As per case facts, the claimant, being a minor, through his mother, filed an appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The claimant sustained grievous ...
1
Date of reserved for Judgment :01.05.2026
Date of Pronouncement :19.06.2026
Date of uploading :19.06.2026
APHC010146632012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PR ADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
[3520]
FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 3202/2012
Between:
1. DAKE SURYACHANDRA RAO R/O VELPUR, W.G.DIST, S/O SUBBA RAO
BEING MINOR REP. BY HER MOTHER HOUSEWIFE R/O VELPUR,
W.G.DISTRICT
...APPELLANT
AND
1. NEELAPU VENKATA RAO 2 OTHERS, S/O APPA RAO DRIVER OF AP37
6481 R/O PYDIPARRI, TANUKU MANDAL, W.G.DISTRICT
2. NEELAPU SRINIVASA RAO, S/O KRISHNA OWNER OF DRIVER OF AP37
6481 R/O RELANGI, W.G.DISTRICT
3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD, REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANGER
R/O TADEPALLIGUDEM, W.G.DISTRICT
...RESPONDENT(S):
Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Court
2
IA NO: 1 OF 2006(MACMAMP 4383 OF 2006
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the
affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased To condone
the delay of 440 days in presenting this Appeal.
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. A K KISHORE REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. .
2. A JAYANTHI
The Court made the following:
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
M.A.C.M.A.No.3202 of 2012
JUDGMENT:
Introductory:
1. Claimant in the M.V.O.P.No.204 of 2004 on the file of the Chairman, Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court)
Tanuku, West Godavari District (for short “the learned MACT”), dissatisfied with the
quantum of compensation of Rs.26,500/- awarded as against the claim made for
Rs.1,50,000/-, filed the present appeal seeking enchantment of compensation
disputing the quantification.
2. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the driver and owner of the offending vehicle
remained ex parte before the learned MACT. Respondent No.3 is the Insurance
Company contested the matter.
3. For the sake of convience, parties will be hereinafter referred to as the
claimant/petitioner and the respondents with reference to their status before the
learned MACT.
Case of the petitioner:
4(i). On 31.12.2003, while the petitioner was proceeding on his bicycle, an Auto
bearing No.AP 37 U 6481 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”), driven by
respondent No.1 owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3,
without following traffic rules etc., came in a negligent manner and dashed against the
4
petitioner, causing the accident and resulting in injuries all over the body of the
petitioner. Matter was reported to the Police. A case in Crime No.160 of 2003 was
registered on the file of Tanuku Police Station for the offences under Section 338 IPC
and the petitioner was taken to Vamsi Hi-Tech Super Specialty Hospital, Tanuku,
where he has incurred expenditure of Rs.60,000/- towards treatment, medicines etc.
(ii). Petitioner was hale and healthy and aged about „16‟ years by the date of
accident and he was a student. He suffered grievous injuries on the head and fore
arm. The driver of the offending vehicle / auto is responsible for the accident. Hence,
Respondent No.2 being the owner and respondent No.3 being the insurer are liable to
pay compensation.
Case of respondent No.3 / Insurance Company:
5. The petitioner shall prove the pleaded accident, negligence of the driver of the
auto/ the offending vehicle, injuries sustained by the petitioner, treatment undergone,
expenditure incurred, nature and effect of injuries, entitlement for the compensation
claimed including compliance with the conditions of the policy etc.
Evidence:
6(i). During enquiry / trial, for answering the issues touching accident, negligence,
entitlement of the claimant for compensation and its quantification, the claimant relied
on evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. P.W.1, the mother of the claimant, stated about the
accident, admission of the petitioner in the hospital, expenditure incurred for treatment
etc. and examined P.W.2 the doctor who treated the claimant.
5
(ii). In addition to the oral evidence, the claimant relied on documentary evidence.
Ex.A1-attested copy of FIR, Ex.A2-Accident register copy, Ex.A3-attested copy of MVI
report and Ex.A8-attested copy of C.T. Scan report are the crime records relating to
the accident. Ex.A4 is the attested copy of the policy Ex.A5 is the C.T. Scan report,
Ex.A6 is the discharge summary, Ex.A7 is the bunch of medical bills, Ex.A8 is the
attested copy of C.T. Scan report, Ex.A9 is the discharge bill and Ex.A10 is the C.T.
Scan report.
Findings of the learned MACT:
7. The learned MACT, by referring to the evidence, held that the negligence of the
driver of the auto/offending vehicle is the cause for accident and that the claimant is
entitled for compensation and the respondents are liable to pay the same. While
quantifying the compensation, relying on the evidence of P.W.2, the medical officer,
wound certificate, bills etc. the learned MACT awarded compensation of Rs.26,500/-
observing the same as just and reasonable compensation. The heads under which
the compensation was awarded by the learned MACT are: Rs.10,000/- for injury No.1,
Rs.1,500/- for the injury No.2, Rs.10,000/- towards medicines and treatment and
Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering.
