1
APCH000009162022
BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL-CUM-IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE:
CHITTOOR.
Present: Dr. N. Sreenivasa Rao,
Chairman, M.A.C.T.-cum-IX Additional District Judge, Chittoor.
Tuesday, this the 5th day of May, 2026.
M.V.O.P.No.104 of 2022
Between:
C. Shankar, son of late Chinnabba Gowd, Hindu, aged about 41 years, Business, residing at C. Bandapalli Village, Gudipala Mandal, Chittoor District, A.P.
.. Petitioner
And:
1. S. Suresh, son of C. Sivasankar, aged about not known, Business, residing at D.No.4-983, Pensioner Colony, Greamspet, Chittoor Town and District, owner of vehicle bearing No.AP-03-TA-6498.
2. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, CI Dist Center, New Delhi-110017, represented by its Branch Manager, one of its branches at Chittoor, D.No.2-1022, 2nd Floor, Vikas Complex, Puttur Main Road, Kongareddypalli, Chittoor-517001, opposite HP Petrol Bank, insurer of vehicle bearing No.AP-03-TA-6498 under Policy No.MD485778.
3. S. Himan Basha, son of late S. Salam Basha, aged about 24 years, driver, residing at D.No.4-1688, Durganagar Colony, Greamspet, Chittoor, driver of vehicle bearing No.AP-03-TA-6498.
.. Respondents
The petition came for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M. Subramanyam Reddy, learned Advocate for the petitioner, and Sri K. Krishna Murthy, learned Advocate for respondent No.2, and respondent Nos.1 2 and 3 remained ex parte, and having stood over for consideration to this date, this Tribunal passed the following:
:: A W A R D ::
The petition is filed under Section 166(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 475 of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, by the petitioner praying to award compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- with interest and costs and such other reliefs for the injuries sustained by him in the road accident caused by the motor vehicle bearing No.AP-03-TA-6498, owned by respondent No.1, insured with respondent No.2 and driven by respondent No.3.
2.i. The averments of the petition in short are as follows: The petitioner/C.
Shankar is the injured in this case. According to the petitioner, the accident occurred on 08.02.2021 at about 2.00 p.m., on Chittoor to C. Bandapalli road, near C. Bandapalli Bus Stop, Gudipala Mandal, Chittoor District. On that day, the petitioner was riding TVS XL motorcycle bearing No.AP-03-CA-2512 while carrying vegetables. When he reached the above place, TATA ACE bearing No.AP-03-TA-6498, driven by its driver, namely respondent No.3, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner’s TVS
XL motorcycle. Due to the impact, the petitioner fell down and sustained multiple bleeding and blunt injuries all over his body.
ii. The petitioner averred that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.3, who was driving TATA ACE bearing
No.AP-03-TA-6498. In respect of the said accident, Gudipala Police registered a case in Crime No.24 of 2021 initially under Section 337 IPC against respondent
No.3. After investigation, police laid charge sheet in C.C.No.825 of 2021 under
Section 338 IPC on the file of the learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of
First Class, Chittoor. It is further averred that the said case was settled before
the National Lok Adalat.
3 iii. The petitioner further averred that, due to the accident, he sustained grievous injuries, namely polytrauma with blunt chest injury and blunt abdominal injury, multiple rib fractures with minimal hemopneumothorax, lung contusion, lung collapse, fracture of both bones and fracture of mandible. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to CMC Hospital, Vellore, where first aid was given.
Thereafter, he took treatment at Sri Narayani Hospital and Research Centre,
Sripuram, Vellore. As his condition was serious, he was referred to a higher institution and was shifted to Sree Ramadevi Multi Super Specialty Hospital,
Tirupati, where he took treatment as an inpatient. It is further stated that again he was shifted to CMC Hospital, Vellore and took treatment as inpatient and outpatient.
iv. The petitioner claimed that, due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he spent about Rs.10,00,000/- towards transportation, medicines, surgery, extra nourishment, attendant charges and other incidental expenses. He further claimed that the doctors advised him to undergo further surgery and that he would have to spend about Rs.5,00,000/- for the said future treatment.
According to him, he became bedridden, was unable to attend even to his calls of nature without support, lost his entire income, suffered mental shock and depression and incurred debts for continuous treatment. He also stated that some medical bills were misplaced and that he would produce them as and when they were traced, while filing the available medical bills along with the petition.
v. With regard to his occupation and income, the petitioner stated that he was hale and healthy prior to the accident. He stated that his family consisted of his parents, wife and children and that all of them were dependent upon his income.
According to him, he was doing vegetable business and earning less than
Rs.2,000/- per day and not less than Rs.40,000/- per month. He further stated that he was contributing the said income for the maintenance of his family. Due 4 to the injuries sustained in the accident, he is unable to do his vegetable business and has lost his earning capacity and future prospects.
vi. The petitioner also averred that due to the accident he has been suffering very much and has become permanently disabled. He stated that he lost his better prospects of future at an early age. He claimed compensation under different heads, including loss of earnings, partial loss of earnings, transport to hospitals, extra nourishment, attendant charges, lodging, boarding, special diet, hospitalization expenses, damages to clothing, wristwatch, motorcycle and other articles, pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life, shortening of life, permanent disability, loss of marriage prospects, loss of future earning capacity and loss to estate.
vii. The petitioner further stated that respondent No.1 is the owner of TATA
ACE bearing No.AP-03-TA-6498, respondent No.2 is its insurer under Policy
No.MD485778, and respondent No.3 is its driver. He pleaded that the said insurance policy was in force as on the date of accident. Therefore, according to the petitioner, respondent No.2, being the insurer of the vehicle of respondent
No.1, is bound to indemnify respondent No.1. Hence, all the respondents are jointly, severally and vicariously liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.
viii. On the above averments, the petitioner prayed that an award and decree may be passed in his favour, directing respondent Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally to pay compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of accident till realization, together with costs of the petition and such other reliefs as the Tribunal deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
3. i. Upon issuing notices, the 2nd respondent appeared through its counsel and filed its written statement. The respondents 1 and 3 remained ex parte and even 5 thereafter, they did not participate in the enquiry. The 2nd respondent in its written statement denied the material averments of the petition and put the petitioner to strict proof of the same. The 2nd respondent contended that the petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts.
ii. The 2nd respondent further pleaded that it does not admit the allegations made in the claim petition. The petitioner was therefore put to strict proof of all particulars stated by him, including the manner of accident, involvement of the vehicle, alleged negligence of the driver, injuries sustained, treatment taken, medical expenses incurred, age, occupation, income, disability and entitlement to compensation.
iii. The 2nd respondent admitted that TATA ACE bearing No.AP-03-TA-6498 was covered under policy No.MD485778 for the period from 19.03.2020 to 18.03.2021, subject to the terms, conditions, exceptions and limitations of the policy and subject to compliance with Section 64-VB of the Insurance Act, 1938. It further pleaded that the original insurance policy was in the possession of the 1st respondent and that the insured may be directed to produce the original policy before the Tribunal, failing which the 2nd respondent would produce the copy of the policy and the same may be read in evidence.
iv. The 2nd respondent pleaded that the police records reveal that the petitioner was proceeding on TVS XL bearing No.AP-03-CA-2512 in a rash and negligent manner without following traffic rules and that the said vehicle had no valid documents. It further pleaded that the petitioner was not wearing helmet and thereby violated Section 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act. On that basis, the 2nd respondent contended that it is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.
