laid down in section 158(6) of

M.V.Act 1988, that a Police Officer shall forward a copy of any

information regarding the accident to the claims Tribunal having

jurisdiction and to the concerned insurer, that the person who drove

the vehicle of the 3rd respondent was not having any valid driving

license at the time of accident and that the accident occurred only due

to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No.AP 7T 1510 only.

The respondents No.1 and 3 remained exparte.

7. On the strength of the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal

framed the following issues:

1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent

driving of lorry bearing No.AP 7T 1510 involved resulting the

death of Bavaji?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so,

by whom and to what amount?

3. To what relief?

8. To substantiate their claim, the petitioners examined P.W-1 and

got marked Exs.A-1 to A-6. On behalf of the respondents, no witnesses

were examined, however Ex.B-1 copy of policy was marked by consent

on behalf of the 2nd respondent.

2023:APHC:1225

BVLNC,J MACMA 2 of 2016

Page 9 of 20 Dt: 18.01.2023

9. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of P.W-1,

coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-6, held that the accident took place due to

the rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver, and further, taking

into consideration the evidence of P.W-1, corroborated by Exs.A-1 to

A-6, awarded a compensation of Rs.2,94,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a.

from the date of petition, till the date of deposit against the

respondents 1 and 2 only and petition against the respondents No.3

and 4 is dismissed.

10. This is an appeal filed by the claimants, contending that the

Tribunal erred in fixing the income of the deceased at Rs.80/- per day

only, instead of Rs.100/- per day at least at the time of accident, which

was occurred in the year 2008, though the deceased was working as

tempo driver, and further, the Tribunal grossly erred in applying

multiplier 15 only instead of 18, though the age of the deceased was

22 years at the time of accident, and thereby the Tribunal failed to

award just compensation entitled by the claimants.

11. In the light of above contentions in the appeal, the points that

would arise for consideration in the appeal are as under:

1. Whether the Tribunal failed to award just compensation to the

claimants?

2023:APHC:1225

BVLNC,J MACMA 2 of 2016

Page 10 of 20 Dt: 18.01.2023

 2. To what relief?

12. POINT No.1:

 The case of the claimants, who are parents of the deceased Syed

Bavaji, who is aged 22 years at the time of accident and the deceased

was working as driver of a tempo motor vehicle and earning Rs.4,000/-

per month, apart from Rs.100/- per day as batta as driver, and on

19.04.2008 at 06.30 a.m. he was returning to Srikalahasthi after

unloading cows at Satyaveedu and while so, he reached a place near

Thangellapalem village, and at that time, the crime vehicle i.e., lorry

bearing No.AP 70 1550 is coming in opposite direction, and the driver

of the lorry drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner and dashed

the tempo, and as a result, the deceased and two others travelling in

the tempo suffered fatal injuries, and one Mr.K.A.Gurubalan died on

the spot and the deceased was shifted to Government Hospital, and on

the way to hospital, he died due to the injuries sustained in the

accident, and the claimants are depending upon the deceased, and

therefore, they are entitled to compensation towards loss of

dependency and other heads.

2023:APHC:1225

BVLNC,J MACMA 2 of 2016

Page 11 of 20 Dt: 18.01.2023

13. The insurer of the lorry i.e., 2nd respondent opposed the claim on

the ground that the claim is excessive, and that the accident was

occurred due to the negligence of the deceased.

14. The Tribunal upon consideration of the evidence, and other

material available in the case, held that the accident was occurred due

to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. The 1st

respondent, who is the owner of the lorry, and 2nd respondent, who is

insurer of the lorry, did not challenge the said finding of the Tribunal.

15. The claimants contended that the deceased was earning

Rs.4,000/- per month towards salary and also getting Rs.100/- per

day as batta. The Tribunal considered the evidence and fixed Rs.80/-

per day as established income of the deceased. The contention of the

claimants is that the amount fixed by the Tribunal is very low, since

the deceased was working as driver of the tempo, and it should be at

least Rs.100/- per day, which is a bare minimum amount, in the year

2008.

