Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Jyothi Pratap vs Himachal Road on 27 February, 2026
1
Date of reserved for Judgment :21.11.2025
Date of Pronouncement :27.02.2026
Date of uploading :27.02.2026
APHC010630622012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3520]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 737/2012
Between:
1. JYOTHI PRATAP, S/O LATE DEVASAYAM CHRISTIAN, PREVIOUSLY
BUS DRIVER R/O HARIJANAWADA, PATHA KADAPA, KADAPA
DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
AND
1. M/S SREE MADAVI TRAVELS 3 OTHERS, K. JANARDHAN,
PURANIKA, FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN R/O D.NO. 19/100,
MADRASS ROAD, KADAPA
2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REP. BY ITS
DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE NAGARJUNAPETA,
KADAPA.
3. SMT J SOBHA RANI, W/O JAGADESWARA REDDY HINDU, OWNER
OF THE BUS NO. AP 04 U 3979 R/O DOOR NO. 11/6, NABIKOTA,
KADAPA
4. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REP. BY ITS
DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE DHOBIGHAT ROAD,
2
KADAPA
...RESPONDENT(S):
Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be
pleased to
IA NO: 1 OF 2012(MACMAMP 1571 OF 2012
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to
condone the delay of 13 days in resubmitting the MACMA SR No. 7066 of 2012
and pass
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. D KODANDARAMI REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GUDI SRINIVASU
2. T V P SAI VIHARI
3.
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2224/2012
Between:
1. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,, REP. BY ITS DIVIL.
MANAGER, DIVIL. OFFICE NAGARAJUPETA, KADAPA
...APPELLANT
AND
1. JYOTHI PRATAP 3 OTHERS, S/O LATE DEVASAYAM, CHRISTIAN,
PREVIOSULY BUS DRIVER, R/O HARIJANAWADA, PATHA
KADAPA,KADAPA DISTRICT.
2. M/S SREE MADAVI TRAVELS REP BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, K.
JANARDHAN, PURANIKA, FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN R/O D.NO.
19/100, MADRASS ROAD, KADAPA
3
3. SMT J SOBHA RANI, W/O JAGADESWARA REDDY HINDU, OWNER
OF THE BUS NO. AP 04 U 3979 R/O DOOR NO. 11/6, NABIKOTA,
KADAPA DISTRICT.
4. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REP. BY ITS
DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE DHOBIGHAT ROAD,
KADAPA
...RESPONDENT(S):
Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be
pleased toto allow the appeal.
IA NO: 1 OF 2012(MACMAMP 4058 OF 2012
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to
stay the execution of decree and Judgment passed in MVOP No. 528 of 2006
dt. 5-1-2012 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Cum
VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa, Pending the final disposal of the main
appeal and pass
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. T V P SAI VIHARI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. D KODANDARAMI REDDY
2. GUDI SRINIVASU
The Court made the following:
4
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
M.A.C.M.A.Nos.737 and 2224 of 2012
COMMON JUDGMENT:
Introductory:
1. Claimant in M.V.O.P.No.528 of 2006 on the file of Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal-cum-Family Court-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa
(for short “the learned MACT”) filed M.A.C.M.A.No.737 of 2012 and
Respondent No.2 (the New India Assurance Company Limited) before the
learned MACT filed M.A.C.M.A.No.2224 of 2012.
2. The petitioner/claimant i.e. Jyothi Pratap, filed a claim petition under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of
Rs.8,00,000/- for the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that
occurred on 18.08.2005.
3. The learned MACT partly allowed the claim and awarded a total
compensation of Rs.2,53,600/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, while
dismissing the claim against respondent Nos.3 and 4.
4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/claimant preferred
M.A.C.M.A.No.737 of 2012 contending inadequacy of compensation, while
respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed appeal i.e. M.A.C.M.A.No.2224 of
2012 disputing liability and challenging the quantum of compensation.
5
5. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as the
claimant and the respondents as and how they are arrayed before the learned
MACT.
