1

Date of reserved for orders : 17.04.2026

Date of pronouncement : 15.07.2026

Date of uploading : 15.07.2026

APHC010617252015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3520]

THURSDAY, THE 15

th

DAY OF JULY 2026

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1/2015

Between:

1. SIRIGIDI NANAJI, VISAKHAPATNAM DIST, S/O SRINIVASA RAO,

AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O REVIDI VILLAGE, PADMANABHAM

MANDAL, VISHAKAPATNAM DISTRICT.

...APPELLANT

AND

1. VUTA SHIVA VISAKHAPATNAM DIST 2 OTHERS, S/O KOTESWARA

RAO, DRIVER OF MOTORCYCLE BEARING NO. AP09 AS 9886, R/O

MAKKAVARAM VILLAGE, ANAKAPALLI MANDAL, VISHAKAPATNAM

DISTRICT.

2. L PARDHA SARADHI, S/ O VARADIAH NAIDU, OWNER OF

MOTORCYCLE BEARING NO. AP09 AS 9886, R/O D.NO.31-25- 53/4,

KRISHNA NAGAR, KURMANNAPALEM, VISHAKAPATNAM.

3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REP., BY ITS

DIVISIONAL MANAGER, SRIKAKULAM.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Courtagainst the

order and decree dated 16.09.2014 passed in M.O.P. No. 179 of 2011 on the

file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Special Judge for trial

2

of cases under S.Cs & S.Ts (P.O.A.) Act-cum-Additional District Judge,

Vizianagaram)

Counsel for the Appellant:

1. G SAI NARAYANA RAO

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. TADDI NAGESWARA RAO

2. AMANCHARLA SATISH BABU

The Court made the following:

3

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

M.A.C.M.A. No. 01 of 2015

JUDGMENT:

Introductory:

The claimant in M.V.O.P. No.179 of 2011 on the file of the Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal (Special Judge for Trial of cases under S.Cs. and

S.Ts. (P.O.A.)) -cum-Additional District Judge Court, Vizianagaram [for short

“the learned MACT”], dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated

16.09.2014 passed in the said case, where under the claim was allowed

against the driver and owner of the offending vehicle and dismissed against

the Insurance Company, awarding a compensation of Rs.80,000/- as against

a claim made for Rs.2,00,000/-, filed the present appeal questioning the

dismissal against the Insurance Company-respondent No.3 therein, and

inadequate compensation.

2. Respondents No.1 to 3 herein are the respondents 1 to 3 before the

learned MACT. Respondent No.1 is the driver, respondent No.2 is the owner

and the respondent No.3 is the Insurance Company with which the motor

cycle bearing No.AP 09 AS 9886 was insured and the appellant is the

claimant.

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

as the claimants/petitioners and the respondents, with reference to their status

before the learned MACT.

4

Case of the claimants:

4. [i] On 23.03.2009 the petitioner/claimant was travelling on Hero

Honda Splendor Plus motor cycle bearing No.AP 31 AL 9585 along with one

Kuppa Ramana, near RTC Zonal work shop, Vizianagaram, the 1

st

respondent

being the rider of the motor cycle baring No.AP 09 AS 9886 [herein after

referred as the offending vehicle], came in a rash and negligent manner, dashed

the motor cycle on which the petitioner was traveling, whereby the petitioner

fell down and sustained injuries.

[ii] The petitioner was aged about ‘43’years working as a regular

Mazdoor in the BSNL Office and earning Rs.15,000/- per month; due to the

accident he became permanently disabled and lost his earning capacity.

Hence, entitled for compensation.

[iii] The 1

st

respondent being the rider of the offending vehicle, the 2

nd

respondent being the owner and the 3

rd

respondent being the insurer of the

offending vehicle, liable to pay the compensation.

[iv] A case in Crime No.41 of 2009 of Vizianagaram Rural Police

Station vehicle was registered and charge sheet was laid against the rider of

the offending vehicle.

5. The 2

nd

respondent remained ex-parte. The 1

st

respondent filed counter

before the learned MACT and the 3

rd

respondent contested the matter.

5

Case of the 1

st

respondent:-

6. The petition allegations are false and the compensation claimed is

excessive.