It also pleaded that the petitioner failed to implead the owner and insurer of
TVS XL bearing No.AP-03-CA-2512, who are necessary parties to the 6 proceedings, and therefore the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
v. The 2nd respondent denied the allegation that TATA ACE bearing No.AP-03-
TA-6498 was involved in the accident or that it was driven in a rash and negligent manner. It also denied that Gudipala Police registered Crime No.24 of 2021 under Section 338 IPC against the driver of TATA ACE bearing No.AP- 03-TA-6498. The 2nd respondent further denied the petitioner’s version that on 08.02.2021 at about 2.00 p.m., on Chittoor to C. Bandapalli road near C.
Bandapalli Bus Stop, Gudipala Mandal, Chittoor District, the said TATA ACE, driven by the 3rd respondent, dashed against the petitioner while he was carrying vegetables on TVS XL bearing No.AP-03-CA-2512 and caused injuries to him.
vi. The 2nd respondent denied the hospitalization and treatment pleaded by the petitioner. It disputed the petitioner’s plea that he was shifted to CMC Hospital,
Vellore, thereafter treated at Sri Narayani Hospital and Research Centre,
Sripuram, Vellore, and later shifted to Sree Ramadevi Multi Super Specialty
Hospital, Tirupati, for better treatment as an inpatient and again took treatment at CMC Hospital, Vellore as inpatient and outpatient. According to the 2nd respondent, the petitioner must strictly prove the alleged injuries, treatment and medical expenditure by acceptable documentary evidence.
vii. The 2nd respondent also denied the petitioner’s age, occupation and income.
It pleaded that it was not aware that the petitioner was aged about 41 years, doing business and earning Rs.40,000/- per month at the time of accident and contributing the same for the maintenance of his family. It contended that the petitioner must prove his age, occupation and income through supporting documents.
7 viii. The 2nd respondent further pleaded that the 3rd respondent, who was the driver of TATA ACE bearing No.AP-03-TA-6498, was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and was not qualified to hold or obtain such licence. It also pleaded that the said vehicle was being plied without valid registration, fitness and permit and that the 1st respondent, being the owner, violated the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. On these grounds, the 2nd respondent contended that it cannot be held liable to pay compensation.
ix. The 2nd respondent also pleaded that the driver of the vehicle was under the influence of alcohol at the time of accident and thereby violated the terms and conditions of the policy. It further relied upon the general exception clause of the motor policy and pleaded that the insurer is not liable in respect of any accident, loss, damage or liability caused while the insured vehicle is used otherwise than in accordance with the limitations as to use or is driven by any person other than a driver permitted under the driver’s clause. On that basis, the 2nd respondent sought exoneration from liability.
x. The 2nd respondent denied that the petitioner is entitled to compensation of
Rs.15,00,000/- with interest and costs. It pleaded that the claim is excessive, exorbitant, exaggerated, vague and not based on proper material. It also pleaded that the petitioner is not entitled to claim interest on non-pecuniary damages and that, even if any liability is fastened, interest should not be awarded at more than 6% per annum.
xi. The 2nd respondent further pleaded that the insured failed to comply with
Section 134(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act by not furnishing particulars of the policy, date, time and place of accident, particulars of the injured, name of the driver and particulars of driving licence. It also pleaded that the concerned police failed to forward the relevant documents to the insurer within 30 days as 8 required under Section 158(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act. On these grounds also, the 2nd respondent denied its liability.
xii. The 2nd respondent sought protection under Sections 147, 148 and 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act and craved leave to take all defences available to the insured under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It further pleaded that the petitioner should be directed to produce his PAN card for tax purposes. It also pleaded that the petitioner had not given proper affidavit confirming that he had not filed any other case for the same cause before any other Tribunal and referred to Section 10 CPC. Ultimately, the 2nd respondent prayed that the petition may be dismissed against it with costs.
4. After posting the matter for settlement, if any, under Section 89 of CPC, as the parties did not come forward for amicable settlement, based on the pleadings, the following issues were settled by the Chairman of the Tribunal for consideration:
i. Whether the accident that occurred on 08.02.2021 at about 2.00 p.m. on
Chittoor to C. Bandapalli road, near bus stop, Gudipala Mandal, Chittoor
District, in which the petitioner sustained severe injuries is due to rash and
negligent driving of driver/R3 of TATA ACE bearing Regd.No.AP-03-TA-
6498?
ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation and if so, to what
amount and from which of the respondents?
iii. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
iv. To what relief?
5. i. During the enquiry, in support of his claim, the petitioner was examined as
P.W.1 and got marked Ex. P1 to Ex. P16. The petitioner also got examined 9
P.W.2 P. Manohar Reddy as an eyewitness to the accident. Further, the petitioner got examined P.W.3 Dr. B. Kishore, Medical Superintendent, Sree Ramadevi
Multi Super Specialty Hospital, Tirupati, and through him got marked Ex. P17 authorization letter. The petitioner also got examined P.W.4 Dr. D. Anil Kumar,
Civil Surgeon, Head Quarters Hospital, Chittoor, in support of Ex. P15 disability certificate. The petitioner further got examined P.W.5 Dr. Shona
Rachel Mathuram, Assistant Professor, Department of Trauma Surgery, CMC
Hospital, Vellore, and through her got marked Ex. P18 authorization letter. The petitioner also got examined P.W.6 Dr. Syed Rehan Ullah Hussain Peeran,
Assistant Professor, CMC Vellore, and through him got marked Ex. P19 to Ex.
P21. Lastly, the petitioner got examined P.W.7 Ashok Kumar, Medical
Technician, Sri Narayani Hospital and Research Centre, Sripuram, Vellore, and through him got marked Ex. P22 authorization letter.
ii. Ex. P1 is the certified copy of FIR in Crime No.24 of 2021 of Gudipala
Police Station along with report. Ex. P2 is the certified copy of the charge sheet relating to Crime No.24 of 2021 of Gudipala Police Station. Ex. P3 is the certified copy of wound certificate of the petitioner relating to Crime No.24 of 2021 of Gudipala Police Station. Ex. P4 is the online copy of registration particulars of the crime vehicle bearing No.AP-03-TA-6498. Ex. P5 is the original discharge summary issued by Sri Narayani Hospital and Research
Centre, Vellore, in the name of the petitioner. Ex. P6 is the original discharge summary and prescriptions issued by Super Specialty Hospital, Tirupati, in the name of the petitioner. Ex. P7 is the medical bills issued by Sri Narayani
Hospital and Research Centre, Vellore, in the name of the petitioner for consolidated amount of Rs.43,316/-. Ex. P8 is the medical bills issued by Apollo
Pharmacy, Tirupati, in the name of the petitioner for consolidated amount of
Rs.14,135/-. Ex. P9 is the ambulance service bill issued in the name of the 10 petitioner for Rs.12,100/-. Ex. P10 is the medical bills issued by S.G. Surgicals,
Tirupati, for Rs.5,150/-. Ex.P11 is the medical bills issued by Sri Ramadevi
Multi Super Specialty Hospital, Tirupati, in the name of the petitioner for
Rs.31,923.12 ps. Ex.P12 is the medical bills issued by Bawaa Pharmacy,
Tirupati, for Rs.542.50 ps. Ex.P13 is the inpatient discharge bill issued by CMC,
Vellore, in the name of the petitioner for consolidated amount of Rs.1,18,989/-.
