1

Date of reserved for orders : 10.04.2026

Date of pronouncement : 01.07.2026

Date of uploading : 01.07.2026

APHC010008872012

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: 1406/2012

Between:

1. S.VENKATA REDDY, S/O.LATE PAKKI REDDY R/O.H.NO.45/24-K-

55-1, AMEENA ABBAS NAGAR, VENKAT RAMANA COLONY,

...APPELLANT

AND

1. ANDNADA RAO 2 ORS, S/O.LATE KRISHNA RAO, MAJOR OWNER

OF AUTO BEARING NO.AP 28 W 1176 R/O.H.NO.76/116/322/33,

GANESH NAGAR, KURNOOL.

2. MD NAWAZ KHAN, S/O.NOT KNOWN, MAJOR POLICY HOLDER OF

AUTO BEARING NO.AP 28 W 1176 R/O.H.NO.4-2- 5, VIKARABAD,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

3. M/S BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,

REP BY ITS MANAGER O/O.G.E.PLAZA, AIRPORT ROAD,

YERWADA, PUNE.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Court

2

Counsel for the Appellant:

1. P V V SATYANARAYANA

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. T V SRI DEVI

2. .

The Court made the following:

3

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

M.A.C.M.A.No.1406 of 2012

JUDGMENT:

Introductory:

The Claimant in M.V.O.P.No.437 of 2007 on the file of the Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Family Court-cum-IV Additional District

Judge, Kurnool [for short ‘the learned MACT”], feeling aggrieved by the

dismissal of the claim made against the respondents, for the injuries

sustained by him, in the motor vehicle accident, filed the present appeal,

questioning the order and decree dated 15.02.2012 passed therein.

2. 1

st

respondent is the owner, 2

nd

respondent is the Policyholder, and

the 3

rd

respondent is the Insurance Company, with which the auto bearing

No.AP 28 W 1176 [hereinafter referred as ‘the offending vehicle’] was insured.

3. For the sake of convenience, parties will be herein after referred as the

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

the learned MACT.

Case of the claimant/petitioner:-

4. [i] On the fateful day i.e., on 21.11.2006 when the petitioner was

travelling on his motorcycle bearing No.AP 21 E 9354 on the way to home

near SP bungalow, Kurnool, one auto bearing No.AP 28 W 1176, [hereinafter

referred as offending vehicle], came in an opposite direction, in a rash and

4

negligent manner, dashed the motorcycle, thereby the accident occurred.

The petitioner sustained multiple injuries including fracture to his right wrist

and grievous injury to his knee joint. He was taken to Govt. Hospital,

Kurnool.

[ii] Later he was shifted to Viswabharati Super Specialty Hospital,

Kurnool and from there to Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad for better treatment

and incurred expenditure of Rs.30,000/- towards medical and attendant

charges.

[iii] The petitioner was aged about ‘39’ years, hale and healthy

earning Rs.3,000/- per month. He became disabled. Hence, entitled for

compensation.

5. 1

st

respondent is the registered owner and the 2

nd

respondent is the

policy holder, remained ex-parte.

6. The 3

rd

respondent-Insurance company filed its counter.

Case of the 3

rd

respondent-Insurance Company:-

7. [i] There was no negligence on the part of the driver of the auto.

[ii] The petitioner shall prove the pleaded accident, negligence of

the driver of the auto, injuries suffered, expenditure incurred for the

treatment, age, occupation and income, loss of income as well as valid and

effective driving license to the petitioner for driving the motorcycle.

5

[iii] There was no fitness for the offending vehicle, whereby there is

violation of the Police conditions. Hence, the Insurance Company is not

liable.

Evidence:-

8. [i] Claimant is examined as PW1, one Dr.B.V.Subba Reddy

Doctor, who treated the claimant/petitioner is examined as PW2. Claimant

relied on certified copies of Ex.A1-FIR, Ex.A2- Wood Certificate, Ex.A3-

Charge Sheet, Ex.A4- Lokadalath Docket orders. Ex.A5- Panchayath Bunch

of medical bills and prescriptions. Ex.A6- Discharge Summary issued

Viswabharathi Hospital. Ex.A7- Bills issued by Viswabharathi Hospital,

Kurnool. Ex.A8 - Test Reports. Ex.A9- Treatment Certificate with Bills.