Arguments in the appeal and hearing:
8. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the compensation awarded
is nominal and the claimant is entitled for more compensation in view of the gravity of
6
the injuries as well as the medical bills being standing Ex.A9 itself is for Rs.29,600/-.
The learned MACT failed to consider the entitlement under various heads.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company would
submit that the injuries are simple in nature and the medical expenditure etc. are not
properly shown. Therefore, the compensation awarded is justified.
10. Heard both sides extensively. Perused the record. Thoughtful consideration is
given to the arguments advanced by both sides.
Scope of Appeal:
11. Since the claimant is in appeal, the respondents did not choose to file any
appeal. Accident, negligence, liability of the respondents to pay compensation and
the entitlement of the claimants for compensation are all out of dispute. Only the just
and adequate nature of the compensation alone is the subject matter of this appeal.
Points:
12. The points that arise for determination in this appeal are:
1) Whether the compensation of Rs.26,500/- awarded by the learned MACT
under judgment dated 14.03.2005 in M.V.O.P.No.204 of 2004 is just and
adequate or requires any interference and if so, on what grounds and to what
extent ?
2) What is the result of the appeal?
7
Point No.1:
Analysis, Reasoning and Findings:
13(i). The mother of the petitioner, being the next friend and guardian, deposed as
P.W.1 and reiterated the contents in the petition with regard to the petitioner
sustaining multiple injuries, including head injury and his admission in Vamsi Hi-Tech
Hospital, Tanuku, incurring expenditure of Rs.50,000/- towards treatment and
medicines and continuation of treatment thereafter.
(ii). During cross examination of P.W.1, she has denied the suggestion that the
bills are fabricated and admitted that the latest CT scan report is not filed. She has
denied the suggestion that there is no disability to the petitioner. She has denied the
suggestion that she has suppressed the Wound Certificate issued by the Government
Hospital and that the injuries as per Ex.A2 are simple in nature.
14(i). P.W.2 is the doctor who treated the petitioner. His evidence is that the
petitioner was admitted with complaints of painful palaver on cervical region and head
injury. CT scan of the cervical and brain was taken. X-ray, cervical limbo scral pain
was noticed He has issued the wound certificate. The injuries are grievous in nature.
As per the CT scan, fractures of occipital bone, cerebral edema and related changes
were noticed. Receipts and bills covered under Ex.A7 are issued from his Hospital.
(ii). During the cross examination of P.W.2, it is elicited that he is not a neurologist.
The suggestion as to his competency to depose and give evidence is denied by him,
while he was stating that he was giving first aid to the patient.
8
15. Ex.A2-Accident information Register is reflecting two injuries and the cause of
the injuries was due to a road traffic accident.
16. Ex.A7-bunch of medical bills are standing for different amounts i.e. Rs.2,148/-,
Rs.506/-, Rs.562/-, Rs.1,045/-, Rs.629/-, Rs.4,200/-, Rs.120/-, Rs.120/-, Rs.340/- and
Rs.520/-. totaling Rs.10,190/-. The learned MACT awarded only Rs.10,000/- towards
the medicines and expenditure. Permanent disability is not shown with any evidence,
except the evidence of P.W.2 indicating that the claimant sustained grievous injures
and was hospitalized.
17. There is no other material indicating the medical expenditure and the effect of
the injuries. However, the discharge summary-Ex.A6 would indicate that the
petitioner was admitted on 31.12.2003 and was discharged on 09.01.2004. Basing
on the hospitalization, nature of injuries and Ex.A7-medical bills, the entitlement of
claimant for compensation has to be notionally assessed with some reasonable guess
work.
Precedential Guidance:
18. A reference to parameters, for quantifying the compensation under various
heads, addressed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court is found necessary, to have standard
base in the process of quantifying the compensation, to which the claimant is entitled.
(i) With regard to awarding just and reasonable quantum of compensation,
the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Baby Sakshi Greola vs. Manzoor Ahmad Simon and
9
Anr.
1
, arising out of SLP(c).No.10996 of 2018 on 11.12.2024, considered the scope
and powers of the Tribunal in awarding just and compensation within the meaning of
Act, after marshaling entire case law, more particularly with reference to the earlier
observations of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court made in Kajal V. Jagadish Chand and
Ors.