16. The evidence and material on record would establish that the

deceased was working as driver of the tempo taxi at the time of

accident occurred on 19.04.2008. In those circumstances, this Court

is of the opinion that the income of the deceased can be fixed at

2023:APHC:1225

BVLNC,J MACMA 2 of 2016

Page 12 of 20 Dt: 18.01.2023

Rs.100/- per day instead of Rs.80/- per day basing on the established

income of various professions and works in the year 2008, in view of

the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Laxmi Devi and

others Vs. Mohammad Tabbar and another1. Therefore, the monthly

income of the deceased would be at Rs.100 x 30 = Rs.3,000/- per

month.

17. The Tribunal fixed the age of the deceased as 22 years, but

applied multiplier ‘15’, considering the age of the parents, ignoring the

principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla

Verma and others Vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation and

another2. The multiplier applicable in this case is ‘18’, in view of the

fact that the age of the deceased was 22 years at the time of accident.

Further, the Tribunal deducted 1/3 only towards personal expenses of

the deceased, instead of ½, inspite of principles laid down by the

Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma’s case. Therefore, the monthly

income of the deceased would be at Rs.3,000 – 1,500 = Rs.1,500/-,

and the annual income of the deceased would be Rs.1,500 x 12 =

Rs.18,000/-.

1

 2008 ACJ 1488

2

 2009 ACJ 1298

2023:APHC:1225

BVLNC,J MACMA 2 of 2016

Page 13 of 20 Dt: 18.01.2023

18. The claimants are also entitled to loss of future prospects in the

light of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance

Company Limited and Pranay Sethi and others3, on the established

income of the deceased. Therefore, the total amount of compensation

entitled by the appellants is 1) loss of dependency comes to Rs.18,000

x 18 = Rs.3,24,000/-, and 2) amount entitled towards loss of future

prospects @ 40%, since the deceased is below 40 years on

Rs.3,24,000/- would be Rs.3,24,000 x 40/100 = Rs.1,29,600/-. The

claimants are also entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses

and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. Therefore, the total amount of

compensation entitled by the appellants would come to Rs.3,24,000 +

1,29,600 + 30,000 = Rs.4,83,600/-.

19. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General

Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and

others4 held in para 8.7 as follows:

“A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) dealt

with the various heads under which compensation is to be

awarded in a death case. One of these heads is Loss of

Consortium.

3

 (2017) 16 SCC 680

4

 2018 ACJ 2782

2023:APHC:1225

BVLNC,J MACMA 2 of 2016

Page 14 of 20 Dt: 18.01.2023

In legal parlance, consortium is a compendious term which

encompasses spousal consortium, parental consortium, and filial

consortium.

The right to consortium would include the company, care, help,

comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is

a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include

sexual relation with the deceased spouse.

3 Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to

the relationship of a husband−wife which allows compensation to

the surviving spouse for loss of company, society, co−

operation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation.

4 Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature

death of a parent, for loss of parental aid, protection, affection,

society, discipline, guidance and training. Filial consortium is the

right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental

death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child

causes great shock and agony to the parents and 3 Rajesh and

Ors. vs. Rajbir Singh and Ors. (2013) 9 SCC 54

4 BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY (5 the d. 1979)

family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose

their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love,

affection, companionship and their role in the family unit.

Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the

status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions

world−over have recognized that the value of a childs consortium

far exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in

2023:APHC:1225

BVLNC,J MACMA 2 of 2016

Page 15 of 20 Dt: 18.01.2023

the case of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore permit

parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on

the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a

compensation for loss of the love, affection, care and

companionship of the deceased child.

The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at

providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine

claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor child, or

unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be

awarded loss of consortium under the head of Filial Consortium.

Parental Consortium is awarded to children who lose their parents

in motor vehicle accidents under the Act.

A few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count5.

However, there was no clarity with 5 Rajasthan High Court in

Jagmala Ram @ Jagmal Singh & Ors. v. Sohi Ram & Ors

2017 (4) RLW 3368 (Raj);

Uttarakhand High Court in Smt. Rita Rana & Anr. v. Pradeep

Kumar & 6 Ors. respect to the principles on which compensation

could be awarded on loss of Filial Consortium.