Ex.A10 - Neuro clinic Prescription. Ex.A11- Medical check-up prescription by

Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad. Ex.A12- Tax Registration Certificate, Ex.A13-

SSC Certificate, Ex.A14- Driving License, Ex.A15- X-rays taken at

Viswabharati Hospital, Ex.A16- I.T. Returns, Ex.A17-Thasildar Certificate,

Ex.X1 is the Case sheet of the Viswabharati Hospital.

[ii] On behalf of the respondent- Insurance Company, one

S.Raghu, legal executive was examined as RW 1, and an employee from

RTO Office, Kurnool was examined as RW 2. The respondent-Insurance

Company relied on Ex.B1- Insurance Policy. Ex.B2- letter addressed to the

Superintendent of Police by the Insurance Company requesting for

investigation. Ex.B3- similar letter addressed to the Circle Inspector of

6

Police. Ex.B4 -driving license extract of one Goodenna. Ex.B5 – R.C. copy of

auto bearing number AP 28 W 1176. Ex.P6 -permit copy for the same. Ex.P7

- notice copy addressed to the Respondent No.1 from the Insurance

Company as to the claim made to Ex.B8 returned postal cover. Ex.B9

authorization letter from RTA, deputing to submit certificates before the

Court. [When the letter addressed to the Court from the RTO, RW2 together

to give evidence how the said document is marked on behalf of the

insurance company is not clear.] Ex.B10 - driving license extract, Ex.B11 –

R.C. of the offending vehicle.

Findings of the learned MACT:-

9. [i] The petitioner is injured and eyewitness. Certified copies of

Exs.A1- FIR, Ex.A3 – Charge Sheet supports his evidence as to the

accident. There is no evidence other than the evidence of PW.1 to show the

occurrence of the accident and there was inordinate delay in lodging the FIR

from 21.11.2006 to 01.04.2007. Delay is not properly explained. The reason

that due to hospitalization, report could not be given in time is not convincing.

When there was hospitalization, the medico legal case should have been

registered.

[ii] The delay appears to be for partly implicating the auto, case

against the driver of the offending vehicle, which was ended in acquittal due

to compounding in terms of Section 320(2) of CrPC even before the charge

sheet is filed. Hence, respondents No.1, 2 and the Insurance Company

7

cannot be made liable. As none of the respondents can be made liable, there

is no need to discuss the entitlement of the claimant and the quantification of

the compensation.

Arguments in the appeal:

For the petitioner/appellant :-

10. [i] Delay in lodging of FIR cannot be a ground to reject the

claim. But learned MACT has given more importance to the same. The

learned MACT failed to appreciate the evidence improper in legal and logical

perception particularly when charge sheet is filed and no steps are taken by

the Insurance Company to examine any witness including the other

respondents.

For the Insurance Company/3

rd

respondent:-

11. Planting of offending vehicle is the defence of the Insurance Company.

Therefore, the dismissal of the claim is properly done.

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

arguments advanced by both sides.

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

1) Whether the pleaded accident dated 21.11.2006 has occurred

due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No.AP

8

28 W 1176 [offending vehicle], by its driver? and whether the

petitioner sustained injuries due to the said accident?

2) Whether the petitioner/appellant is entitled to compensation? If

so, to what quantum and against which of the respondents?

3) Whether the dismissal of the claim by the Learned MACT under

the impugned order and decree dated 15.02.2012 is proper ?

4) What is the result of the appeal?

Point No.1:-

14. It is clear from the law and settled practice that any claim made for

compensation in terms of Motor Vehicles Act, the record maintained by the

Police in discharge of their official findings can be relied on. In the context

of objections, it is also relevant to note that the appreciation of evidence in

answering the question of fact as to negligence in a motor accident claim and

other relevant aspects learned MACT can rely on the official records

adopting the theory of probability with a holistic approach.

Statutory and Precedential guidance is as follows:-

15 (i). As per Section 176 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the State

Governments are entitled to make rules for the purpose of carrying effect to

the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.

(ii). In relation to claims before the learned MACT, Rule 455 to Rule

476 of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, vide Chapter No.11 provides

9

comprehensive guidance. As per Rule 476 of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules,

1989, the claims Tribunal shall proceed to award the claim basing on the

registration certificate of the vehicle, Insurance Policy, copy of FIR and Post-

mortem certificate etc.