Ex. P14 is the medical report issued by CMC Hospital, Vellore, in the name of the petitioner. Ex. P15 is the disability certificate issued by Medical Board,
District Hospital, Chittoor, in the name of the petitioner. Ex. P16 is the bunch of medical bills issued by CMC Hospital, Vellore, for consolidated amount of
Rs.2,37,720/-.
iii. Further Ex. P17 is the authorization letter issued by the Proprietor, Sri
Ramadevi Multi Super Specialty Hospital, Tirupati, dated 26.05.2025. Ex. P18 is the authorization letter dated 03.07.2025 issued by the Associate Professor and Incharge, Department of Trauma Surgery, CMC, Vellore. Ex. P19 is the authorization letter issued by the Professor and Head, Neuro Surgery Unit-III,
CMC, Vellore, Ranipet Campus. Ex. P20 is the attested copy of IP record of the petitioner/C. Shankar, which includes discharge summary. Ex. P21 is the attested copy of outpatient record of the petitioner/C. Shankar. Ex. P22 is the authorization letter issued by Consultant Medical Department, Sri Narayani
Hospital, Sripuram, Vellore, dated 15.10.2025.
iv. After closure of the petitioner’s side evidence, no oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents. However, Ex. R1, attested copy of insurance policy, was marked on behalf of respondent No.2.
v. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the material on record and considered the same.
11
6.Issue No. i: Whether the accident that occurred on 08.02.2021 at about
2.00 p.m. on Chittoor to C. Bandapalli road, near bus stop, Gudipala
Mandal, Chittoor District, in which the petitioner sustained severe injuries
is due to rash and negligent driving of driver/R3 of TATA ACE bearing
Regd.No.AP-03-TA-6498?
i. Issue No. i Answered: In a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, the petitioner has to establish that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The standard of proof in a motor accident claim is not the same as in a criminal case. The
Tribunal has to consider the evidence on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. Therefore, the oral evidence of the injured and an eyewitness, when supported by the FIR, charge sheet, wound certificate and other contemporaneous records, can be accepted unless the respondents place reliable rebuttal evidence.
ii. The petitioner’s case is that on 08.02.2021 at about 2.00 p.m., he was proceeding on TVS XL motorcycle bearing No.AP-03-CA-2512 on Chittoor to
C. Bandapalli road, near C. Bandapalli Bus Stop, Gudipala Mandal, Chittoor
District, while carrying vegetables. At that time, TATA ACE bearing No.AP-03-
TA-6498, driven by respondent No.3, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him. Due to the impact, he sustained multiple bleeding and blunt injuries all over his body. The petitioner further pleaded that Gudipala Police registered Crime No.24 of 2021 against respondent No.3 and later filed charge sheet in C.C.No.825 of 2021 under Section 338 IPC on the file of IV Additional
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor.
iii. To prove the manner of accident, the petitioner examined himself as P.W.1.
In his chief-examination affidavit, he reiterated the petition averments and stated that while he was proceeding on TVS XL bearing No.AP-03-CA-2512 12 carrying vegetables, TATA ACE bearing No.AP-03-TA-6498, driven by respondent No.3, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him.
He further stated that because of the accident he sustained multiple bleeding and blunt injuries all over the body. He also deposed that Gudipala Police registered
Crime No.24 of 2021 against respondent No.3 initially under Section 337 IPC and that the case was later numbered as C.C.No.825 of 2021 under Section 338
IPC on the file of IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor.
iv. In cross-examination, P.W.1 admitted that at the time of accident he was driving the TVS XL moped and that he was a vegetable vendor. He stated that the accident occurred after he sold vegetables and while he was returning to his house. It was suggested to him that he had no driving licence, that he did not know how to drive the TVS XL moped and that he himself was responsible for the accident. P.W.1 denied the said suggestions. He added that his driving licence was lost as it was kept in the TVS XL at the time of accident, though he admitted that he did not mention the said fact in the police report. This admission by itself is not sufficient to hold that the accident occurred due to his negligence. Non-production of driving licence by the petitioner, even if taken into consideration, does not prove rashness or negligence unless it is further shown that the said fact had a direct connection with the accident. No such material was placed by respondent No.2.
v. The evidence of P.W.1 is supported by P.W.2, P. Manohar Reddy, who was examined as an eyewitness. P.W.2 deposed that on 08.02.2021 at about 2.00 p.m., he was near C. Bandapalli Bus Stop and the petitioner was proceeding on
TVS motorcycle on Chittoor to C. Bandapalli road. According to him, TATA
ACE bearing No.AP-03-TA-6498 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner’s motorcycle. Due to the said impact, the petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries all over the body. P.W.2 further stated 13 that he and others helped the petitioner and that the petitioner was taken to
CMC Hospital for treatment. He specifically stated that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of TATA ACE.
vi. In cross-examination, P.W.2 admitted that the petitioner is a resident of his village and that the petitioner was proceeding on TVS motorcycle with vegetable load. It was suggested to him that the petitioner kept the vegetable load in the front portion of the TVS XL, due to which he could not freely move the handle, fell down on his own and sustained injuries. P.W.2 denied the said suggestion. It was also suggested to him that there was no fault on the part of the TATA ACE vehicle and that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the petitioner. P.W.2 denied that suggestion also. Merely because P.W.2 belongs to the same village as the petitioner, his evidence cannot be discarded.
His presence near C. Bandapalli Bus Stop was not effectively disproved and his version is consistent with the evidence of P.W.1 and the police records.
vii. The petitioner also relied upon documentary evidence. Ex. P1 is the certified copy of FIR in Crime No.24 of 2021 of Gudipala Police Station along with report. Ex. P2 is the certified copy of charge sheet relating to Crime No.24 of 2021 of Gudipala Police Station. Ex. P3 is the certified copy of wound certificate of the petitioner relating to Crime No.24 of 2021 of Gudipala Police
Station. Ex. P4 is the online copy of registration particulars of the crime vehicle bearing No.AP-03-TA-6498. These documents support the petitioner’s version regarding the involvement of TATA ACE bearing No.AP-03-TA-6498 and the filing of charge sheet against its driver. The said documents have not been disproved by any rebuttal evidence from the respondents.
viii. Respondent No.2, in its written statement, denied the manner of accident and also denied the involvement of TATA ACE bearing No.AP-03-TA-6498. It pleaded that the petitioner himself was proceeding on TVS XL bearing No.AP- 14 03-CA-2512 in a rash and negligent manner without following traffic rules, that the said TVS XL had no valid documents, that the petitioner was not wearing helmet and that the owner and insurer of TVS XL were necessary parties.