The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium will be

governed by the principles of awarding compensation under Loss

of Consortium as laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra).

In the present case, we deem it appropriate to award the father

and the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs.40,000 each for

loss of Filial Consortium.”

2023:APHC:1225

BVLNC,J MACMA 2 of 2016

Page 16 of 20 Dt: 18.01.2023

20. In the case on hand, the claimants are parents of the deceased,

and the deceased is their unmarried son. Therefore, the claimants are

entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards consortium as per the above

judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court. Therefore, the claimants are

entitled to a total compensation of Rs.4,83,600 + 40,000 + 40,000 =

Rs.5,63,600/- (Rupees Five Lakhs, Sixty Three Thousand and Six

Hundred only).

21. The claimant is entitled to interest on the above said amount

reasonable as per section 174 of M.V.Act. This Court is of the opinion

that interest can be awarded @ 7.5% p.a. on the compensation

amount, from the date of petition, till the date of deposit, in view of the

judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance

Company Limited Vs. Mannat Johal5.

22. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mona Baghel and others

Vs. Sajjan Singh Yadaav and others6, held that in the matter of

compensation, the amount actually due and payable is to be awarded

despite the claimants having sought for a lesser amount and the claim

petition being valued at a lesser value. The law is well settled that in

5

 2019 ACJ 1849 (SC)

6

 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 734

2023:APHC:1225

BVLNC,J MACMA 2 of 2016

Page 17 of 20 Dt: 18.01.2023

the matter of compensation, the amount actually due and payable is to

be awarded despite the claimants having sought for a lesser amount

and the claim petition being valued at a lesser value. Therefore, though

the claimants sought for a lesser amount, and the claim petition being

valued at lesser value for Rs.4,00,000/-, the amount actually due and

payable is to be awarded is Rs.5,63,600/-. In that view of the matter,

the award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be modified.

23. The claimants are entitled to interest on Rs.5,63,600/-

reasonable as per section 174 of M.V.Act. This Court is of the opinion

that interest can be awarded @ 7.5% p.a. on the compensation

amount, from the date of petition, till the date of deposit, in view of the

judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance

Company Limited Vs. Mannat Johal7. Accordingly, this point is

answered.

24. POINT No.2: To what relief?

 In the light of the finding on point No.1, the order passed by the

Tribunal has to be modified.

7

 2019 ACJ 1849 (SC)

2023:APHC:1225

BVLNC,J MACMA 2 of 2016

Page 18 of 20 Dt: 18.01.2023

25. In the result, the appeal is allowed, modifying the award dated

07.02.2011 passed in M.V.O.P.No.153/2008 on the file of Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Addl. District Judge (Fast Track

Court), Madanapalle. It is held that the claimants are entitled to a

compensation of Rs.5,63,600/- (Rupees Five Lakhs, Sixty Three

Thousand and Six Hundred only) with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the

date of petition, till the date of deposit, instead of Rs.2,94,000/-

(Rupees Two Lakhs and Ninety Four Thousand only). The respondents

1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation

amount. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company is directed to

deposit the entire compensation amount of Rs.5,63,600/- (Rupees Five

Lakhs, Sixty Three Thousand and Six Hundred only), along with the

accrued interest thereon, within one month from the date of judgment.

26. In the event of the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company already

deposited some amount, the said amount has to be excluded, and the

balance amount shall be deposited within one month from the date of

judgment. On such deposit, the 1st appellant/1st claimant being father

of the deceased is permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.2,81,800/-

(Rupees Two Lakhs Eighty One Thousand and Eight Hundred only)

along with accrued interest thereon and, the 2nd appellant /

2nd claimant being mother of the deceased is permitted to withdraw an

2023:APHC:1225

BVLNC,J MACMA 2 of 2016

Page 19 of 20 Dt: 18.01.2023

amount of Rs.2,81,800/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Eighty One Thousand

and Eight Hundred only) along with accrued interest thereon. The

appellants/claimants are directed to pay the required court fee before

the Tribunal, as per Rule 475(2) of A.P.M.V.Rules 1989, within one

month from the date of receipt of certified copy of judgment. There

shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

stand closed.