16. As per Rule 476 of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, learned

Tribunal can relied on the crime record. The official acts done are presumed

to be proper until a contrary is proved particularly when some statutory

recognition is given to such official records.

17. It is relevant to note that in view of the summary nature and mode of

enquiry contemplated under Motor Vehicles Act and social welfare nature of

legislation the Tribunal shall have holistic view with reference to facts and

circumstances of each case. It is sufficient if there is probability. The

principle of standard of proof, beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied

while considering a claim seeking compensation for the death or the injury on

account of road accident. The touch stone of the case, the claimants shall

have to establish is preponderance of probability only. The legal position to

this extent is settled and consistent.

18. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal

Road Transport Corporation

1

, in para 15 observed as follows:

“15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a

holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that

strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular

manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants

1

2009 (13) SCC 530

10

were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance

of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not

have been applied. For the said purpose, the High Court should have

taken into consideration the respective stories set forth by both the

parties..”

Reasoning and Findings :-

Accident - negligence:-

19. [i] In the light of the statutory presidential guidance, the evidence

on record require examination and appreciation. The claimant deposed as

PW1. He is an injured and eyewitness to the accident. Accident is not in

dispute even according to the letter correspondence of the contesting

respondent viz., Insurance Company to the Superintendent of Police.

Claimant as PW1 categorically deposed about the occurrence of the

accident, hospitalisation, continuation of treatment at various hospitals. The

date of accident is 21.11.2006. Ex.A8- Test reports are dated 23.11.2006 to

26.11.2006. During cross-examination of PW1, concentration was made on

the driving license of the petitioner.

[ii] Negligence is attributed to the petitioner. Negligence of the

driver of the auto is disowned. The petitioner, as PW1 stated that since he

was hospitalised because of the injuries, did not give report to the Police. He

has denied the suggestion that he managed the police to foist a false case.

For the question that he has colluded with the owner of the vehicle, he said

that he do not know who is the owner, as on the date of cross examination

11

also. Here, it is pertinent to note that owner of the offending vehicle and the

policy holder remained ex parte. The Policy runs with the vehicle. The core

accusation, whether the vehicle is involved in the accident or not, much

stress is there from the Insurance Company that the vehicle bearing No.AP

28 W 1176 referred as offending vehicle, did not involve in the accident.

[iii] In Ex.A1-F.I.R., the vehicle number is mentioned. No doubt the

F.I.R. is with a delay. The reason for the delay is mentioned as delay

occurred in obtaining the original wound Certificate. Further, there is

reference to both the original wound certificate and MLC intimation also in

Column No.14. Proper person to deny the involvement is vehicle owner of

the offending vehicle, but he remained ex parte. No steps are taken by the

Insurance Company to examine the owner. Whether any investigation has

got done by the Insurance Company and what happened to the investigator’s

report and why the said investigator is not examined for the Insurance

Company is not known.

[iv] Ex.A3 is the charge sheet, in which the crime vehicle details are

mentioned as AP 28 W 1176. Driver is known as Pinjari Badenna. Driving

licence particulars of the said Badenna also obtained by the Insurance

Company and got marked, which suggests that they have the details of the

driver including the address etc. Notices were got dispatched to the owner

also by the Insurance Company. Why no steps are taken to summon either

the driver or the owner of the offending vehicle is not whispered. Ex.A4 is the

docket proceedings that the matter is settled before the Lok Adalat and the

12

defacto complainant and the accused have compounded the offence in terms

of Section 320(8) of Cr.P.C. The involvement of the driver -Badenna is

beyond doubt in view of the Lokadalat proceedings. The alleged violation

relating to the absence of a valid and effective driving licence, or any other

breach of policy conditions, is not made out.

[v] Evidence of RW.1 and RW.2 would at the best show that the

Insurance Company has reported the matter to the Superintendent of Police

and Inspector of Police, about the planting of the offending vehicle without its

involvement. No further steps are taken. There is no denial from the

respondents No.1 and 2 as to the involvement of the offending vehicle. The

defence of the Insurance Company is that there is collusion between the

petitioner and the owner of the offending vehicle.