However, respondent No.2 did not examine any witness to prove these pleas. It did not produce any independent document to show that the accident occurred due to the petitioner’s negligence. Mere suggestions put to P.Ws.1 and 2, which were denied by them, cannot take the place of proof.
ix. The plea that the petitioner was not wearing helmet is also not proved. No witness has spoken to that fact and no document is produced to establish it.
Even otherwise, such a plea can have relevance only if it is shown that the injuries were caused or aggravated due to non-use of helmet. In the present case, the evidence relates to multiple injuries including chest injury, rib fractures, lower limb injuries, mandibular injuries and eye injury. Respondent
No.2 has not produced any medical or other evidence to show that any particular injury was caused or aggravated by non-wearing of helmet.
Therefore, the said plea does not displace the petitioner’s evidence regarding negligence.
x. The further defence that the petitioner was carrying vegetable load on the
TVS XL and therefore fell down on his own is also not proved. P.W.2 admitted only that the petitioner was proceeding with vegetables. He denied that the vegetables were kept in such a manner that the petitioner could not control the handle. No material was elicited regarding the weight, position or manner of loading of the vegetables. Therefore, the mere fact that the petitioner, being a vegetable vendor, was carrying vegetables cannot be treated as proof of contributory negligence or sole negligence.
xi. It is significant that respondent No.3, who was the driver of the TATA ACE and the best person to explain the manner of accident, remained ex parte and did 15 not enter the witness box. Respondent No.1, the owner of the offending vehicle, also remained ex parte. Respondent No.2, though it contested the matter, did not adduce any oral evidence. As per the Evidence, no witness was examined on the side of the respondents. Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, supported by
Exs.P1 to P4, remains unrebutted on the material aspects relating to the occurrence and manner of accident.
xii. The medical record also supports the fact that the petitioner sustained injuries in the same road traffic accident. Ex. P3 is the wound certificate relating to Crime No.24 of 2021 of Gudipala Police Station. The petition and the evidence of P.W.1 show that immediately after the accident the petitioner was shifted to CMC Hospital, Vellore, thereafter he took treatment at Sri Narayani
Hospital and Research Centre, Sripuram, Vellore, and subsequently at Sree
Ramadevi Multi Super Specialty Hospital, Tirupati. The medical evidence on record is consistent with the case that the petitioner sustained grievous injuries in the accident.
xiii. On careful consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, there is no material contradiction in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 on the core fact that
TATA ACE bearing No.AP-03-TA-6498 dashed against the petitioner’s TVS XL on 08.02.2021 at about 2.00 p.m. near C. Bandapalli Bus Stop on Chittoor to C.
Bandapalli road. The minor matters elicited in cross-examination, such as non- production of driving licence by P.W.1 and the fact that he was carrying vegetables, are not sufficient to reject the petitioner’s version, particularly when
Crime No.24 of 2021 was registered and charge sheet was filed against respondent No.3 and when no rebuttal evidence was adduced by the respondents.
xiv. Therefore, on the basis of the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, supported by
Ex.P1 certified copy of FIR, Ex.P2 certified copy of charge sheet, Ex.P3 16 certified copy of wound certificate and Ex.P4 registration particulars of the crime vehicle, this Tribunal holds that the accident occurred on 08.02.2021 at about 2.00 p.m. on Chittoor to C. Bandapalli road, near C. Bandapalli Bus Stop,
Gudipala Mandal, Chittoor District, due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.3, driver of TATA ACE bearing Regd.No.AP-03-TA-6498, and that the petitioner sustained severe injuries in the said accident.
xv. It is also relevant to note that respondent Nos.1 and 3, who are the owner and driver of the offending vehicle respectively, remained ex parte. They did not dispute the petitioner’s description of their status as owner and driver of TATA
ACE bearing No.AP-03-TA-6498. The 2nd respondent also did not adduce any evidence to show that the 1st respondent was not the owner or that the 3rd respondent was not the driver of the said vehicle. In the absence of rebuttal evidence, and having regard to Ex. P1 FIR, Ex. P2 charge sheet and Ex. P4 registration particulars, this Tribunal is justified in holding that TATA ACE bearing No.AP-03-TA-6498 was owned by the 1st respondent and driven by the 3rd respondent as on the date of accident.
xvi. On a careful consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, this
Tribunal finds that the petitioner has established that TATA ACE bearing
No.AP-03-TA-6498 was driven by the 3rd respondent/S. Himan Basha, owned by the 1st respondent/S. Suresh and insured with the 2nd respondent/IFFCO
Tokio General Insurance Company Limited as on the date of accident. The accident occurred on 08.02.2021, during the admitted policy period from 19.03.2020 to 18.03.2021. The 2nd respondent failed to prove absence of insurance coverage, absence of valid driving licence, breach of policy conditions, invalidity of vehicular documents, intoxication of driver, non- compliance of statutory duties or any other statutory defence available under the
Motor Vehicles Act.
17 xvii. Accordingly, this Tribunal holds that respondent Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. The 3rd respondent, being the driver of the offending TATA ACE, is primarily liable for causing the accident by rash and negligent driving. The 1st respondent, being the owner of the said vehicle, is vicariously liable for the act of his driver. The 2nd respondent, being the insurer of the said vehicle under a policy in force as on the date of accident and having failed to prove any policy violation, is liable to indemnify the insured and satisfy the award. Accordingly, Issue No. i is answered in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
7. Issue No. iii: Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
i. Issue No. iii Answered: Respondent No.2, in its written statement, raised the plea that the petitioner was proceeding on TVS XL bearing No.AP-03-CA-2512 in a rash and negligent manner without following traffic rules and that the said vehicle had no valid documents. On that basis, respondent No.2 contended that the owner and insurer of the TVS XL are necessary parties and that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
ii. The said plea has to be examined in the light of the petitioner’s case and the evidence on record. The petitioner’s specific case is that on 08.02.2021 at about 2.00 p.m., while he was proceeding on TVS XL bearing No.AP-03-CA-2512 on
Chittoor to C. Bandapalli road, near C. Bandapalli Bus Stop, Gudipala Mandal,
Chittoor District, the TATA ACE bearing No.AP-03-TA-6498, driven by respondent No.3, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him.
In the petition, respondent No.1 is shown as the owner of the said TATA ACE, respondent No.2 as its insurer and respondent No.3 as its driver. Therefore, the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle against whom the claim is made are already on record.
18 iii. P.W.1, the injured petitioner, supported the petition averments and stated that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.3.
He denied the suggestion that he himself was responsible for the accident.
P.W.2, P. Manohar Reddy, who was examined as an eyewitness, also supported the petitioner’s version and stated that the TATA ACE came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner’s motorcycle. In cross- examination, P.W.2 admitted that the petitioner was proceeding on TVS motorcycle with vegetable load. However, he denied the suggestion that the petitioner kept the vegetable load in the front portion of the TVS XL, could not freely move the handle, fell down on his own and sustained injuries. He also denied the suggestion that there was no fault on the part of the TATA ACE vehicle.
iv. The documentary evidence also supports the petitioner’s case. Ex. P1 is the certified copy of FIR in Crime No.24 of 2021 of Gudipala Police Station along with report. Ex. P2 is the certified copy of charge sheet relating to Crime No.24 of 2021 of Gudipala Police Station. Ex. P3 is the certified copy of wound certificate of the petitioner relating to the said crime. Ex. P4 is the online copy of registration particulars of the crime vehicle bearing No.AP-03-TA-6498.
