1

Date of reserved for orders : 10.04.2026

Date of pronouncement : 01.07.2026

Date of uploading : 01.07.2026

APHC010135362014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3520]

WEDNESDAY, THE 1

st

DAY OF JULY 2026

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 569/2014

Between:

1. KARROTHU SATYAM, S/O.LATE APPALANAIDU, HINDU R/O.KELLA

[V], GURLA [M], VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT.

...APPELLANT

AND

1. BONGA KANNAPPADORA KANAKARAJU 2 ORS, S/O.LATE

APPALASWAMY OCC: DRIVER OF TRUCK NO.AP 15 X 3767

R/O.KONDAYYAPALEM [V], NEAR RAJAPULOVA [V], DENKADA [M],

VIZIANGARAM DISTRICT.

2. Y ANANDA REDDY, S/O.RAMA REDDY, HINDU OCC: OWNER OF

TRUCK NO.AP 15 X 3767 R/O.D.NO.380/904/1, JYOTHI NAGAR,

MARRIPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM.

3. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD, REP BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER

O/O.SRIKAKULAM. [R1 IS DRIVER, HENCE HE IS NOT A NECESSARY

PARTY]

...RESPONDENT(S):

Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Court

2

IA NO: 1 OF 2013(MACMAMP 209 OF 2013

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

condone the delay of 86 days in re-presenting the MACMASR No.41948/2012

IA NO: 4 OF 2013(MACMAMP 648 OF 2013

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 154 days in filing the appeal and to pass

Counsel for the Appellant:

1. JAYANTI S C SEKHAR

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. K JYOTHI PRASAD

2. I MAAMU VANI

3. C PRAKASH REDDY

The Court made the following:

3

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

M.A.C.M.A. No. 569 of 2014

JUDGMENT:

Introductory:

The claimant in MVOP No.833 of 2009 on the file of the Court of I Additional

District Judge- Family Court- the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vizianagaram

[for short “the learned MACT”], feeling dissatisfied with the award and decree

dated 31.12.2011 passed therein, whereunder a compensation of Rs.2,23,000/-

was awarded against a claim made for Rs.3,50,000/-, filed the present appeal,

questioning the compensation awarded as inadequate.

2. 1

st

respondent is the driver, 2

nd

respondent is the owner, and 3

rd

respondent is the insurer of the Truck bearing number AP 15 X 3767 [herein after

referred as ‘the offending vehicle’].

3. For the sake of convenience, the 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 claimant/petitioner:-

4. [i] On 26.03.2009, when the claimant/petitioner was riding his motor

cycle bearing No.AP 26 H 8341 on the left side of the road near Gurla Police

4

Station at about 18 hours, the 1

st

respondent, being the driver of the offending

vehicle, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle

on which the petitioner was travelling. As a result, the petitioner and the pillion

rider fell down and sustained injuries all over their bodies. The petitioner was

shifted to Government Hospital, Vizianagaram, from there he was shifted to Kala

Hospital, Visakhapatnam, for better treatment for the fractures and other injuries.

[ii] The petitioner suffered fracture on right femur, tibia and fibula and

left tibia and fibula and conducted operations to the said fractures and undergone

operation, applied plaster of paris and plates.

[iii] A case in Crime No. 22 of 2019 under Sections 337, 338 IPC was

registered against the first respondent-driver of the offending vehicle by the

Station House Officer, Gurla Police Station and subsequently charge sheet was

laid against the driver.

[iv] The petitioner was hale and healthy, aged about ‘32’ years and

attending machine contract works and thereby earning Rs.300/- per day;

incurred huge expenditure for treatment, suffering disability. Hence, entitled for

the compensation claimed.

Case of the 1

st

respondent :-

5. [i] The petition allegations are not correct. Due to dazzling lights, the

accident occurred, despite the 1

st

respondent was carefully driving the vehicle.