[vi] Whether mere allegation of collusion is sufficient to establish

such a serious defence, is an important question. The written statement of

the 2

nd

respondent would drive to understand that all defences available are

taken including the contradictions, absence of driving licence to the driver of

the offending vehicle, driving licence for the victim/petitioner and attribution of

collusion to the petitioner with the Police and the owner of the vehicle, self-

negligence of the petitioner in lodging the FIR. As no steps are taken to

summon respondents No.1 and 2, collusion cannot be believed.

[vii] As per Ex.A2 wound certificate would show that the injuries are

caused due to road traffic accident caused by an auto. In view of the

evidence of PW1, the injured eye witness and in view of the official

13

documents- Exs.A1 to Ex.A4, involvement of the offending vehicle is

acceptable. Negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle is also

acceptable in the light of the statutory and precedential guidance mentioned

above.

[viii] With regard to the delay, this Court finds it proper to note that

treatment to the victim/petitioner is more important than giving a complaint to

the Police. Mere delay in giving report to Police is no ground to reject the

claim. At this juncture, this Court finds it proper to refer to the observations

of the Hon'ble Apex Court made in a case between Ravi and Badrinarayan

and Others

2

relevant para numbers 17 to 19 reads as follows :-

“17. It is well settled that delay in lodging the FIR cannot be a ground to

doubt the claimant's case. Knowing the Indian conditions as they are, we

cannot expect a common man to first rush to the police station immediately

after an accident. Human nature and family responsibilities occupy the mind of

kith and kin to such an extent that they give more importance to get the victim

treated rather than to rush to the police station. Under such circumstances,

they are not expected to act mechanically with promptitude in lodging the FIR

with the police. Delay in lodging the FIR thus, cannot be the ground to deny

justice to the victim.

18. In cases of delay, the courts are required to examine the evidence

with a closer scrutiny and in doing so the contents of the FIR should also be

scrutinized more carefully. If the court finds that there is no indication of

fabrication or it has not been concocted or engineered to implicate innocent

persons then, even if there is a delay in lodging the FIR, the claim case

cannot be dismissed merely on that ground. The purpose of lodging the FIR in

such type of cases is primarily to intimate the police to initiate investigation of

criminal offences.

2

(2011) 4 SCC 693 : (2011) 2 SCC (Civ) 426

14

19. Lodging of FIR certainly proves the factum of accident so that the

victim is able to lodge a case for compensation but delay in doing so cannot

be the main ground for rejecting the claim petition. In other words, although

lodging of FIR is vital in deciding motor accident claim cases, delay in lodging

the same should not be treated as fatal for such proceedings, if claimant has

been able to demonstrate satisfactory and cogent reasons for it. There could

be a variety of reasons in genuine cases for delayed lodgment of FIR. Unless

kith and kin of the victim are able to regain a certain level of tranquility of mind

and are composed to lodge it, even if, there is delay, the same deserves to be

condoned. In such circumstances, the authenticity of the FIR assumes much

more significance than delay in lodging thereof supported by cogent reasons.”

[ix] Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in a case between Tamil

Nadu State Transport Corporation, rep by General Manager v.

P.Shanthi

3

, while answering similar contention as to the delay in lodging FIR

and standard of proof required in motor accidents claims cases, referring

several judgments, found that –

“17. It is the well settled law that proceedings before the Claims Tribunal are

summary in nature and it is suffice to consider, whether there is any

preponderance of probability, as to the manner of accident, as detailed in the

claim petition. Strict proof of evidence is not required.

18. At this juncture, this Court also deems it fit to consider a decision in

Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, (2005) 6 SCC 1 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1369 :

(2005) 4 CTC 540 (SC), wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has explained

the distinction between a tort and crime, where negligence is the fact, required

to be proved and at Paras 13 to 17, held as follows:

“13. The moral culpability of recklessness is not located in a desire to

cause harm. It resides in the proximity of the reckless state of mind to the

state of mind present when there is an intention to cause harm. There is, in

other words, a disregard for the possible consequences. The consequences

entailed in the risk may not be wanted, and indeed the actor may hope that

3

2017 SCC OnLine Mad 38431

15

they do not occur, but this hope nevertheless fails to inhibit the taking of the

risk. Certain types of violation, called optimizing violations, may be motivated

by thrill-seeking. These are clearly reckless.