These documents show that the police case was registered and charge sheet was filed in relation to the accident involving TATA ACE bearing No.AP-03-TA- 6498. No contra document was produced by respondent No.2 to show that the owner or insurer of TVS XL bearing No.AP-03-CA-2512 is a necessary party for adjudication of this claim.
v. It is also relevant that respondent No.2 did not adduce any oral evidence to prove its plea of non-joinder. No official from the Transport Department was examined. No document was filed to show that the TVS XL had no valid documents. No material was placed to show that the accident occurred due to 19 the negligence of the petitioner or that the owner or insurer of the TVS XL is liable to contribute to the compensation. As seen from the Evidence in the record, no witness was examined on behalf of the respondents and only Ex. R1, the attested copy of insurance policy, was marked on behalf of respondent No.2.
vi. For deciding whether a party is a necessary party, the relevant test is whether an effective and complete adjudication can be made in the absence of such party. In the present case, the petitioner seeks compensation from the driver, owner and insurer of TATA ACE bearing No.AP-03-TA-6498 on the ground that the said vehicle caused the accident. Since the driver, owner and insurer of the said vehicle are already parties to the proceedings, the claim can be effectively decided in their presence. The owner and insurer of the TVS XL would become necessary parties only if there is acceptable evidence to show that the said vehicle or its owner contributed to the accident in such a manner that their presence is indispensable for deciding liability. No such evidence is available in this case.
vii. The mere fact that the petitioner was riding the TVS XL at the time of accident does not make the owner or insurer of that vehicle necessary parties and similarly, the mere suggestion that the petitioner carried vegetable load or that the TVS XL had no valid documents is not sufficient to hold that the petition is bad for non-joinder. Those suggestions were denied by the petitioner’s witnesses and were not proved by respondent No.2 by any independent evidence. In the absence of proof of contributory negligence or negligence on the part of the petitioner, the owner and insurer of the TVS XL are not necessary parties to this claim.
viii. Further, while answering Issue No. i, this Tribunal has held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.3, driver of TATA ACE bearing Regd.No.AP-03-TA-6498. Once the negligence of 20 respondent No.3 is established and the owner and insurer of the said vehicle are already on record, the claim cannot be dismissed merely because the owner and insurer of the petitioner’s TVS XL are not impleaded. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation and the Tribunal has to decide the real controversy and award just compensation on the basis of evidence. A technical plea of non- joinder, without proof, cannot defeat the claim of an injured person. Therefore, this Tribunal holds that the petition is not bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The owner and insurer of TVS XL bearing No.AP-03-CA-2512 are not necessary parties for effective adjudication of this claim. Accordingly, Issue No.
iii is answered in favour of the petitioner and against respondent No.2.
8. Issue No. ii: Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation and if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?
Issue No. ii Answered: In regard to determination of compensation under the
Motor Vehicles Act, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.7593 of 2022
[arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.28833 of 2019] in between
Manusha Sreekumar & Ors. v. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
decided on 17.10.2022, held that while determining compensation under the
Act, Section 168 of the Act makes it imperative to grant compensation that appears to be just. The Act, being a social welfare legislation, operates through economic conception in the form of compensation, which renders way to corrective justice. Compensation acts as a fulcrum to bring equality between the wrongdoer and the victim whenever the equality gets disturbed by the wrongdoer’s harm to the victim. It also endeavours to make good the human suffering to the extent possible. Adequate compensation is considered to be fair and equitable compensation. Courts shoulder the responsibility of deciding adequate compensation on a case-to-case basis. However, it is imperative for the
Courts to grant such compensation which has nexus to the actual loss.
21
A) i. To claim compensation under the heads of ‘injury’, ‘shock’, ‘pain’ and ‘suffering’, the petitioner, on the aspects of injuries and other allied matters, mainly pleaded that he was aged about 41 years at the time of accident and was hale and healthy prior to the accident. He further pleaded that in the said accident he sustained grievous injuries, namely polytrauma with blunt chest injury and blunt abdominal injury, multiple rib fractures with minimal hemopneumothorax, lung contusion, lung collapse, fractures and mandibular injuries. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to CMC Hospital,
Vellore, where first aid was given. Thereafter, he was treated at Sri Narayani
Hospital and Research Centre, Sripuram, Vellore. As his condition was serious, he was referred to higher institution and was shifted to Sree Ramadevi Multi
Super Specialty Hospital, Tirupati, where he took treatment as inpatient. It is further pleaded that again he was shifted to CMC Hospital, Vellore and took treatment as inpatient and outpatient. Due to the injuries, he pleaded that he became bedridden, was unable to attend even to his calls of nature without support, lost his income and became permanently disabled.
ii. In support of the above version, besides his own oral evidence as P.W.1, the petitioner relied on Ex.P3 wound certificate, Ex.P5 discharge summary issued by Sri Narayani Hospital and Research Centre, Vellore, Ex.P6 discharge summary and prescriptions issued by Super Specialty Hospital, Tirupati, Ex.P14 medical report issued by CMC Hospital, Vellore, Ex.P20 attested copy of IP record and Ex.P21 attested copy of outpatient record. The petitioner also examined P.W.3 Dr. B. Kishore, Medical Superintendent, Sree Ramadevi Multi
Super Specialty Hospital, Tirupati. P.W.3 deposed that on 09.02.2021 the petitioner/C. Shankar was admitted in their hospital with history of road traffic accident. At the time of admission, the petitioner was in drowsy but arousable condition with right side ICD chest tube in situ. He was diagnosed as a case of 22 road traffic accident with blunt injury chest, polytrauma, blunt abdomen injury, multiple rib fractures on right side with mild hemopneumothorax, right lung contusion with lung collapse, compound right tibia fracture middle one-third, compound wound right knee, fracture left para symphysis, fracture right ramus of mandible, fracture right mandible and fracture right femur. P.W.3 further deposed that the petitioner underwent ICU stay and medical management for chest and abdominal injuries. Surgical management for compound right tibia fracture by wound management and external fixation was done on 26.02.2021.
Surgical management for panfacial injury by open reduction and internal fixation with mini plates and screws was done on 04.03.2021. Surgery for right femur fracture by wound debridement and external fixation was done on 14.03.2021. The petitioner was discharged on 17.03.2021 and was advised strict bed rest for three months, not to stand, not to walk, medical management for four months, regular checkups and physiotherapy. P.W.3 also stated that the injuries sustained by the petitioner were grievous and might lead to permanent disability.
iii. The petitioner also examined P.W.4 Dr. D. Anil Kumar, Civil Surgeon, Head
Quarters Hospital, Chittoor. P.W.4 deposed that on 21.01.2023 the petitioner appeared before the Medical Board for issuing disability certificate. He stated that the Medical Board examined the petitioner in relation to the deformity suffered due to the road traffic accident and, after investigation and taking X- rays, assessed permanent disability at 45%. According to him, the disability relates to the right lower limb, impaired reach and post-traumatic sequel of limbs. He proved Ex. P15 disability certificate. In cross-examination, P.W.4 admitted that he did not bring the medical record connected with clinical tests or investigations and did not bring the X-ray films taken for assessing disability.