Case of the 3

rd

respondent:-

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

rider of the offending vehicle, nature and effect of the injuries, age, occupation

and income of the petitioner, loss of income etc.,

[ii] There was no fault on the part of the rider of the offending

vehicle. Rider of the motor cycle on which the petitioner was travelling was

negligent.

[iii] Valid and effective driving licence to the rider of the offending

vehicle shall be proved.

[iv] In any event the compensation claimed is excessive and the

respondent No.3 is not liable to pay any compensation.

Evidence before the learned MACT:-

8. [i] The claimant was examined as PW.1.

[ii] Dr.C.V.Subba Reddy, Doctor, who treated the petitioner/claimant

was examined as PW.2.

6

[iii] the claimant relied on the copies of the Ex.A1-FIR, Ex.A2-wound

certificate, Ex.A3-Motor Vehicles Inspector report and Ex.A4-Charge Sheet

and Ex.X1-Case Sheet.

[iv] On behalf of the respondent No.3, Ex.B1-Inusranec Policy was

got marked.

[v] One T.Ruby, the Assistant Manager working in respondent No.3

was examined as RW.1.

Findings of the learned MACT:-

On Negligence:-

9. [i] No evidence is adduced on behalf of the respondent No.1 nor

there was cross-examination of PW.1.

[ii] The 3

rd

respondent did not adduce any evidence.

[iii] Ex.A1-F.I.R. and Ex.A4-copy of the charge sheet are indicating

the negligence of the 1

st

respondent. Therefore, the negligence of 1

st

respondent is acceptable.

Entitlement of the petitioner/claimant:-

10. [i] The petitioner sustained injuries in the accident, undergone

treatment. Operation was conducted. Doctor, who treated the petitioner, has

gave evidence. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled Rs.50,000/- towards

medical expenditure. Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.5000/-

7

towards extra nourishment and Rs.5000/- towards attendant charges. In all

entitled for Rs.80,000/-.

Liability:-

11. Evidence of RW.1, Assistant Manager of the Insurance Company would

show that the driver of the motor cycle does not possess the driving licence,

and it is argued that the 1

st

respondent is not having any driving licence.

Ex.A3-M.V.I. report shows that no driving licence to the 1

st

respondent and the

Police also filed charge sheet against the 1

st

respondent under the provisions

of Motor Vehicles Act also. Although the 1

st

respondent filed counter, did not

state about the driving licence. Further, the 2

nd

respondent owner of the motor

cycle remained ex parte. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to

pay any compensation.

Arguments in the Appeal:-

12. [i] Learned MACT ought to have seen that the Insurance Company

failed to discharge its burden and the petitioner is the third party.

[ii] The compensation awarded is meager; the claimant is entitled for

the compensation claimed.

For the Insurance Company:-

13. Since charge sheet was laid against the 1

st

respondent for the offences

in terms of Motor Vehicle Act, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any

compensation. The compensation awarded is excessive.

8

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

advanced by both sides.

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

1) Whether the petitioner/appellant is entitled to compensation

against all the respondents? If so, to what quantum and whether the

dismissal of the claim by the learned MACT against the respondent

No.3 is proper or require any interference? In the event of

entitlement for compensation what shall be the just and reasonable

compensation that can be awarded to the petitioner/appellant?

2) What is the result of the appeal?

Point No.1:-

Analysis and reasoning :-

Negligence:-

16. [i] The claimant is an injured and eye witness to the accident. He

has taken witness stand. There is no evidence on behalf of the respondents.

Ex.A1-F.I.R., Ex.A3-M.V.I. report and Ex.A4-Charge sheet are sufficient to

carry the evidence of PW.1. Therefore, the negligence on the part of the rider

of the offending vehicle viz., the 1

st

respondent is acceptable. Accordingly, the

findings of the learned MACT to that extent are fit to be concurred.

Liability:-

17. [i] The defence of the insurance Company is that there was no

driving licence to the 1

st

respondent. Literally there is no evidence on behalf

9

of the Insurance Company except the oral testimony of RW.1. It is not even

the case of the Insurance Company that RW.1 that some notice was issued to

the respondents 1 and 2 to produce the driving licence copy etc., but the same

is not produced.