14. In order to hold the existence of Criminal rashness or Criminal

negligence it shall have to be found out that the rashness was of such a

degree as to amount to taking a hazard knowing that the hazard was of such a

degree that injury was most likely imminent. The element of criminality is

introduced by the accused having run the risk of doing such an act with

recklessness and indifference to the consequences. Lord Atkin in his speech

in Andrews v. Director of Public Prosecutions, [1937] A.C. 576, stated,—

“Simple lack of care such as will constitute Civil liability is not

enough; for purposes of the criminal law there are degrees of

negligence; and a very high degree of negligence is required to be

proved before the felony is established.”

Thus, a clear distinction exists between “simple lack of care” incurring

Civil liability and “very high degree of negligence” which is required in Criminal

cases. Lord Porter said in his speech in the same case—

“A higher degree of negligence has always been demanded in order to

establish a criminal offence than is sufficient to create civil liability.

(Charlesworth & Percy, ibid, para 1.13)

15. The fore-quoted statement of law in Andrews has been noted with

approval by this Court in Syad Akbar v. State of Karnataka, (1980) 1 SCC 30 :

1980 SCC (Cri) 59. The Supreme Court has dealt with and pointed out with

reasons the distinction between negligence in Civil law and in criminal law.

Their Lordships have opined that there is a marked difference as to the effect

of evidence, viz. the proof, in Civil and Criminal proceedings. In Civil

proceedings, a mere preponderance of probability is sufficient, and the

defendant is not necessarily entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt;

but in Criminal proceedings, the persuasion of guilt must amount to such a

moral certainty as convinces the mind of the Court, as a reasonable man,

beyond all reasonable doubt. Where negligence is an essential ingredient of

the offence, the negligence to be established by the Prosecution must be

culpable or gross and not the negligence merely based upon an error of

judgment.

16. Law laid down by Straight, J. in the case Reg v. Idu Beg, 1881 SCC

OnLine All 103 : (1881) 3 All. 776, has been held good in cases and noticed in

Bhalchandra Waman Pathe v. State of Maharashtra, 1967 SCC OnLine SC 26

16

: 1968 Mah LJ 423, a Three-Judge Bench decision of this Court. It has been

held that while negligence is an omission to do something which a reasonable

man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct

of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and

reasonable man would not do; Criminal negligence is the gross and culpable

neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution

to guard against injury either to the public generally or to an individual in

particular, which having regard to all the circumstances out of which the

charge has arisen, it was the imperative duty of the Accused person to have

adopted.

17. In our opinion, the factor of grossness or degree does assume

significance while drawing distinction in negligence actionable in tort and

negligence punishable as a crime. To be latter, the negligence has to be gross

or of a very high degree.”

20. In view of the settled legal position and in view of the continuous

treatment of the petitioner in various hospitals, pleaded and shown covered

by the medical evidence, the objection of delay in lodging FIR pressed into

service by the Insurance Company found fit to be ignored. Since with regard

to the accident there is no oath against oath, this Court finds it appropriate to

accept the evidence of PW.1 in the light of the crime record covered by

Ex.A1-FIR, Ex.A2-wound certificate, Ex.A3- charge sheet, and Ex.A4-Lok

Adalath settlement Docket evidencing the compounding of criminal case

under Section 320(8) of Cr.P.C, and concludes that the accident occurred

due to the negligence of the driver of the vehicle bearing No. AP 28 W 1176 /

offending vehicle, and the involvement of the said vehicle in the accident

stands established.

17

21. For the reasons aforesaid, point No.1 is answered in favour of the

petitioner concluding that the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle

is the cause for the accident and that the petitioner/claimant has suffered

injuries in the said accident. Hence, entitled for the compensation.