However, he denied the suggestion that Ex. P15 disability certificate was issued 23 under the influence of the petitioner or by showing excessive percentage, and he also denied the suggestion that the petitioner is not suffering from any disability.
iv. The petitioner further examined P.W.6 Dr. Syed Rehan Ullah Hussain Peeran,
Assistant Professor, CMC Vellore. P.W.6 deposed that on 27.08.2021 the petitioner was admitted in CMC, Ranipet Campus Hospital with injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. On examination, redness and swelling of the right eye were found. Surgery, namely placement of a covered stent across a direct right carotico-cavernous fistula, was done on 27.08.2021. Thereafter, the petitioner was given antiplatelet medication for six months and was discharged on 30.08.2021. P.W.6 also stated that the petitioner visited the hospital several times as outpatient and that the injury sustained by the petitioner to his right eye was grievous in nature. His evidence further supports the petitioner’s case that he sustained serious injuries in the accident and required continued treatment.
v. A perusal of Ex.P3 wound certificate, Ex.P5 discharge summary, Ex.P6 discharge summary and prescriptions, Ex.P14 medical report, Ex.P15 disability certificate, Ex.P20 IP record and Ex.P21 outpatient record, coupled with the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3, 4 and 6, shows that the petitioner sustained multiple grievous injuries, underwent ICU treatment, underwent surgeries and suffered permanent disability relating to the right lower limb. Though P.W.3 stated in cross-examination that the treatment was covered under Aarogya Sree and that he could not say the health condition of the petitioner after discharge as the petitioner did not visit their hospital for follow-up treatment, the said answers do not erase the fact that the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and underwent treatment. Similarly, though P.W.6 stated that the present eye condition of the petitioner is better and that he is not concerned with orthopaedic complaints, the same does not disprove the right eye injury and treatment spoken to by him.
24 vi. Even simple injuries cause pain and discomfort to a victim. Major injuries like fractures, chest injuries and facial injuries require more time for treatment and recovery. The shock, pain and suffering at the time of accident, pain, discomfort and inconvenience during the period of hospitalization, surgery, bed rest, follow-up treatment and physiotherapy can be visualized from the ordinary course of human experience. In the present case, the petitioner sustained multiple grievous injuries, underwent ICU treatment and surgeries and was advised strict bed rest and physiotherapy. Considering the nature of injuries,
the treatment undergone, the surgeries, the period of hospitalization and
the disability spoken to by P.W.4, this Tribunal is of the view that a sum of
Rs.2,00,000/- is just and reasonable under the heads of ‘injury’, ‘shock’,
‘pain’ and ‘suffering’.
B) i. In regard to compensation under the heads of hospital, medical, extra
nourishment, attendant, transport, incidental charges, future medical
expenses and other expenses, the petitioner pleaded in the claim petition and also deposed as P.W.1 that, after the accident, he was shifted to CMC Hospital,
Vellore, where first aid was given, thereafter he was treated at Sri Narayani
Hospital and Research Centre, Sripuram, Vellore, and later shifted to Sree
Ramadevi Multi Super Specialty Hospital, Tirupati, for better treatment as inpatient. He further pleaded that again he was shifted to CMC Hospital, Vellore and took treatment as inpatient and outpatient. He claimed that he spent about
Rs.10,00,000/- towards transportation, medicines, surgery, extra nourishment, attendant charges and other expenses. He also pleaded that he requires further amount of about Rs.5,00,000/- towards future surgery.
ii. In proof of medical expenditure, the petitioner produced Ex.P7 medical bills issued by Sri Narayani Hospital and Research Centre, Vellore, for Rs.43,316/-,
Ex.P8 medical bills issued by Apollo Pharmacy, Tirupati, for Rs.14,135/-, Ex.P9 25 ambulance service bill for Rs.12,100/-, Ex.P10 medical bills issued by S.G.
Surgicals, Tirupati, for Rs.5,150/-, Ex.P11 medical bills issued by Sri Ramadevi
Multi Super Specialty Hospital, Tirupati, for Rs.31,923.12 ps., Ex.P12 medical bills issued by Bawaa Pharmacy, Tirupati, for Rs.542.50 ps., Ex.P13 inpatient discharge bill issued by CMC, Vellore, for Rs.1,18,989/-, and Ex.P16 bunch of medical bills issued by CMC Hospital, Vellore, for Rs.2,37,720/-. P.W.7,
Medical Record Technician of Sri Narayani Hospital and Research Centre, proved Ex. P5 discharge summary and Ex. P7 medical bills and stated that the petitioner paid Rs.43,316/- to their hospital. P.W.3 spoke about Ex. P11 bills issued by Sree Ramadevi Multi Super Specialty Hospital. P.W.6 spoke about Ex.
P13 bills issued by CMC Hospital. The total of Exs.P7 to P13 and Ex. P16 comes to Rs.4,63,875.62 ps., rounded off to Rs.4,63,876/-.
iii. In cross-examination, P.W.3 admitted that the treatment of the petitioner was covered under Aarogya Sree scheme. However, he clarified that Ex. P11 medical bills were not covered under Aarogya Sree as they related to consumable products. P.W.6 admitted that in Ex. P13, the inpatient discharge bill shows total amount of Rs.1,18,989.65 ps., cash paid as Rs.1,50,000/- and refundable amount as Rs.31,010/-. Therefore, while considering Ex. P13, only the actual bill amount can be taken into account and not the refundable amount.
P.W.1 denied the suggestion that Ex. P13 is included in Ex. P16 and that he claimed the same separately. No evidence was adduced by respondent No.2 to prove duplication or fabrication of bills. Thus, on a careful scrutiny of the evidence, the medical bills to the extent of Rs.4,63,876/- are accepted.
iv. Further, after the accident, the petitioner was shifted to different hospitals at
Vellore and Tirupati and again took treatment at CMC Hospital. He underwent surgeries and follow-up treatment. Therefore, he must have incurred expenditure towards transportation, attendant charges, extra nourishment and 26 incidental expenses. Though the entire claim towards transportation and other expenses is not supported by separate documentary evidence, considering the seriousness of injuries, hospitalization, shifting between hospitals and follow-up treatment, this Tribunal awards Rs.50,000/- towards transport charges and
Rs.1,00,000/- towards extra nourishment, attendant and incidental charges.
v. In regard to future medical expenses, though the petitioner pleaded that doctors advised further surgery and that he would have to spend about
Rs.5,00,000/-, he did not produce any medical estimate or definite medical evidence to show that any particular future surgery is necessary or that any specified amount is required for such future treatment. Therefore, this Tribunal is not inclined to award any separate amount towards future medical expenses.