2
, referred to various heads under which, compensation can be awarded, in
injuries cases vide paragraph No.52, the heads are as follows:-
S. No. Head Amount (In ₹)
1. Medicines and Medical Treatment xxxxx
2. Loss of Earning Capacity due to Disability xxxxx
3. Pain and Suffering xxxxx
4. Future Treatment xxxxx
5. Attendant Charges xxxxx
6. Loss of Amenities of Life xxxxx
7. Loss of Future Prospect xxxxx
8. Special Education Expenditure xxxxx
9. Conveyance and Special Diet xxxxx
10. Loss of Marriage Prospects xxxxxx
_________
Total Rs. … xxxxxx
_________
(ii). Hon‟ble Apex Court in Yadava Kumar Vs. Divisional Manager,
National Insurance Company Limited and Anr.,
3
vide para No.10, by referring to
Sunil Kumar Vs. Ram Singh Gaud
4
,as to application of multiplier method in case of
injuries while calculating loss of future earnings, in para 16 referring to Hardeo Kaur
Vs. Rajasthan State Transport Corporation
5
, as to fixing of quantum of
compensation with liberal approach, valuing the life and limb of individual in generous
scale, in para 17 observed that :-
1
2025 AIAR (Civil) 1
2
2020 (04) SCC 413
3
2010(10)SCC 341
4
2007 (14) SCC 61
5
1992(2) SCC 567
10
“The High Court and the Tribunal must realize that there is a distinction between
compensation and damage. The expression compensation may include a claim for damage
but compensation is more comprehensive. Normally damages are given for an injury which is
suffered, whereas compensation stands on a slightly higher footing. It is given for the
atonement of injury caused and the intention behind grant of compensation is to put back the
injured party as far as possible in the same position, as if the injury has not taken place, by
way of grant of pecuniary relief. Thus, in the matter of computation of compensation, the
approach will be slightly more broad based than what is done in the matter of assessment of
damages. At the same time it is true that there cannot be any rigid or mathematical precision
in the matter of determination of compensation.”
(iii). In Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another
6
, the Hon‟ble Apex Court
summarized principles to be followed in the process of quantifying the compensation
after referring to socio economic and practical aspects from which, the claimants
come and the practical difficulties, the parties may face in the process of getting
disability assessed and getting all certificates from either the Doctors, who treated, or
from the medical boards etc. principles summarized vide para No.19 are as follows:
19. We may now summarise the principles discussed above:
(i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not
result in loss of earning capacity.
(ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body
of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning
capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is
not the same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few
cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that the
percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as the percentage of
permanent disability).
6
2011 (1) SCC 343
11
(iii) The doctor who treated an injured claimant or who examined him
subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give
evidence only in regard to the extent of permanent disability. The loss of
earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal
with reference to the evidence in entirety.
(iv) The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of
loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of
profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors.
(iv) In Sidram vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr.
7
vide
para No.40, the Hon‟ble Apex Court referred to the general principles relating to
compensation in injury cases and assessment of future loss of earning due to
permanent disability by referring to Rajkumar’s case, and also various heads under
which compensation can be awarded to a victim of a motor vehicle accident.
(v) In Sidram’s case, reference is made to a case in R.D. Hattangadi V.
Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd.
8
. From the observations made therein, it can be
understood that while fixing amount of compensation in cases of accident, it involves
some guess work, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked
with the nature of the disability caused. But, all these elements have to be viewed with
objective standards. In assessing damages, the Court must exclude all considerations
of matter which rest in awarding speculation or fancy, though conjecture to some
extent is inevitable.
7
2023 (3) SCC 439
8
1995 (1) SCC 551
12
19. In the light of the evidence and the precedential guidance, the entitlement of
claimant for reasonable compensation in comparison to the compensation awarded
by the learned MACT is found as follows:
Conclusion:
20. For the reasons aforesaid and in view of the discussion made above, the point
framed is answered in favour of the claimant, concluding that the claimant is entitled
for compensation of Rs.55,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum and the
order and decree dated 14.03.2005 passed by the learned MACT in M.V.O.P.No.204
of 2004 requires modification accordingly.
Sl.
No.
Head Granted by the
learned MACT
Fixed by this
Appellate Court
1. Pain and suffering Rs.5,000/- Rs.10,000/-
2. Injury No.1 Rs.10,000/- Rs.15,000/-
3. Injury No.2 Rs.1,500/- Rs.5,000/-
4. Extra nourishment -Nil- Rs.5,000/-
5. Transportation -Nil- Rs.5,000/-
6. Attendant charges -Nil- Rs.5,000/-
7. Medical
expenditure/treatment
Rs.10,000- Rs.10,000/-
Total: Rs.26,500/- Rs.55,000/-
Interest (per annum) 9% 7.5%
13
Point No.2:
21. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed as follows:
(i) The compensation awarded by the learned MACT in M.V.O.P.No.204 of
2004 at Rs.26,500/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum is modified
and enhanced to Rs.55,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum
from the date of petition till the date of realization.