5

[ii] Insurance premium, in respect of the offending vehicle, was paid to

the 2

nd

respondent.

6. Counter of the 1

st

respondent is adopted for the 2

nd

respondent.

Case of the 3

rd

respondent-Insurance Company:-

7. [i] The claimant/petitioner shall prove the pleaded accident, negligence

of the driver of the offending vehicle, injuries sustained by the climate, nature and

effect thereon, medical expenditure incurred, effect of injury, age, occupation and

income of the petitioner as well as justification for the quantum of compensation

for the claimant.

[ii] Negligence of the motor cyclist viz., the petitioner is the cause for the

accident.

[iii] In any event respondent No.3 is not liable to pay any compensation.

Evidence:-

On behalf of the petitioner/claimant:-

8. [i] Claimant was examined as PW.1 and Dr. P. V. Ramana Murthy and

Dr. K. V. Murali Mohana Rao were examined on behalf of the petitioner to show

the treatment undergone.

[ii] The petitioner/claimant relied on Exs.A1 to Ex.A7 and Exs.X1 and

X2. Ex.A1- FIR, Ex.A2 - wound certificate, Ex.A3-M.V.I. report, Ex.A4- charge

6

sheet, Ex.A5 - bunch of medical bills worth Rs.99,967/-, Ex.A6 - X-ray films

(2Nos.), Ex.A7 - Disability Certificate issued by the District Medical Board,

Vizianagaram. Ex.X1and Ex.X2- Case sheets maintained at Kala Hospital,

Visakhapatnam.

[iii] No oral evidence is adduced on behalf of the respondents. Ex.B1 –

Insurance Policy was got marked.

Findings of the learned MACT:-

On negligence:-

9. [i] Evidence of the petitioner as PW1 and the crime record covered by

Ex.A1- FIR, Ex.A3 –M.V.I. report, Ex.A4- charge sheet, are sufficient to believe

the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle.

On quantum:-

[ii] On quantum, a bunch of medical bills, under Ex.P5 are standing for

Rs.99,967/- and Ex.X2 reveals that the petitioner was admitted in the Hospital on

29.03.2009, undergone operation on the same day and was discharged on

28.04.2009. Ex.X1-case sheet also shows that again the petitioner was

admitted on 04.06.2009, undergone operation for removal of nails and was

discharged on 05.07.2009.

[iii] Evidence of Doctors would show about the treatment undergone,

shifting of the petitioner to the Government Hospital, from there to KALA

7

Hospital. Medical evidence is indicating fracture of right femur, tibia and also

sustained facture of left tibia and fibula and he underwent operations for fixation

of implants and for their removal.

[iv] Therefore, the petitioner/claimant is entitled to compensation under

various heads, as follows :

Sl.No. Rupees

1. Compensation for transport expenses 1000-00

2. Compensation towards medicines, extra

nourishment and attendant charges

1,09,000-00

3. Compensation towards shock, pain, suffering and

for receipt of injuries

60,000-00

4. Compensation for loss of earnings (for three

months)

7,500-00

5. Compensation towards physical disability and loss

of future earnings.

45,000-00

Total 2,22,500-00

Rounded to

Rs.2,23,000/-

Arguments in the appeal:

For the claimant/petitioner/appellant :-

10. [i] Compensation awarded is very low.

[ii] Disability is not properly assessed.

8

[iii] Loss of income on the ground of permanent disability is not properly

calculated.

[iv] The petitioner is entitled for more compensation than what claimed

and there is no bar to award more than clamed, if the claimant is entitled.

For the respondents:-

11. [i] The compensation awarded under the impugned decree is

excessive.

[ii] There is no basis for taking the income of the petitioner and the

learned MACT erred in taking the income at ₹100 per day.

[iii] The compensation awarded requires reduction.

12. Perused the record. Thoughtful consideration is given to the arguments

advanced by both sides.