Thus, under the heads of hospital, medical, transport, extra nourishment,
attendant and incidental charges, the petitioner is entitled to Rs.6,13,876/-
and the same is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the
case.
C) i. As regards the claim under the head ‘loss of earnings’ past and present, the case of the petitioner is that he was doing vegetable business and earning not less than Rs.40,000/- per month. P.W.1 deposed that prior to the accident he was hale and healthy, doing vegetable business and earning not less than Rs.2,000/- per day and Rs.40,000/- per month. P.W.2 also stated that the petitioner was doing vegetable business for several years and earning Rs.2,000/- to Rs.3,000/- per day. In cross-examination, P.W.1 admitted that he is a vegetable vendor.
However, the petitioner did not file any documentary proof such as business licence, accounts, tax record or other income proof to establish that he was earning Rs.40,000/- per month. Therefore, the exact pleaded income cannot be accepted in full.
27 ii. Relating to fixation of income in the absence of salary or income proof, this
Tribunal relies on the principle laid down in Chandra Alias Chanda Alias
Chandraram and another v. Mukesh Kumar Yadav and others [(2022) 1
SCC 198], wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that in the absence of a salary income certificate, the minimum wages notification along with some amount of guesswork not completely detached from reality can act as a yardstick to determine income. In the present case, though the petitioner failed to prove his exact income by documentary evidence, his occupation as vegetable vendor is spoken to by P.W.1 and supported by P.W.2. There is no contra evidence to show that the petitioner had no avocation at all. Therefore, it is proper to assess his income on a reasonable basis.
iii. Having regard to the occupation of the petitioner as vegetable vendor and the
Procgs, No. A/251/2021, Dated: 02-08-2021Fixation of Minimum Rates of
Wages for the N.M.R.s/ Mazdoor workers engaged in Government Departments for the year 2021-2022 of Chittoor District, this Tribunal fixes his monthly income at Rs.13,000/-. The evidence relating to injuries and treatment has already been referred to supra. P.W.3 stated that the petitioner was advised strict bed rest for three months, not to stand, not to walk, medical management for four months, regular checkups and physiotherapy. Considering the nature of injuries, surgeries, bed rest and follow-up treatment, it is reasonable to believe that the petitioner was out of work for at least eight months. Therefore, by taking his monthly income at Rs.13,000/-, the loss of earnings for eight months comes to Rs.1,04,000/-. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.1,04,000/- is awarded as
compensation under the head of ‘loss of earnings’ past and present, which
is just and reasonable.
D) i. Coming to the claim under the heads ‘loss of earnings’ future and ‘loss of earning capacity’, the petitioner has to establish the disability suffered by him 28 and the effect of such disability on his earning capacity. In the present case, the petitioner relied on Ex. P15 disability certificate and the evidence of P.W.4 Dr.
D. Anil Kumar. P.W.4 stated that the petitioner was examined by the Medical
Board on 21.01.2023 and that he was found to have permanent disability at 45%. He stated that the disability relates to the right lower limb, impaired reach and post-traumatic sequel of limbs.
ii. In regard to the actual extent of permanent disability of the claimant based on medical evidence and to determine whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect his earning capacity, this Tribunal relies on the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and another [AIR Online 2010 SC 125], wherein it was held that all injuries or permanent disabilities arising from injuries do not result in loss of earning capacity; that the percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity; that the doctor who treated or examined the claimant can give evidence only regarding the extent of permanent disability; and that the loss of earning capacity has to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety. It was also held that the same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons depending upon the nature of profession, occupation, age, education and other factors.
iii. In the present case, the disability spoken to by P.W.4 and reflected in Ex.
P15 is 45% permanent disability relating to the right lower limb. It is not a certificate assessing whole body disability. P.W.4 admitted that he did not bring the medical record or X-ray films connected with the assessment of disability.
However, he denied the suggestion that Ex. P15 was issued under the influence of the petitioner or that the petitioner is not suffering from any disability. Thus,
Ex. P15 cannot be discarded. At the same time, the entire 45% medical 29 disability cannot be treated as functional disability or loss of earning capacity.
The petitioner’s avocation is that of a vegetable vendor. The work of a vegetable vendor involves standing, walking, moving with goods and attending day-to- day business. Therefore, disability affecting the right lower limb would certainly affect his earning capacity as a vegetable vendor. Considering the nature of work, nature of disability and the medical evidence in its entirety, this Tribunal assesses the functional disability affecting earning capacity at 20%.
iv. The age of the petitioner is stated as 41 years in the claim petition. In his deposition recorded in the year 2025, his age is mentioned as 43 years. P.W.5 stated that as per CMC record, the age of the injured was 51 years. However, no independent age proof was produced by respondent No.2 to show that the petitioner was aged 51 years as on the date of accident. Therefore, taking the pleadings and evidence as a whole, the petitioner is treated as falling within the age group of 41 to 45 years for the purpose of multiplier. As per Sarla Verma, the appropriate multiplier for the age group of 41 to 45 years is 14. The annual income of the petitioner, on the basis of monthly income of Rs.13,000/-, comes to Rs.1,56,000/-. As the petitioner is treated as a self-employed person, and as he falls within the age group of 40 to 50 years, 25% addition towards future prospects is applicable. On adding 25% towards future prospects, the annual income comes to Rs.1,95,000/-.
v. Hence, the compensation under the head of loss of earnings future and loss of earning capacity is determined by applying the multiplier method. The annual income with future prospects is Rs.1,95,000/-. By applying multiplier 14, the total comes to Rs.27,30,000/-. By applying 20% functional disability, the loss of future earning capacity comes to Rs.5,46,000/-. Accordingly, a sum of
Rs.5,46,000/- is awarded as compensation under the head of ‘loss of
30
earnings future’ and ‘loss of earning capacity’, and the same is just and
reasonable in the circumstances of the case.
E) As regards compensation under the head of ‘permanent partial disability’ and other allied heads, it is to be seen that the petitioner has sufficiently established by oral and documentary evidence that he suffered disability affecting his right lower limb. As already discussed, P.W.4 stated that the petitioner is having 45% permanent disability relating to right lower limb, impaired reach and post- traumatic sequel of limbs. P.W.2 also stated that after the accident the petitioner was not able to walk properly and was not doing business. Though the disability is not proved as whole body disability, it is certain that the disability interferes with his occupational and day-to-day activities, mobility, comfort and enjoyment of life. The nature of permanent partial disability has adversely affected the physical and functional capacity of the petitioner to some extent.
Hence, compensation in a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- is awarded under the group
of heads of ‘permanent partial disability, loss of prospects of life, loss of
amenities of life, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of opportunities of life, loss of expectation of life and social disability’.
F) i. From the discussion made above, the petitioner is entitled, in all, to compensation under the following heads:
(A) Compensation for ‘injury’, ‘shock’, ‘pain’ and ‘suffering’ Rs.2,00,000-00.
(B) Compensation for medical, hospital, extra nourishment, transport, attendant and incidental charges Rs.6,13,876-00.
(C) Compensation for ‘loss of earnings’ past and present Rs.1,04,000-00.
(D) Compensation for ‘loss of earning capacity’ and ‘loss of earnings’ future
Rs.5,46,000-00.