(ii) Respondent Nos.1 to 3 before the learned MACT are jointly and severally
liable to pay the compensation. However, Respondent No.3 / Insurance
Company is liable in view of the Insurance Policy.
(iii) Time for payment/deposit of the balance amount is two months.
(a) If the claimant furnishes the bank account number within 15 days from
today, the Respondents shall deposit the amount directly into the bank
account of the claimant and file the necessary proof before the learned
MACT.
(b) If the claimant fails to comply with (iii)(a) above, respondent No.3 /
Insurance Company shall deposit the amount before the learned MACT
and the claimant is entitled to withdraw the amount at once on deposit.
(iv) There shall be no order as to costs in the appeal.
14
22. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeal shall stand
closed.
____________________________
A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J
Date:19.06.2026
Knr
15
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
M.A.C.M.A.No.3202 of 2012
19.06.2026
Knr
The recent Motor Accident Compensation ruling by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Dake Suryachandra Rao vs. Neelapu Venkata Rao & Ors. (M.A.C.M.A.No.3202 of 2012) is a significant development for claimants seeking fair redressal. This judgment, like many other crucial High Court Rulings, is meticulously tracked on CaseOn, offering legal professionals easy access to its details and implications. The High Court, presided over by Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma, pronounced its decision on June 19, 2026, modifying the original award to ensure a more just and adequate compensation for the appellant.
The core issue for determination in this appeal was:
The High Court relied on established legal precedents concerning the quantification of compensation in injury cases, emphasizing the need for 'just and reasonable' compensation. Key rulings referenced include:
The claimant, a minor, sustained grievous injuries in a motor accident on December 31, 2003, involving an auto. The original MACT had awarded Rs.26,500/- as compensation, which the claimant's mother, P.W.1, argued was insufficient. The injuries included head injury, fractures of the occipital bone, and cerebral edema, as confirmed by P.W.2, the treating doctor. The claimant was hospitalized from December 31, 2003, to January 09, 2004.
The appellant contended that the compensation was nominal, especially considering the gravity of the injuries and medical bills, with Ex.A9 reportedly standing at Rs.29,600/-. The insurance company, Respondent No.3, argued that the injuries were simple, and medical expenses were not adequately proven.
The High Court, after thoroughly reviewing the oral and documentary evidence, acknowledged the undisputed accident, negligence, and liability of the respondents. It found that the MACT had awarded Rs.10,000/- for medical expenses, despite medical bills (Ex.A7) totaling Rs.10,190/-, and the appellant's claim of higher expenses. Applying the principles of 'just and reasonable compensation' and adopting a liberal approach, the High Court re-evaluated the compensation under various heads:
This careful analysis led to a significant upward revision. For legal professionals looking to quickly grasp the nuances of such revisions, CaseOn.in's 2-minute audio briefs provide an invaluable tool for analyzing these specific rulings, making complex information digestible and accessible on the go.
The High Court partly allowed the appeal, modifying the MACT's judgment. The total compensation awarded to the claimant was enhanced from Rs.26,500/- to Rs.55,000/-. The interest rate was adjusted from 9% to 7.5% per annum, applicable from the date of the petition until the date of realization. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 were held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation, with Respondent No.3 (the Insurance Company) being primarily liable as per the insurance policy. The balance amount is to be paid within two months, provided the claimant furnishes bank account details within 15 days. There was no order as to costs in the appeal.
The original court document details an appeal filed by Dake Suryachandra Rao, a minor, challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the MACT for injuries sustained in a motor accident. The MACT had granted Rs.26,500/-, which the appellant argued was insufficient given the nature of the injuries (head injury, fractures, cerebral edema) and medical expenses. The High Court, after considering the evidence, including medical reports and witness testimonies, and guided by various Supreme Court precedents on fair compensation, significantly increased the award to Rs.55,000/-. The court itemized the enhanced amounts for pain and suffering, different injuries, and new heads like extra nourishment, transportation, and attendant charges, while also adjusting the interest rate.
This judgment serves as a crucial reference for lawyers and law students specializing in motor accident claims and personal injury law. It beautifully illustrates the application of key Supreme Court precedents in determining 'just and reasonable' compensation. The detailed breakdown of how each head of compensation was re-evaluated by the High Court provides practical insights into the judicial approach towards quantifying damages, especially when initial awards are deemed nominal. Furthermore, the emphasis on considering medical evidence, the nature of injuries, and the period of hospitalization, alongside a liberal interpretation of compensation principles, offers a comprehensive guide for future litigation and academic study.
All information provided in this analysis is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. While efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, readers should consult with a qualified legal professional for advice pertaining to their specific circumstances.
Legal Notes
Add a Note....