1

Date of reserved for orders :25.06.2026

Date of pronouncement :07.08.2026

Date of uploading :07.08.2026

APHC010010052013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3520]

FRIDAY, THE 7

th

DAY OF AUGUST 2026

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2149/2013

Between:

1. NAMMI BALAKRISHNA, S/O. APPARAO, HINDU N DRIVER OF MINI

LORRY BEARING NO. AP 25 T 8531 R/O. PAPAYYARAJUPALEM

VILLAGE, PENDURTHY MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

...APPELLANT

AND

1. ROMALA NOOKARAJU, S/O. APPARAO, HINDU OWNER OF

LORRY BEARING NO. AP 35 T 8531 R/O. GOLLAPETA JUNCTION,

ADANNAPALAM JUNCTION, KOTAHVALASA MANDAL,

2. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD, REP. BY I TS DIVISIONAL

MANAGER, VISAKHAPATNAM.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Court

IA NO: 1 OF 2010(MACMAMP 1237 OF 2010

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 22 days in presenting the appeal in

MACMA.Sr.No.4274 of 2010.

2

IA NO: 4 OF 2010(MACMAMP 11246 OF 2010

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

Counsel for the Appellant:

1. JAYANTI S C SEKHAR

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.

2. V VEERABHADRA CHARY

The Court made the following:

3

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

M.A.C.M.A.No.2149 of 2013

JUDGMENT:

Introductory:

1. Claimant in M.V.O.P.No.576 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal-cum-Family Court-cum-Additional District and Sessions

Judge, Vizianagaram (for short “the learned MACT”), feeling aggrieved by

the order and decree dated 08.10.2009 passed therein, filed the present

appeal. As against the claim made for Rs.1,20,000/-, the learned MACT

awarded Rs.47,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, making

both the respondents liable to pay the same.

2. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the Mini Lorry bearing No.AP 35 T

8531 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”).

3. Respondent No.2 is the Insurance Company with which the offending

vehicle is insured.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to

as the petitioner/claimant and the respondents, as and how they are arrayed

before the learned MACT.

Case of the claimant:

5. On 04.07.2005, the petitioner, being the driver of the offending

vehicle, while driving the same from Alamanda Shandy towards Kothavalasa

side, near Addannapalem Village, suddenly a cyclist came across the road,

to avert hitting the cyclist, sudden brakes were applied, whereby the

4

accident occurred and he sustained injuries all over the body. After the

accident, he was shifted to Kothavalasa Government Hospital. From there,

he was shifted to K.G. Hospital, Visakhapatnam, where he took treatment.

As on the date of the accident, the petitioner was aged about 20 years and

was earning Rs.3,000/- per month as driver of the lorry, apart from other

benefits. Due to the accident, he suffered injuries and permanent disability.

6. A case in Crime No.93 of 2006 was registered for the offences under

Sections 337and 338 of IPC.

7. Respondent No.1, the owner of the offending vehicle, remained ex

parte before the learned MACT.

Case of respondent No.2 / Insurance Company:

8. The petitioner shall prove the accident and his capacity as the driver

of the offending vehicle at the relevant time, valid and effective driving

licence and subsistence of the same, issuance of the policy by respondent

No.2 and its coverage in respect of the offending vehicle.

Evidence:

9. The petitioner has taken witness stand as P.W.1 and Dr. B. Udaya

Kumar, Civil Surgeon (Orthopedic), K.G. Hospital, Visakhapatnam was

examined as P.W.2. Petitioner has further relied on Ex.A1-FIR, Ex.A2-

wound certificate, Ex.A3-charge sheet, Ex.A4-M.V.I. Report, Ex.A5-O.P. Chit

issued by K.G. Hospital, Visakhapatnam, Ex.A6-driving licence, Ex.A7-

disability certificate, Ex.A8-latest Photograph and Ex.X1-Case sheet.

5

Findings of the learned MACT:

10. By referring to the crime record and the evidence of P.W.1, the

learned MACT believed the accident, negligence and involvement of the

offending vehicle. By referring to the evidence of the petitioner, doctor,

wound certificate, disability certificate, etc. and Ex.X1-case sheet indicating

the treatment for one month at King George Hospital, Visakhapatnam and

Ex.A8-photograph indicating the crush injury, the learned MACT awarded

compensation of Rs.47,000/- in all. Contending that the compensation

awarded is low, the present appeal is filed.

Arguments in the appeal:

For the appellant:

11(i). The learned MACT failed to take note earnings of the petitioner as

driver.

(ii). The learned MACT failed to note the disability at 20% assessed by the

Medical Board.