Scope of appeal: -

13. This appeal has been filed by the claimant. Therefore, the entitlement of

the claimant to compensation and the liability of the respondent to pay the same

are out of dispute. The scope of the present appeal can be confined to the

adequacy of the compensation awarded.

9

14. The points that arose for determination in this appeal are –

1) Whether the compensation of Rs.2,23,000/- awarded under the

impugned judgment and decree dated 31.12.2011 passed by the

learned MACT is just and adequate? Or require any modification? If so,

to which extent?

2) What is the result of the appeal?

Point No.1:-

Quantum of compensation:

Precedential Guidance:

15. 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 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

1

2025 AIAR (Civil) 1

10

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 :-

“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

2

2020 (04) SCC 413

3

2010(10)SCC 341

4

2007 (14) SCC 61

5

1992(2) SCC 567

11

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).

(iii) The doctor who treated an injured claimant or who examined him

subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give

6

2011 (1) SCC 343

12

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

13

Analysis, reasoning and findings:-

16. [i] As per Ex.A2-wound Certificate, the injuries suffered by the

petitioner are as follows:-

1) Fracture of right femur, tibia, fibula

2) Fracture left tibia, fibula; both are grievous injuries.

[ii] A bunch of medical bills covered by Ex.A5, stands at Rs.99,697/-.

[iii] Ex.A7-Disability Certificate is indicating the disability of the petitioner

at 45%. As per case sheet, maintained at Kala Hospital, inpatient treatment was

given to the petitioner and the surgeries undergone are evident.

[iv] The treatment was given under Rajiv Aarogyasri Scheme. However,

incurring of medical expenditure need not be doubted. Second time admission

and surgery for removal of implants and nails is also evidenced by the record.

The admission date is on 04.06.2009 and discharge is on 05.07.2009.

[v] The evidence of Doctors - PW.2 and PW.3, require careful

consideration in the context of rival contentions.

17. [i] The evidence of PW2, Dr. P.V. Ramanamoorthy would show that he

is running Kala Hospital on 27.03.2009. The petitioner was admitted in their

hospital with the injuries mentioned above, under supervision of Orthopedician,

Dr. P. Ashok Kumar, X-rays were taken and patient's operation was conducted

14

on 31.03.2009 and on 01.04.2009 operations were carried out. The petitioner

was discharged on 08.04.2009 and again there was admission on 04.06.2009.

Exhibit A2 is the wound certificate issued by his hospital. Exhibit A5 is the bunch

of medical bills pertaining to the petitioner and Medicines are purchased as per

prescription of PW2. Exs.X1 and X2 are the case sheets.

[ii] During the cross-examination of PW.2, except eliciting that the

treatment was given under Aarogysasri Scheme, nothing important is elicited.

The petitioner is very clear that he has paid the amounts covered by the medical

bills.

[iii] The evidence of Dr. K. V. Murali Mohan- PW3 is that he is a Civil

Assistant Surgeon at District Head Quarters Hospital, Vizianagaram.

[iv] The petitioner attended at a District Medical Board, Vizianagaram,

for obtaining orthopedically Handicapped Certificate. There was malunion of

fractures. There will be difficulty to the petitioner to do hard work and he cannot

sit or stand for long time and he cannot sit in cross-legged position and cannot

run. The District Medical Board assessed the disability at 45%. Ex.A8 is the

Disability Certificate.

[v] PW3 denied the suggestion that the petitioner is not suffering any

disability from the evidence.

15

18. From the evidence, following facts are clear.

[i] The petitioner suffered accident and fractures.

[ii] Undergone treatment and suffered disability.

[iii] Reason for the accident is negligence of the first respondent.

19. [i] There is no evidence from the respondent's side. The income of the

petitioner taken at ₹100 per day need not be faulted. However, in view of the

age of the petitioner being ‘32’, adding of 30% towards future prospects is

permissible and the same is not done by the learned MACT and the calculation

of compensation for physical disability at Rs.45,000/- in lump sum cannot be

appreciated and awarding of Rs.45,000/- towards 45% disability is not traceable

to any rationality.