Point No.2:-

22. This Court finds it appropriate to observe that some Motor Accidents

Claims Tribunals are avoiding recording the findings on the issue touching

the quantification of compensation despite sufficient evidence is available, on

the premise that the Tribunal has answered the issue touching the

entitlement against the claimants for compensation, basing on the findings

on negligence or on the involvement of the vehicle. The findings on

negligence or the involvement of the vehicle stand on one footing. There is

possibility, that the appellate court, being the last Court of fact, may come to

the conclusion that the appreciation of evidence available by the first

Court/Tribunal is erroneous or important evidence is ignored, and

consequently arrive at a different finding with regard to negligence or the

involvement of the vehicle on the strength of the evidence available on

record. Then, with regard to the quantification of compensation, there will be

no findings of the Trial Court or Tribunal available for consideration by the

appellate Court. Remanding the matter after a considerable lapse of time

merely for the purpose of quantification of compensation would result

traumatization for the claimants, and unnecessary financial burden on the

18

tort-feasors, who may ultimately be liable to pay the compensation, at least

on the interest component. Therefore, it would be a good practice for the

Tribunals to quantify the compensation in every case, where the necessary

evidence is available, even if the Tribunal ultimately concludes that the

respondents are not liable to pay compensation for valid reasons. But

avoiding the exercise of quantification altogether, despite the availability of

evidence, cannot be appreciated.

23. The learned MACT ought to have addressed the issue relating to the

quantum of compensation as well. Having framed all the issues for

determination, the learned MACT ought to have rendered findings on each of

them. Since the evidence is available on record, this Court, being the first

appellate Court and the final Court on facts, can appreciate the evidence and

quantify the compensation with remittance to the Tribunal to avoid delays in

the interest of justice.

Precedential Guidance:

24. 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.

19

Manzoor Ahmad Simon and Anr.

4

, 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.

5

,

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.,

6

vide para No.10, by

referring to Sunil Kumar Vs. Ram Singh Gaud

7

,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

8

, as to fixing of quantum of compensation with liberal approach,

4

2025 AIAR (Civil) 1

5

2020 (04) SCC 413

6

2010(10)SCC 341

7

2007 (14) SCC 61

8

1992(2) SCC 567

20

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

9

, 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).

9

2011 (1) SCC 343

21

(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.

10

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.

11

. 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.

10

2023 (3) SCC 439

11

1995 (1) SCC 551

22

25. [i] PW2 –Dr.B.V. Subba Reddy, is the Doctor, who treated the

petitioner. He deposed that on 22.11.2006 petitioner was admitted to Viswa

Bharati Super Specialty Hospital with a fracture of right wrist joint and right

ring finger, surgery was done on right wrist joint, plates and screws fixed on

24.11.2006. He was discharged on 28.11.2006. Ex.X1 - case sheet was

issued by the Viswa Bharathi Hospital. Ex.A15 are the X-rays taken at Viswa

Bharathi Hospital and Ex.A8 are the prescriptions given by him. Even after

discharge the patient approached him for regular checkup on 04.12.2006,

14.12.2006 and 27.12.2006. There is deformity of right ring finger. There is

difficulty in holding objects. Physiotherapy is advised. During the cross

examination it is listed that PW2 did not give MLC intimation and the same

will be done by the Nursing home authorities. He do not know whether MLC

intimation is given to police authorities.

[ii] As per Ex.X1-MLC intimation is given at Government General

Hospital outpost. As per Ex.A2-wound certificate, out of (4) injuries, injury

No.1 is grievous and (3) other are simple in nature. Ex.A5 medical bills are

standing for Rs.24,432/-. They are coupled with the prescriptions. Ex.A6 and

Ex.A7 also containing the treatment record of Viswa Bharathi Hospital. Ex.A7

is around Rs.2,000/-. Ex.A8 is the Test Reports. Ex.A9 is the Treatment

Certificate with Bills. Ex.A11 is another bunch of Bills issued by Apollo

Hospital, Hyderabad. They are standing around Rs.25,000/-.

[iii] From the evidence on record, the following aspects can be safely

inferred and believed:-

23

1) The petitioner suffered four injuries. Three among them are simple.

2) Petitioner was treated in three different hospitals.

3) PW.2 –Doctor, treated the petitioner. There is no evidence

indicating permanent disability.

4) Income can be taken on notional basis, for want of proper proof.

5) Income tax returns filed unable to lend sufficient contribution.

6) Hospitalization and intermediate treatment can be accepted.

[iv] In the light of the evidence and probable inferences mentioned above,

the entitlement of the petitioner for the compensation under various heads,

found as follows:-

Sl.

No.