_________________________________

B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI, J

18.01.2023

psk

2023:APHC:1225

BVLNC,J MACMA 2 of 2016

Page 20 of 20 Dt: 18.01.2023

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

M.A.C.M.A.No.2 OF 2016

Note: Mark L.R.Copy

psk

18th January, 2023

psk

2023:APHC:1225

The claimant became a disabled person due to amputation of both legs upto the level of knee due to the injuries sustained in the accident, and thereby he suffered 100% partial permanent disability. He lost his earning capacity, as he cannot do mason work and therefore, he is entitled to a compensation towards loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

WEDNESDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JANUARY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

PRSENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2147 OF 2017

Between:

1. BIKYAM C VENKATESWARLU @ VENKATESWARLU, GUNTUR DIST

s/o Mannaiah, aged about 39 years, Mason Mastry,

R/o 5th lane, Nallacheruvu, Guntur town,

Guntur district.

...PETITIONER(S)

AND:

1. POTLURI VIJAYA KUMAR, KHAMMAM DIST & TWO OTHERS s/o

Venkata Ramaiah Owner of Tipper bearing No.AP-20-TA-7524, C/o

Vijaya Lakshrni Transports, Near Mandal Office, VM Banzara, Khammam

Post and district.

2. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Rep. by its Divisional Manager,

D.No.11-4-79, It floor, Siddartha Womens College, Road, F.B.No.782,

M.G.Road, Labbipet, Vijayawada, Krishna district.

3. Shaik Bade Babu s/o Hussain, Aged about 44 years, Driver of Vehicle,

R/o Thippanapalli village, Chandrugonda mandal

Khammam district.

...RESPONDENTS

Counsel for the Petitioner(s): G V S MEHAR KUMAR

Counsel for the Respondents: V DURGA

The Court made the following: ORDER

2023:APHC:1228

BVLNC MACMA 2147 of 2017

Page 1 of 19 Dt: 18.01.2023

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

****

M.A.C.M.A.No.2147 OF 2017

Between:

Bikyam China Venkateswarlu @ Venkateswarlu,

S/o.Mannaiah, Aged 39 years, Mason Mastry,

R/o.5th Lane, Nallacheruvu, Guntur Town,

Guntur District.

 ….Appellant/ Claim Petitioner

 Versus

1. Potluri Vijnaya Kumar, S/o.Venkata Ramaiah,

 Owner of Tipper No. AP 20 TA 7524,

 C/o.Vijaya Lakshmi Transports,

 Near Mandal Office, V.M.Banzara,

 Khammam Post and District.

2. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited,

 Rep. By its Divisional Manager,

 R/o.D.No.11-4-79, 1st floor,

 Siddartha Womens College Road,

 F.B.No.782, M.G.Road, Labbipet,

 Vijayawada, Krishna District.

3. Shaik Bade Babu, S/o.Hussain,

 Aged 44 years, Driver of Tipper,

 R/o.Thippanapalli Vilage,

 Chandrugonda Mandal,

 Khammam District.

….Respondents/Respondents

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 18.01.2023

2023:APHC:1228

BVLNC MACMA 2147 of 2017

Page 2 of 19 Dt: 18.01.2023

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers

 may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No

2. Whether the copy of Judgment may be

 marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No

3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the

 fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No

 ____________________________

 B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI, J

2023:APHC:1228

BVLNC MACMA 2147 of 2017

Page 3 of 19 Dt: 18.01.2023

* HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

+ M.A.C.M.A.No.2147 OF 2017

% 18.01.2023

# Between:

Bikyam China Venkateswarlu @ Venkateswarlu,

S/o.Mannaiah, Aged 39 years, Mason Mastry,

R/o.5th Lane, Nallacheruvu, Guntur Town,

Guntur District.