[ii] Income at Rs.3,000/- per month with an addition of 30% will come to

Rs.3,900/- per month. 45% of the same will come to Rs.1,755/- per month and

the same will come to Rs.21,060/- per annum. For the age group of ‘32’, the

multiplier applicable as per Sarla Verma's case is ‘16’. When the same is

applied, the entitlement of the claimant for compensation under the head of

permanent disability comes to [21,060 x 16=] Rs.3,36,960/-. Accordingly the

claimant is entitled for the same.

16

[iii] Further, the petitioner is entitled under the heads of medical

expenditure, pain and suffering, attendant charges and transportation charges

etc.,

20. In the light of the precedential guidance and in view of the reasons and

evidence referred above, the entitlement of the petitioner/claimant for reasonable

compensation in comparison to the compensation awarded by the learned MACT

is found as follows:

Sl.

No.

Head Granted by the

learned MACT

Fixed by this

Appellate Court

1. Pain and suffering Rs.60,000/- Rs.50,000 /-

2. Transportation Rs.1000 /- Rs.25,000 /-

3. a) Medical

expenditure/treatment

b) Attendant charges

and extra nourishment

Rs.1,09,000/- Rs.1,00,000 /-

Rs.25,000/-

4. Loss of earnings during

the period of treatment

[3months]

Rs.7500/- Rs.9000 /-

5. Loss of income due to

permanent disability

Rs. 45,000/- Rs. 3,36,960/-

Total: Rs.2,22,500/-

[rounded to Rs.2,23,000/-]

Rs.5,45,960/-

17

Granting of more compensation than what claimed, if the claimants are

otherwise entitled:-

21. The legal position with regard to awarding more compensation than what

claimed has been considered and settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court holding

that there is no bar for awarding more compensation than what is claimed. For

the said preposition of law, this Court finds it proper to refer the following

observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court made in:

(1) Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and Others

9

, at para 21 of the

judgment.

(2) Kajal Vs. Jagadish Chand and Ors.

10

at para 33 of the judgment.

(3) Ramla and Others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and

Others

11

at para 5 of the judgment.

22. For the reasons aforesaid and in view of the discussion made above, the

point framed is answered in favour of the claimant, concluding that the claimant

is entitled for compensation of Rs.5,45,960/- with interest @7.5% p.a. and the

judgment and decree dated 31.12.2011 passed by the learned MACT in

M.V.O.P.No.833 of 2009 require modification accordingly.

9

(2003) 2 SCC 274

10

2020 (04) SCC 413

11

(2019) 2 SCC 192

18

Point No.2:

23. In the result, the appeal is allowed, as follows:

a. Compensation awarded by the learned MACT in M.V.O.P.No.833 of

2009 at Rs.2,23,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum is

modified and enhanced to Rs.5,45,960/- with interest at the rate of

7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

b. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are jointly and severally liable. However,

Respondent No.3/ Insurance Company is liable in view of the

Insurance Policy.

c. Time for payment/deposit of the balance amount is two (2) months.

d. (i) If the petitioner/claimant furnishes the bank account number

within (15) days from today, Respondents No.3/ Insurance Company

shall deposit the amount directly into the bank account of the

petitioner/ claimant and file the necessary proof before the learned

MACT.

(ii) If the petitioner/claimant fails to comply with (d)(i) above,

Respondent No.3/Insurance Company shall deposit the amount

before the learned MACT and the petitioner/claimant is entitled to

withdraw the amount at once on deposit.

19

(e) There shall be no order as to costs in the appeal.

(f) As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeal

shall stand closed.

____________________________

A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J

Date: 01.07.2026

Pnr

Whether the order is:

Speaking √ Non-speaking -

Reportable - Non-reportable √

20

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

M.A.C.M.A.No.569 of 2014

Dated 01.07.2026

Pnr