(iii) The compensation awarded under the various heads is very low.

For the respondents:

12(i). The compensation already awarded is excessive.

(ii). The petitioner himself is negligent, therefore, he cannot take

advantage of his own wrong.

13. Heard both sides. Perused the record. Thoughtful consideration is

given to the arguments advanced by both sides.

6

Scope of appeal:

14. This is an appeal filed by the claimants, dissatisfied with the quantum

of compensation. There is no appeal or cross-appeal by the Insurance

Company. There was another victim in the accident who was travelling in the

offending vehicle. He is the informant and was cited as L.W.1 and the

petitioner herein was cited as the accused. Petitioner’s role as an accused

is different, but since he met with an accident in the course of employment,

his claim for compensation and entitlement thereto need not be doubted.

They are all out of scope. Therefore, the entitlement of the claimant for

compensation and the liability of the respondents are clear. Hence, the

scope of the appeal is limited to examining the quantum of compensation to

which the claimant is entitled.

15. The points that arise for determination in this appeal are:

1) Whether the compensation of Rs.47,000/- awarded by the learned

MACT under the impugned judgment dated 08.10.2009 in

M.V.O.P.No.576 of 2006 is just and reasonable or requires any

interference? If so, on what grounds and to which extent?

2) What is the result of the appeal?

Point No.1:

Precedential Guidance:

16. A reference to parameters, for quantifying the compensation under

various heads, addressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court is found necessary, to

7

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 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

1

2025 AIAR (Civil) 1

2

2020 (04) SCC 413

3

2010(10)SCC 341

4

2007 (14) SCC 61

8

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 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

5

1992(2) SCC 567

6

2011 (1) SCC 343

9

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 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

7

2023 (3) SCC 439

8

1995 (1) SCC 551

10

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.

Analysis:

17(i). P.W.1, the petitioner, stated about the occurrence of the accident

injuries suffered and the treatment taken. He has stated that he has incurred

an expenditure of Rs.20,000/- towards transportation, medicines, extra

nourishment etc. He has added that his left hand is disfigured and that he

lost grip power. He cannot do hard work and is unable to attend to his

normal duties. He is earning Rs.3,000/- per month.

(ii). During cross-examination, it is elicited that he did not lay any claim

under the Workmen’s Compensation Act and that he did not say that he is

opting to claim under the Motor Vehicles Act. However, it is relevant to note

that the very fact of his filing the claim under the Motor Vehicles Act would

suggest that he has opted to seek compensation under the Motor Vehicles

Act.

18(i). P.W.2 / Dr. B. Uday Kumar, Civil Surgeon (Orthopedic), K.G. Hospital,

Visakhapatnam, who treated the petitioner has stated that the petitioner was

admitted to the hospital with the following injuries:

1) A lacerated injury about 2x1/4 inch, skin deep, on the chin margin

and ill-defined bleeding present.

2) A lacerated injury about 2x1/4 inch, skin deep, on the right knee,

red in colour.

11

3) A lacerated injury about 3x2x1/2 inch on the dorsum of the left hand

with irregular margins and bleeding present.

4) Wrist drop on the left hand.

(ii). He has deposed that the patient received a crush injury on his left

hand with loss of skin on the dorsum of the hand. All extensor tendons of

the hand were cut and the bones were exposed. The patient was treated

conservatively. Wound debridement was done under surgical anaesthesia

and repeated dressings were done. An operation was conducted on

23.07.2005 and split skin grafting was done. The grievous injury is pertaining

to a bone injury only. The patient was discharged on 02.08.2005. There is a

big scar present on the left hand and causing cosmetic deformity to the

patient and disfigurement is present. The patient finds it difficult to do hard

work. The patient cannot lift any weight with his left hand. Due to the crush

injury, the patient is suffering from 20% disability, which is partial and

permanent in nature. Ex.A7 is the disability certificate issued by P.W.2.

During cross-examination, it is elicited that the available medicines were

supplied free of cost. As per wound certificate, the patient received only

simple injuries. P.W.2 denied the other suggestions as to wound

debridement, treatment, surgery, skin grafting etc. Ex.A7 is the disability

certificate indicating the disability at 20% and the same is spoken by the

doctor.

19. Ex.B1 is the insurance policy and the same was in force. There is no

dispute about the same. Applicability of policy to two employees and

12

compulsory P.A to the owner-cum-driver is also provided under the policy.

In view of the same, the entitlement and liability are clear.