[ii] RW.1 deposed that the 1

st

respondent is not having any driving

licence but did not whisper about the calling for production of the details of the

driving licence from either 1

st

respondent or 2

nd

respondent. Usual practices

such as issuance of notice, appointing of investigators, calling for information

from the RTA and examining RTA officials in proof of their contention etc., are

not followed. The 3

rd

respondent Insurance Company simply relied on the

charge sheet filed in terms of Section 181 of M.V. Act. However, whether the

charge sheet itself constitutes proof is a serious aspect. Whether the same

can be considered for appreciating the defence of the Insurance Company, or

it is sufficient to establish the occurrence of the accident alone, is the question.

[iii] The 1

st

respondent appeared but not examined. What prevented

the Insurance Company from summing the 1

st

respondent and taking any

further steps as to examine him as to the absence of the driving licence is not

known. What happened to the criminal case and whether the same ended in

conviction for the offence under Section 181 of M.V. Act is also not known. It

was specifically suggested to RW.1 during cross-examination on behalf of the

claimant that the 1

st

respondent was having valid driving licence and that the

Insurance Company is liable. RW.1 specifically stated that she had a

document to show that the 1

st

respondent is not holding any driving licence.

10

Having stated so much, why said document was not filed is not known.

Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the

absence of a valid driving license has not been proved by the Insurance

Company. Accordingly, the objection is liable to be rejected.

18. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that with regard to the

absence of driving license, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Shamanna and

Another Vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited

and Ors.

1

, while referring to several judgments including the locus classicus a

case in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Swaran Singh

2

found

that principle of pay and recovery can be followed in respect of disqualification

of the driver or invalid driving licence etc., in cases of third parties, and that

the onus lies on the Insurance Company to prove that the owner is not having

any valid driving licence and the same is required to be considered by the

Tribunals. Observations relevant at paragraphs 5 and 6 of the judgment are

as follows:-

“5. In the case of third-party risks, as per the decision in National Insurance

Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh,

(2004) 3 SCC 297 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 733] , the insurer had to indemnify the

compensation amount payable to the third-party and the insurance company

may recover the same from the insured. Doctrine of “pay and recover” was

considered by the Supreme Court in Swaran Singh case [National Insurance

Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 733] wherein

the Supreme Court examined the liability of the insurance company in cases

of breach of policy condition due to disqualifications of the driver or invalid

1

(2018) 9 SCC 650

2

(2004) 3 SCC 297

11

driving licence of the driver and held that in case of third-party risks, the

insurer has to indemnify the compensation amount to the third-party and the

insurance company may recover the same from the insured. Elaborately

considering the insurer's contractual liability as well as statutory liability vis-à-

vis the claims of third parties, the Supreme Court issued detailed guidelines

as to how and in what circumstances, “pay and recover” can be ordered. In

para 110, the Supreme Court summarised its conclusions as under: (SCC pp.

341-42)

“110. The summary of our findings to the various issues as raised in these

petitions is as follows:

( i) Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 providing compulsory

insurance of vehicles against third-party risks is a social welfare legislation to

extend relief by compensation to victims of accidents caused by use of motor

vehicles. The provisions of compulsory insurance coverage of all vehicles

are with this paramount object and the provisions of the Act have to be so

interpreted as to effectuate the said object.

( ii) An insurer is entitled to raise a defence in a claim petition filed

under Section 163-A or Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, inter

alia, in terms of Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the said Act.

( iii) The breach of policy condition e.g. disqualification of the driver

or invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained in sub-section (2)(a)(ii) of

Section 149, has to be proved to have been committed by the insured for

avoiding liability by the insurer. Mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence

or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in

themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the

third parties. To avoid its liability towards the insured, the insurer has to

prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise

reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding

use of vehicles by a duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to

drive at the relevant time.

( iv) Insurance companies, however, with a view to avoid their

liability must not only establish the available defence(s) raised in the said

proceedings but must also establish “breach” on the part of the owner of the

vehicle; the burden of proof wherefor would be on them.

12

( v) The court cannot lay down any criteria as to how the said burden

would be discharged, inasmuch as the same would depend upon the facts

and circumstances of each case.