 ….Appellant/ Claim Petitioner

 Versus

1. Potluri Vijnaya Kumar, S/o.Venkata Ramaiah,

 Owner of Tipper No. AP 20 TA 7524,

 C/o.Vijaya Lakshmi Transports,

 Near Mandal Office, V.M.Banzara,

 Khammam Post and District.

2. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited,

 Rep. By its Divisional Manager,

 R/o.D.No.11-4-79, 1st floor,

 Siddartha Womens College Road,

 F.B.No.782, M.G.Road, Labbipet,

 Vijayawada, Krishna District.

3. Shaik Bade Babu, S/o.Hussain,

 Aged 44 years, Driver of Tipper,

 R/o.Thippanapalli Vilage,

 Chandrugonda Mandal,

 Khammam District.

 ….Respondents/Respondents.

2023:APHC:1228

BVLNC MACMA 2147 of 2017

Page 4 of 19 Dt: 18.01.2023

! Counsel for the Appellant : Sri G.V.S.Mehar Kumar

^ Counsel for the

 2nd Respondent : Smt.G.Durga

< Gist:

> Head Note:

? Cases referred:

1. 2009 ACJ 1298

2. 2022 Livelaw (SC) 734

3. 2019 ACJ 1849 (SC)

This Court made the following:

2023:APHC:1228

BVLNC MACMA 2147 of 2017

Page 5 of 19 Dt: 18.01.2023

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

M.A.C.M.A.No.2147 OF 2017

JUDGMENT:

 This appeal is preferred by the Appellant/claimant,

challenging the award dated 04.04.2017 passed in

M.V.O.P.No.360/2013 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunalcum-I Addl.District Judge, Guntur, (for short ‘the Tribunal’), wherein

the Tribunal while partly allowing the petition, awarded a

compensation of Rs.9,43,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date

of petition, till the date of realisation, for the injuries sustained by him

in a motor vehicle accident.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as

parties in the M.V.O.P.

3. As seen from the record, originally the petitioner filed an

application U/s.140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for

brevity “the Act”) claiming a compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- on

account of the injuries and disability sustained by the petitioner in a

motor vehicle accident that occurred on 15.03.2013.

4. The facts show that on 15.03.2013 at about 07.30 p.m. while the

claimant was waiting to board a vehicle at Kistaram Centre on State

2023:APHC:1228

BVLNC MACMA 2147 of 2017

Page 6 of 19 Dt: 18.01.2023

High Way, B.T.Road, at that time, one Tipper bearing No.AP 20 TA

7524 coming from Sathupalli towards Khammam driver by the 3rd

respondent in a rash and negligent manner with high speed without

blowing horn and without following the traffic rules, hit the petitioner,

as a result, the petitioner sustained fractures to his both legs and

other injuries all over the body and the injured was shifted to

Government General Hospital, Guntur, where his both legs were

amputated upto knee. The accident was reported to Sathupalli P.S.

and the same was registered as a case in Cr.No.89/2013 for the

offence punishable U/s.338 of Indian Penal Code against the driver of

the said tipper. The petitioner was aged about 35 years, hale and

healthy and he used to work as a mason mastry earning Rs.450/- per

day. Due to the accident, the petitioner received severe fracture

injuries and became a disabled person, in addition to mental agony

and suffering besides losing his earning capacity.

5. Before the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company,

filed a written statement, while traversing the material averments with

regard to the manner of accident, rash and negligence on the part of

the driver of the crime vehicle, nature of injuries, medical expenditure,

avocation and monthly earnings of the injured, alleged permanent

disability, and liability to pay compensation, and contended that the

2023:APHC:1228

BVLNC MACMA 2147 of 2017

Page 7 of 19 Dt: 18.01.2023

said vehicle is not involved in the accident and that there is no

negligence on the part of driver of the tipper, and that the 1st

respondent handed over the said vehicle to the driver, who was not

having an effective driving license, as such, the 1st respondent violated

the policy conditions. Hence, the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay

any compensation to the petitioner. The alleged amputation was not

due to the injuries sustained in the accident and only due to nonobtaining of proper medical care and treatment and as such, the

respondent is not liable to pay compensation for the said injuries.