Permanent disability:

20. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the income of the

petitioner is at Rs.3,000/- per month and that towards future prospects at

least 1/3

rd

can be added. Answering the same, learned counsel for the

respondent-Insurance Company would submit that the claimed income

Rs.3,000/- itself is excessive and that there is no clear proof. The status of

the petitioner as a driver is not in dispute. In view of the same, the income

of the petitioner at Rs.3,000/- per month can be accepted, which can be

taken as inclusive of possibility of future progress in income taking note of

socio economic conditions of the year of accident.

21. Therefore, for the purpose of calculating the compensation, the

income of the petitioner is taken at Rs.3,000/- per month. 20% of the same

comes to Rs.600/- per month and per annum, it comes to Rs.7,200/-.

The applicable multiplier is 18, whereby the loss of income comes to

Rs.1,29,600/-. Therefore, under the head of permanent disability,

the entitlement of the claimant for compensation is Rs.1,29,600/-

(Rs.7,200/- x 18).

22. Upon considering the nature of the injuries, the period of

hospitalization and the facts and circumstances of the case, the entitlement

of claimant for reasonable compensation, in comparison to the

compensation awarded by the learned MACT, is found as follows:

13

23. 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.2,00,600/- with interest at the

rate of 6% per annum and the order and decree dated 08.10.2009 passed

by the learned MACT in M.V.O.P.No.576 of 2006 requires modification

accordingly.

[

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

otherwise entitled:-

24. The legal position with regard to awarding more compensation than

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

Sl.

No.

Head Granted by the

learned MACT

Fixed by this

Appellate Court

1. Simple injuries(3) Rs.9,000/- Rs.15,000/-

2. Grievous injury(1) Rs.15,000/- Rs.20,000/-

3. Attendant charges Rs.3,000/- Rs.10,000/-

4. Pain and suffering Rs.5,000/- -Nil-

(Since covered

under the heads at

Sl.Nos.1 and 2 )

5. Extra nourishment Rs.5,000/- Rs.10,000/-

6. Transportation Rs.5,000/- Rs.10,000/-

7. Loss of earnings due to

permanent disability

-Nil- Rs.1,29,600

8. Loss of earnings during

the period of

hospitalization

Rs.5,000/- Rs.6,000/-

Total: Rs.47,000/- Rs.2,00,600/-

Interest (per annum) 7.5% 6%

14

Court holding that there is no bar for awarding more compensation than

what is claimed. For the said proposition 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, that –

“..there is no restriction that the Tribunal/Court cannot award

compensation amount exceeding the claimed amount. The function of

the Tribunal/Court is to award “just” compensation, which is reasonable

on the basis of evidence produced on record.”

(2) Kajal Vs. Jagadish Chand and Ors.

10

at para 33 of the judgment,

as follows:-

“33. We are aware that the amount awarded by us is more than the

amount claimed. However, it is well settled law that in the motor accident

claim petitions, the Court must award the just compensation and, in

case, the just compensation is more than the amount claimed, that must

be awarded especially where the claimant is a minor.”

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

Others

11

at para 5 of the judgment, as follows:-

“5. Though the claimants had claimed a total compensation of Rs

25,00,000 in their claim petition filed before the Tribunal, we feel that the

compensation which the claimants are entitled to is higher than the

same as mentioned supra. There is no restriction that the Court cannot

award compensation exceeding the claimed amount, since the function

of the Tribunal or Court under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act,

1988 is to award “just compensation”. The Motor Vehicles Act is a

beneficial and welfare legislation. A “just compensation” is one which is

reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record. It cannot be

9

(2003) 2 SCC 274

10

2020 (04) SCC 413

11

(2019) 2 SCC 192

15

said to have become time-barred. Further, there is no need for a new

cause of action to claim an enhanced amount. The courts are duty-

bound to award just compensation.”

Point No.2:

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

(i) The compensation awarded by the learned MACT in

M.V.O.P.No.576 of 2006 at Rs.47,000/- with interest at the rate

of 7.5% per annum is modified and enhanced to Rs.2,00,600/-

with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of

petition till the date of realization.

(ii) Claimant is liable to pay the court fee for the enhanced part of

the compensation, before the learned MACT.

(iii) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 before the learned MACT are jointly

and severally liable to pay the compensation. However,

Respondent No.2 / Insurance Company is liable in view of the

Insurance Policy.

(iv) 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 (iv)(a) above, respondent

No.2 / Insurance Company shall deposit the amount before the

16

learned MACT and the claimant is entitled to withdraw the

amount at once on deposit.

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

26. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeal

shall stand closed.

____________________________

A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J

Date:07.08.2026

Knr

Whether the order is:

Speaking Reasoned ✓

Reportable Non-reportable ✓

17

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

M.A.C.M.A.No.2149 of 2013

07.08.2026

Knr