( vi) Even where the insurer is able to prove breach on the part of

the insured concerning the policy condition regarding holding of a valid

licence by the driver or his qualification to drive during the relevant period,

the insurer would not be allowed to avoid its liability towards the insured

unless the said breach or breaches on the condition of driving licence is/are

so fundamental as are found to have contributed to the cause of the

accident. The Tribunals in interpreting the policy conditions would apply “the

rule of main purpose” and the concept of “fundamental breach” to allow

defences available to the insurer under Section 149(2) of the Act.

( vii) The question, as to whether the owner has taken reasonable

care to find out as to whether the driving licence produced by the driver (a

fake one or otherwise), does not fulfil the requirements of law or not will have

to be determined in each case.

( viii) If a vehicle at the time of accident was driven by a person

having a learner's licence, the insurance companies would be liable to satisfy

the decree.

( ix) The Claims Tribunal constituted under Section 165 read with

Section 168 is empowered to adjudicate all claims in respect of the accidents

involving death or of bodily injury or damage to property of third-party arising

in use of motor vehicle. The said power of the Tribunal is not restricted to

decide the claims inter se between claimant or claimants on one side and

insured, insurer and driver on the other. In the course of adjudicating the

claim for compensation and to decide the availability of defence or defences

to the insurer, the Tribunal has necessarily the power and jurisdiction to

decide disputes inter se between the insurer and the insured. The decision

rendered on the claims and disputes inter se between the insurer and

insured in the course of adjudication of claim for compensation by the

claimants and the award made thereon is enforceable and executable in the

same manner as provided in Section 174 of the Act for enforcement and

execution of the award in favour of the claimants.

( x) Where on adjudication of the claim under the Act the Tribunal

arrives at a conclusion that the insurer has satisfactorily proved its defence in

accordance with the provisions of Section 149(2) read with sub-section (7),

13

as interpreted by this Court above, the Tribunal can direct that the insurer is

liable to be reimbursed by the insured for the compensation and other

amounts which it has been compelled to pay to the third-party under the

award of the Tribunal. Such determination of claim by the Tribunal will be

enforceable and the money found due to the insurer from the insured will be

recoverable on a certificate issued by the Tribunal to the Collector in the

same manner under Section 174 of the Act as arrears of land revenue. The

certificate will be issued for the recovery as arrears of land revenue only if,

as required by sub-section (3) of Section 168 of the Act the insured fails to

deposit the amount awarded in favour of the insurer within thirty days from

the date of announcement of the award by the Tribunal.

( xi) The provisions contained in sub-section (4) with the proviso

thereunder and sub-section (5) which are intended to cover specified

contingencies mentioned therein to enable the insurer to recover the amount

paid under the contract of insurance on behalf of the insured can be taken

recourse to by the Tribunal and be extended to claims and defences of the

insurer against the insured by relegating them to the remedy before regular

court in cases where on given facts and circumstances adjudication of their

claims inter se might delay the adjudication of the claims of the victims.”

(emphasis supplied)

6. As per the decision in Swaran Singh case [National Insurance Co.

Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 733] , onus is

always upon the insurance company to prove that the driver had no valid

driving licence and that there was breach of policy conditions. Where the

driver did not possess the valid driving licence and there are breach of policy

conditions, “pay and recover” can be ordered in case of third-party risks. The

Tribunal is required to consider “as to whether the owner has taken

reasonable care to find out as to whether the driving licence produced by the

driver … does not fulfill the requirements of law or not will have to be

determined in each case”.

19. In view of the factual position stated above and in the light of the

precedential guidance covered by the Shamanna and Another’s case and

14

Swaran Singh’s case [cited supra], this Court finds that the Insurance

Company cannot be exonerated from its liability and that all the respondents

are jointly and severally liable, and that the Insurance Company is liable to

pay compensation in view of the Insurance Policy.

Quantum of Compensation:

Precedential Guidance:

20. 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.

3

, 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.

4

, referred to various heads under which,

compensation can be awarded, in injuries cases vide paragraph No.52,

the heads are as follows:-

3

2025 AIAR (Civil) 1

4

2020 (04) SCC 413

15

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 xxxxx

_________

Total Rs. … xxxxxx

_________

(ii). Hon’ble Apex Court in Yadava Kumar Vs. Divisional Manager,

National Insurance Company Limited and Anr.,

5

vide para No.10, by

referring to Sunil Kumar Vs. Ram Singh Gaud

6

,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

7

, 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

8

, 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

5

2010(10)SCC 341

6

2007 (14) SCC 61

7

1992(2) SCC 567

8

2011 (1) SCC 343

16

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 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.