6. On the strength of the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal

framed the following issues:

1. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent

driving of the driver of the tipper bearing No.AP 20 TA 7524 and

caused injuries to Bikyam China Venkateswarlu @

Venkateswarlu?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for a compensation? If so, to

what amount and from whom?

3. To what relief?

7. To substantiate his claim, the petitioner examined P.Ws-1 to 3

and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-5 and Ex.X-1. On behalf of the 2nd

2023:APHC:1228

BVLNC MACMA 2147 of 2017

Page 8 of 19 Dt: 18.01.2023

respondent/Insurance Company, no oral or documentary evidence was

adduced.

8. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws-1 to

3, coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-5 and Ex.X-1 held that the accident took

place due to the rash and negligent driving of the tipper driver, and

further taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws-1 to 3

corroborated by Exs.A-1 to A-5 and Ex.X-1, awarded a compensation

of Rs.9,43,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition, till

the date of realisation.

9. This is an appeal filed by the claimant contending that the

Tribunal erred in fixing the income of the claimant at Rs.150/- per day

without considering the fact that he was working as mason and

earning Rs.450/-per day at the time of accident, and thereby the

Tribunal failed to award just compensation under the head loss of

future earnings on account of permanent disability.

10. In the light of above contention, the points that would arise for

consideration in this appeal are as under:

1. Whether the Tribunal failed to award just compensation to the

claimant?

2. To what relief?

2023:APHC:1228

BVLNC MACMA 2147 of 2017

Page 9 of 19 Dt: 18.01.2023

11. POINT No.1:

 The contention of the appellant is that he is working as a mason

in Guntur City of Andhra Pradesh and earning Rs.450/- per day at the

time of accident; on 15.03.2013 at about 07.30 p.m. he was waiting for

on the State Highway, B.T.Road, to board a vehicle to go to home; a

Tipper bearing No.AP 20 TE 7524 was coming from Sattupalli side

going towards Khammam; the 3rd respondent is the driver, and he

drove the tipper in a rash and negligent manner and as a result,

dashed the petitioner; he sustained injuries to both legs and shifted to

Government General Hospital, Guntur; the both legs of the claimant

were amputated upto the level of knee; police registered a case against

the 3rd respondent for the offence punishable U/s.338 of Indian Penal

Code.

12. The claimant became a disabled person due to amputation of

both legs upto the level of knee due to the injuries sustained in the

accident, and thereby he suffered 100% partial permanent disability.

He lost his earning capacity, as he cannot do mason work and

therefore, he is entitled to a compensation towards loss of future

earnings on account of permanent disability.

2023:APHC:1228

BVLNC MACMA 2147 of 2017

Page 10 of 19 Dt: 18.01.2023

13. The claimant contended that as mason he was earning Rs.450/-

per day, and therefore, he is entitled to compensation accordingly.

But, the Tribunal considered his income only at Rs.150/- per day,

which is very low and meagre.

14. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the

claimant was working as mason in urban area i.e., Guntur City which

is one of the biggest cities in Andhra Pradesh State, and the Tribunal

did not consider this fact while fixing the income of the claimant, and

he relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Madras in the case of

Saritha and others Vs. Siva and another in C.M.A.No.3567 of 2019

contending that the evidence in the case on hand shows that the

deceased was working as a mason in Guntur urban area at the time of

the accident in the year 2013, and therefore, fixing his income at

Rs.150/- per day by the Tribunal is not proper and correct, and

submitted that the Tribunal has to consider the place of work also,

while fixing the income of the claimant.

15. The evidence of claimant would show that he was a resident of

5th lane, Nallacheruvu, Guntur, and he was working as a mason at the

time of accident. In the written statement filed by the

respondent/Insurance Company, there is no specific denial of this fact.

In the cross-examination of P.W-1 also, it was not denied. Therefore, it

2023:APHC:1228

BVLNC MACMA 2147 of 2017

Page 11 of 19 Dt: 18.01.2023

would establish that the claimant is a resident of Guntur, and was

working as a mason in Guntur at the time of accident. Guntur city is

an urban area, and one of the developed cities in the State of Andhra

Pradesh.