31 (E) Compensation under the group of heads of ‘permanent partial disability, loss of prospects of life, loss of amenities of life, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of opportunities of life, loss of expectation of life and social disability’
Rs.1,50,000-00.
The total compensation comes to Rs.16,13,876/-. The said amount is rounded off to Rs.16,14,000/-.
ii. In the facts and circumstances of the case and under the present law, the petitioner is entitled to the above compensation amount of Rs.16,14,000/-.
Accordingly, Issue No. ii is answered in favour of the petitioner and against
the respondents.
9.i. Further, in regard to quantum of interest upon the awarded amount, in a decision reported in Civil Appeal No.009014 of 2022 arising out of Special
Leave Petition (Civil) No.18808 of 2019 in between Smt. Anjali & Ors. Vs.
Lokendra Rathod & Ors., decided on 06.12.2022, the Hon’ble Apex Court
relied on Malarvizhi & Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
[(2020) 4 SCC 228] and awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum. In view of the said principle and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Tribunal is of the view that interest at the rate of 9% per annum can be awarded on the compensation amount from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
ii. Further, in regard to the power of the Tribunal to award just compensation, in a decision reported in (2013) 9 SCC 54 in between Rajesh Vs. Rajbir Singh, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the Claims Tribunal is competent to award compensation which should be just under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988. It was further held that there is no other restriction upon the competence of the Tribunal with regard to awarding compensation. It is 32 incumbent upon the Court to diligently award compensation in accident cases to the injured or to the dependants, so as to protect them from the hardship caused by discontinuance of income. The Hon’ble Apex Court further observed that - even if the report on accident does not lay a claim for damages, it is incumbent upon the Court to award compensation based upon the rule of assessment of damages. Hence, it is the duty of the Court to award just, equitable, fair and reasonable compensation. In the present case, on consideration of the entire evidence on record, this Tribunal has already held that the petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs.16,14,000/-.
10. Issue No. iv Answered: In the result, the petition is partly allowed with proportionate costs by granting the following reliefs:
i. The petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.16,14,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs
Fourteen Thousand only) towards compensation against respondent Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally.
ii. The petitioner is entitled to interest at 9% per annum on the awarded compensation amount from the date of petition, i.e., 10.05.2022, till the date of deposit.
iii. By virtue of the directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Parminder Singh
Vs. Honey Goyal and others (2025 INSC 361), the petitioner is directed to furnish self-attested copies of his bank account passbook, Aadhaar card and
PAN card, if any, within seven days to the insurance company/respondent No.2 under intimation to this Tribunal.
iv. On such furnishing of documents by the petitioner, respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the compensation amount with interest and costs, within one month, directly to the credit of the account of the petitioner under intimation to 33 this Tribunal with all details. The office is directed to make necessary entries in the concerned register without fail.
v. The petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire compensation amount along with accrued interest thereon and proportionate costs.
vi. If respondent No.2 fails to deposit the amount as directed above, the petitioner is at liberty to proceed against the respondents by way of execution proceedings.
vii. The petitioner is not entitled to any interest for the period during which the petition, if any, was dismissed for default and till it was restored.
viii. A decree shall be prepared after furnishing the bank account details of the petitioner, and a copy of this award shall be issued to the claimant only on remitting the deficit/balance court fee, if any.
ix. The petitioner’s Advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven
Thousand only).
Dictated to the Stenographer, directly typed by her in computer, corrected
and pronounced by me in open Tribunal, this the 5th day of May, 2026.
Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional District Judge, Chittoor.
Appendix Of Evidence
Witnesses Examined
For Petitioner:
P.W.1: C. Sankar, Petitioner/Injured. P.W.2: P. Manohar Reddy. P.W.3: Dr. B. Kishore, Medical Superintendent. P.W.4: Dr. D. Anil Kumar, Civil Surgeon. P.W.5: Dr. Shona Rachel Mathuram, Assistant Professor.
34
P.W.6: Dr. Syed Rehan Ullah Hussain Peeran, Assistant Professor. P.W.7: Ashok Kumar, Medical Technician.
For Respondents:
Nil.
Exhibits Marked
For Petitioner:
Ex.P1 is the certified copy of FIR in Crime No.24 of 2021 of Gudipala Police Station along with report. Ex.P2 is the certified copy of the charge sheet relating to Crime No.24 of 2021 of Gudipala Police Station. Ex.P3 is the certified copy of wound certificate of the petitioner relating to Crime No.24 of 2021 of Gudipala Police Station. Ex.P4 is the online copy of registration particulars of the crime vehicle bearing No.AP-03-TA-6498. Ex.P5 is the original discharge summary issued by Sri Narayani Hospital and Research Centre, Vellore, in the name of the petitioner. Ex.P6 is the original discharge summary and prescriptions issued by Super Specialty Hospital, Tirupati, in the name of the petitioner. Ex.P7 is the medical bills issued by Sri Narayani Hospital and Research Centre, Vellore, in the name of the petitioner for consolidated amount of Rs.43,316/-. Ex.P8 is the medical bills issued by Apollo Pharmacy, Tirupati, in the name of the petitioner for consolidated amount of Rs.14,135/-. Ex.P9 is the ambulance service bill issued in the name of the petitioner for Rs.12,100/-. Ex.P10 is the medical bills issued by S.G. Surgicals, Tirupati, for Rs.5,150/-. Ex.P11 is the medical bills issued by Sri Ramadevi Multi Super Specialty Hospital, Tirupati, in the name of the petitioner for Rs.31,923.12 ps. Ex.P12 is the medical bills issued by Bawaa Pharmacy, Tirupati, for Rs.542.50 ps. Ex.P13 is the inpatient discharge bill issued by CMC, Vellore, in the name of the petitioner for consolidated amount of Rs.1,18,989/-. Ex.P14 is the medical report issued by CMC Hospital, Vellore, in the name of the petitioner. Ex.P15 is the disability certificate issued by Medical Board, District Hospital, Chittoor, in the name of the petitioner. Ex.P16 is the bunch of medical bills issued by CMC Hospital, Vellore, for consolidated amount of Rs.2,37,720/-. Ex.P17 is the authorization letter issued by the Proprietor, Sri Ramadevi Multi Super Specialty Hospital, Tirupati, dated 26.05.2025.
35
Ex.P18 is the authorization letter dated 03.07.2025 issued by the Associate Professor and Incharge, Department of Trauma Surgery, CMC, Vellore. Ex.P19 is the authorization letter issued by the Professor and Head, Neuro Surgery Unit-III, CMC, Vellore, Ranipet Campus. Ex.P20 is the attested copy of IP record of the petitioner/C. Shankar, which includes discharge summary. Ex.P21 is the attested copy of outpatient record of the petitioner/C. Shankar. Ex.P22 is the authorization letter issued by Consultant Medical Department, Sri Narayani Hospital, Sripuram, Vellore, dated 15.10.2025.
For Respondent No.2:
Ex. R1: Attested copy of Insurance Policy.
Chairman, M.A.C.T.-cum-IX ADJ, Chittoor.
36