Head Fixed by this Appellate

Court

1. Pain and suffering

a) grievous injury (1)

b) Simple injuries (3)

Rs.25,000/-

Rs.20,000/-

Rs.10,000/-

2. Extra nourishment, nervous shock etc., Rs.5,000/-

3. Medical expenditure/treatment Rs. 50.000/-

4. Attendant charges Rs.10,000/-

5. Transportation Rs.10,000/-

6. Loss of earning capacity during treatment

@5,000/-p.m.

Rs.20,000/-

Total: Rs.1,50, 000/-

Interest (per annum) 7.5%

24

Liability:-

26. The defence of the delay is found fit to be ignored and when once it is

shown that the offending vehicle is involved, as the Policy being in force, the

Insurance Company is liable unless the violations are made out. Violations

for want of driving license or any fundamental breach of Policy conditions are

not shown. Therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the

compensation. Fraud, collusion etc., among the owner of the vehicle and the

claimant is not shown with any evidence. Hence, the excuse of the

Insurance Company is not acceptable. Therefore, the Insurance Company is

liable to pay compensation in view of the Policy –Ex.B1. Hence, all the

respondents, particularly respondent No.3 is liable.

27. In view of the discussion made above, point No.2 is answered in favour

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

compensation of Rs.1,50, 000/- @7.5% p.a. from the date of petitioner till the

date of deposit/realization. Though respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and

severally liable, particularly respondent No. 3 is liable to pay. Point No.2 is

answered accordingly.

Point No.3:

28. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds that the impugned

order and decree passed by the learned MACT in M.V.O.P.No.437 of 2007

25

dismissing the claim petition, is not proper and the same is liable to be set

aside. Point No.3 is answered accordingly.

Point No.4:-

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

(i) The order and decree dated 15.12.2012 in M.V.O.P.No.437 of

2007 passed by the learned MACT are set-aside.

(ii) M.V.O.P.No.437 of 2007 is allowed as follows:

(a) Claimant is entitled for a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- with

interest at the rate of 7.5% 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.

(a) 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.

26

(b) If the petitioner/claimant fails to comply with (iii)(a) 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.

(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: 01 .07.2026

Note:-

L.R. Copy be marked.

B/o.

Pnr

Whether the order is:

Speaking √ Non-speaking -

Reportable √ Non-reportable -

27

* THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

M.A.C.M.A. No.1406 of 2012

% 01.07.2026

# S.Venkata Reddy, S/O.Late Pakki Reddy R/O.H.No.45/24-K-55-1,

Ameena Abbas Nagar, Venkat Ramana Colony, Kurnool Town and District.

. …. Appellant

Versus

$ Andnada Rao, S/o.Late Krishna Rao, Major Owner Of Auto Bearing

No.AP 28 W 1176 R/O.H.No.76/116/322/33, Ganesh Nagar, Kurnool

And 2 Others.

…. Respondents

! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri P.V.V.Satyanarayana

! Counsel for the Respondents : Mrs. T. V. Sridevi.

< Gist:

> Head Note:

? Cases referred:

2009 (13) SCC 530

(2011) 4 SCC 693 : (2011) 2 SCC (Civ) 426

2017 SCC OnLine Mad 38431

2025 AIAR (Civil) 1

2020 (04) SCC 413

2010(10)SCC 341

2007 (14) SCC 61

1992(2) SCC 567

2011 (1) SCC 343

2023 (3) SCC 439

1995 (1) SCC 551

28

*THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

M.A.C.M.A. No.1406 of 2012

# S.Venkata Reddy, S/O.Late Pakki Reddy R/O.H.No.45/24-K-55-1,

Ameena Abbas Nagar, Venkat Ramana Colony, Kurnool Town and District.

. …. Appellant

Versus

$ Andnada Rao, S/o.Late Krishna Rao, Major Owner Of Auto Bearing

No.AP 28 W 1176 R/O.H.No.76/116/322/33, Ganesh Nagar, Kurnool

And 2 Others.

…. Respondents

DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED: 01.07.2026

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may

be allowed to see the Order? Yes/No

2. Whether the copies of Order may be marked

to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No

3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair

copy of the Order ? Yes/No

____________________________

A. HARIHARANADHA SARMA, J

29

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

M.A.C.M.A.No.1406 of 2012

01.07.2026

Pnr