16. The contention of the claimant is that he was earning Rs.450/-

per day as mason at the time of accident. The accident occurred in the

year 2013. The Tribunal in its order while fixing the income of the

claimant at Rs.150/- per day, held that “hence, considering the age of

petitioner as 30 years and also disability at 100%, and basing on the

ground realities, a person who is aged about 30 years, who was hale

and healthy can easily earn a sum of Rs.150/- per day. Hence, the

income of the petitioner for a month would come to a sum of Rs.4,500/-.”

The Tribunal did not consider anything about the place of work,

nature of work and demand of the work etc., while fixing the income of

the claimant.

17. The High Court of Madras in the case of Saritha and others Vs.

Siva and another in C.M.A.No.3567 of 2019 at para 16 held as

follows:

“Therefore, it may not be possible on some occasions to follow the

particular judgment delivered by the High Courts or the Supreme

Court. Judgments may be outdated or delivered some years back

2023:APHC:1228

BVLNC MACMA 2147 of 2017

Page 12 of 19 Dt: 18.01.2023

or the facts and circumstances in that particular judgment may

not be much applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case

on hand. Therefore, the Courts are bound to consider the

judgments with reference to the facts and circumstances as well

as the prevailing situation. Mechanical approach in application of

judgments are also not proper. Thus, for grant of compensation

under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a particular amount fixed in a

particular case need not be passed in a routine manner. Once the

facts and circumstances are different, then the yardstick to be

adopted also to be different.”

18. In the light of above facts and circumstances, the Tribunal erred

in fixing the income of the claimant at Rs.150/- per day, ignoring his

place of work, nature of work and the demand per his work in the year

2013. If those factors are taken into consideration, the income of the

claimant would be minimum at Rs.250/- per day, considering the fact

that the claimant was working as a mason in Guntur City at the time

of accident.

19. The claimant has examined the doctor, who treated him as

P.W-2. His evidence would establish that the claimant suffered the

following injuries:

 1. Crush injury right leg segmental fracture fibula.

 2. Crush injury left leg with fracture calcaneum.

2023:APHC:1228

BVLNC MACMA 2147 of 2017

Page 13 of 19 Dt: 18.01.2023

20. P.W-2 evidence further established that amputation was done for

both lower limbs, and patient suffered permanent partial disability of

100%. He further deposed that patient cannot do hard labour, and he

can walk only with artificial limbs. In the cross-examination, he

deposed that he can do only work in sitting posture. Therefore, P.W-2

evidence would establish that the claimant cannot do hard labour

work like work of mason, which requires standing for considerable

period in a day.

21. The claimant also examined a Member of District Medical Board,

Guntur, as P.W-3. He deposed about Ex.A-5 disability certificate

issued by the Board. P.W-3 evidence would establish that he is one of

the Member of the Board, which issued Ex.A-5 and as per the opinion

of the Board, the claimant suffered permanent disability of 100% due

to the amputation of both legs, and claimant can do work only in

sitting posture. Therefore, the evidence of P.W-3 corroborates the

evidence of claimant and P.W-2 that claimant suffered 100%

permanent disability on account of which, he cannot do mason work,

which he was doing prior to the date of accident. Therefore, the

evidence on record established that the claimant suffered loss of future

earnings on account of permanent disability. Hence, he is entitled to

2023:APHC:1228

BVLNC MACMA 2147 of 2017

Page 14 of 19 Dt: 18.01.2023

compensation towards loss of future earnings on account of

permanent disability.

22. When coming to the quantum of compensation for loss of future

earnings, this Court opined supra that his income at the time of

accident on established facts would be minimum at Rs.250/- per day.

Therefore, his monthly income comes to Rs.250 x 30 = Rs.7,500/- per

month, and his annual income would be Rs.7,500 x 12 = Rs.90,000/-.

23. The contention of the claimant that he was aged 30 years at the

time of accident. The contention of the respondent/Insurance

Company is that, he did not adduce any evidenced to prove the age.