9

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

9

2023 (3) SCC 439

17

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.

10

. 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.

Analysis and Findings :-

21. Ex.A2 is the wound certificate, which shows that the petitioner sustained

(2) injuries, injury No.1 is the fracture and injury No.2 is simple. The injuries

are as follows:-

1) Deep lacerated bleeding wound on the Rt A 30 x 10CM over anterior

aspect with surrounding deglazing of skin with exposed fat and

muscle

2) Multiple abrasions on the (Rt) knee (L) ankle.

22. As per Ex.X1 - Case sheet, the petitioner was admitted in the Hospital,

on 24.03.2009 and discharged on 02.04.2009. The Discharge summary shows

that the patient is aged ‘43’, he is an employee of BSNL, admitted in the

10

1995 (1) SCC 551

18

hospital on 24.03.2009 vide IPW No.9677/09 and was under the treatment of

Doctor -C.V. Subba Reddy. Admitted with a history of road traffic accident.

Initially treated at local hospital, there was 30 X 10 cm laceration over anterior

aspect of thigh surrounding deglazing of skin, which exposed cut muscle and

fat. Surgery was done on 25.03.2009 for Debridement + Split Skin Grating,

under spinal anesthesia. Patient undergone dressings from 30.04.2009 and he

was discharged on 03.04.2009.

23. PW.2, Doctor, who treated the petitioner, deposed that he is a

consultant Plastic Surgeon in NRI Hospital, Visakhapatnam; petitioner was

admitted in the hospital on 24.03.2009 and injury No.1 was deposed in tune

with the entries in the Discharge Summary and stated that Ex.A2 was issued

from his Hospital. Except eliciting that the patient was not admitted on the

immediate day of the accident, nothing more is elicited from the cross-

examination of PW.2.

24. Learned MACT considering the 15 days period of hospitalization etc.,

awarded compensation as stated above. However, with reference to the

injuries and the treatment, the entitlement of the petitioner under various heads

is not considered by the learned MACT. Since there is no evidence touching

the disability etc., under the head of permanent disability, no compensation

can be awarded but taking the income notionally at Rs.10,000/- for a period of

one month, the compensation under head of loss of earning during the period

of hospitalization and the treatment on account of temporary disability,

Rs.10,000/- can be awarded to the petitioner.

19

25. 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:

26. In view of the discussion made above, point No.1 is answered in favour

of the petitioner/claimant concluding that the petitioner/claimant is entitled for

compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- @6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of

deposit/realization. Though respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable,

particularly the respondent No. 3 is liable to pay.

Sl.

No.

Head Granted by the

learned MACT

Fixed by this

Appellate Court

1. Pain and suffering Rs.20,000/- Rs.20,000/-

2. Extra nourishment, nervous

shock etc.,

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

3. Medical expenditure/treatment Rs.50,000/- Rs. 50.000/-

4. Attendant charges Rs.5,000/- Rs.10,000/-

5. Loss of earnings during

treatment

-Nil- Rs.10,000/-

Total: Rs.80,000/- Rs.1,00,000/-

Interest (per annum) 7% 6%

20

Point No.2:-

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

(i) Dismissal of the claim against the respondent No.3 vide order and

decree dated 16.09.2014 in M.V.O.P.No.179 of 2011 passed by the

learned MACT is set-aside.

(ii) M.V.O.P.No.437 of 2007 is allowed against the all the respondents

and the order is modified as follows:-

(a) Claimant is entitled for a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- with

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

till the date of deposit/realization.

(b) Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable.

However, Respondent No.3/ Insurance Company is liable in

view of the Insurance Policy.

(iii) Time for payment/deposit of the compensation amount is two (2)

months.

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

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

stand closed.

____________________________

A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J

Date: 15.07.2026

Pnr

Whether the order is:

Speaking √ Reasoned √

Reportable - Non-reportable √

21

2

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

M.A.C.M.A.No.01 of 2015

Dated 15.07.2026

Pnr