Ex.A-5 disability certificate shows the age of the claimant as 32 years,

which was issued in the year 2013. Ex.A-4 wound certificate would

show his age as 30 years. Therefore, his age can be considered as 30

years at the time of accident. Hence, multiplier ‘17’ be applied as per

judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and

others Vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation and another1.

24. The amount of compensation entitled by the claimant under the

head loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability would

be Rs.90,000 x 17 = Rs.15,30,000/-.

1

 2009 ACJ 1298

2023:APHC:1228

BVLNC MACMA 2147 of 2017

Page 15 of 19 Dt: 18.01.2023

25. The appellant made a claim for Rs.10,000/- for pain and

suffering. The Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- towards pain and

suffering. The appellant claimed a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards

transport and other expenses. The Tribunal awarded Rs.5,000/-

towards transportation charges and other expenses. The appellant

claimed a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of expectation of life. The

Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of expectation of

life. Therefore, the total amount of compensation entitled by the

appellant under all the above heads would come to Rs.15,55,000/-.

The appellant made claim for Rs.15,00,000/- only.

26. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mona Baghel and others

Vs. Sajjan Singh Yadaav and others2, held that in the matter of

compensation, the amount actually due and payable is to be awarded

despite the claimants having sought for a lesser amount and the claim

petition being valued at a lesser value. The law is well settled that in

the matter of compensation, the amount actually due and payable is to

be awarded despite the claimants having sought for a lesser amount

and the claim petition being valued at a lesser value. Therefore,

though the claimants sought for a lesser amount, and the claim

petition being valued at lesser value for Rs.15,00,000/-, the amount

2

 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 734

2023:APHC:1228

BVLNC MACMA 2147 of 2017

Page 16 of 19 Dt: 18.01.2023

actually due and payable is to be awarded is Rs.15,55,000/-. In that

view of the matter, the award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be

modified.

27. In view of the above judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court

case, the Court shall award just compensation, even if it exceeds the

amount claimed by the claimant, subject to payment of court fee. In

that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the

appellant is entitled to Rs.15,55,000/- towards just compensation.

28. The claimant is entitled to interest on the above said amount

reasonable as per section 174 of M.V.Act. This Court is of the opinion

that interest can be awarded @ 7.5% p.a. on the compensation

amount, from the date of petition, till the date of deposit, in view of the

judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance

Company Limited Vs. Mannat Johal3. Accordingly, this point is

answered.

29. POINT No.2: To what relief?

 In the light of the finding on point No.1, the order passed by the

Tribunal has to be modified.

3

 2019 ACJ 1849 (SC)

2023:APHC:1228

BVLNC MACMA 2147 of 2017

Page 17 of 19 Dt: 18.01.2023

30. In the result, the appeal is allowed, modifying the award dated

04.04.2017 passed in M.V.O.P.No.360/2013 on the file of Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Addl. District Judge, Guntur. It is

held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.15,55,000/-

(Rupees Fifteen Lakhs and Fifty Five Thousand only) with interest @

7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit, instead of

Rs.9,43,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs and Forty Three Thousand only).

The respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the

compensation amount. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company is

directed to deposit the entire compensation amount of Rs.15,55,000/-

(Rupees Fifteen Lakhs and Fifty Five Thousand only) along with the

accrued interest thereon, within one month from the date of judgment.

In the event of the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company already

deposited some amount, the said amount has to be excluded, and the

balance amount shall be deposited within one month from the date of

judgment.

31. On such deposit, the appellant/claimant is permitted to

withdraw the said compensation amount with accrued interest

thereon. The appellant/claimant is directed to pay the required court

fee before the Tribunal, as per Rule 475(2) of A.P.M.V.Rules 1989,

2023:APHC:1228

BVLNC MACMA 2147 of 2017

Page 18 of 19 Dt: 18.01.2023

within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of judgment.

There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

stand closed.

_____________________________

B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI, J

18.01.2023

psk

2023:APHC:1228

BVLNC MACMA 2147 of 2017

Page 19 of 19 Dt: 18.01.2023

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

M.A.C.M.A.No.2147 OF 2017

NOTE: Mark L.R.Copy

psk

18th January, 2023

psk

2023:APHC:1228