Case of the Claimant:
6(i). The claimant, working as a driver of a bus bearing No.AP 04 U 3979
under respondent No.3 and was earning Rs.3,000/- salary per month and
Rs.60/- per trip towards batta. The claimant used to drive bus owned by
Respondent No.3 for 15 nights in a month from Kadapa to Hyderabad and vice
versa and he was earning Rs.3,900/- per month.
(ii). While the claimant was driving the bus of respondent No.3 from
Hyderabad to Kadapa on the night of 17.08.2005, when he reached the
195 KM stone on Hyderabad to Kurnool Highway at about 02:00 a.m. on
18.08.2005, a Volvo bus bearing No.AP 04 U 9090 (hereinafter referred to as
“the offending vehicle”) driven by respondent No.1, came in the opposite
direction and dashed the bus driven by the claimant and the accident occurred.
As a result, the glasses of both the vehicles broken and the broken glass
pieces pierced into the eye of the petitioner. The passengers of both vehicles
also sustained grievous injuries. Soon after the accident, the petitioner was
shifted to Government General Hospital, Kurnool and after initial treatment, he
was shifted to Sarojini Devi Eye Hospital, Hyderabad, where he took treatment
from 18.08.2005 to 27.08.2005 as an inpatient, during which his left eye was
operated upon. Thereafter, he joined Medivision Eye and Health Care
6
Hospital, Hyderabad, wherein he took treatment for one month as an inpatient
and second surgery was conducted.
(iii). The petitioner/claimant sustained grievous injuries resulting in total loss
of vision in the left eye. He has incurred huge expenditure towards medicines,
treatment, transport, attendant charges and extra-nourishment etc.
(iv). Due to the accident, the petitioner became disabled and is unable to
work as a driver. He was a skilled worker prior to the accident and the disability
is permanent in nature. Charge sheet was laid against the driver employed by
respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 is the insurer. Respondent No.3 was the
owner of the bus which the claimant was driving. Respondent No.4 was the
Insurance Company with which the said vehicle was insured. The petitioner is
entitled for just and reasonable compensation from all the respondents.
7. Respondent No.3 remained ex parte. Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 filed
their written statements.
Case of Respondent No.1:
8(i). The offending vehicle was entrusted to a driver who possessed a proper
and valid driving licence.
(ii). The allegation of negligence on the part of the driver employed by
respondent No.1 is not correct.
(iii). Respondent No.2 issued an insurance policy covering the period
between 24.05.2005 to 23.05.2006, which covers the accident dated
18.08.2005. Therefore, the liability, if any, shall be on respondent No.2:
7
Case of Respondent No.2:
9(i). Pleaded accident, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle,
nature of injuries sustained by the claimant and the effect thereof, including
causing disability by the claimant shall be proved.
(ii). Negligence of the claimant in driving the vehicle cannot be ignored. The
disability pleaded, age, occupation, income of the claimant and loss of income,
if any, shall be proved with proper evidence.
(iii). In any event, the quantum of compensation claimed is excessive.
Case of Respondent No.4:
10(i). The petitioner shall prove the manner of accident, age, occupation
income, disability etc., the contention of the petitioner/claimant suggest that
there was no negligence on his part and that the charge sheet was laid against
the driver employed by respondent No.1.
(ii). The negligence, if any, is on the part of the driver of respondent No.1.
Respondent No.4 is not liable to pay any compensation.
(iii). In any event, the claimant shall prove all the facts necessary for his
entitlement for compensation and the liability of respondent No.4.
11. Learned MACT considering the evidence of the claimant as P.W.1,
evidence of Doctors as P.Ws.2 and 3 and the evidence of P.W.4, Motor Vehicle
Inspector and P.W.5, Junior Assistant, Deputy Commissioner of Transport
office, Kadapa along with Exs.A1 to A11 and Exs.X1 to X3, allowed the claim in
8
part awarding a compensation of Rs.2,53,600/- payable by Respondent Nos.1
and 2.
Arguments in the appeals:
For the claimant:
12(i). The quantum of compensation awarded is inadequate.
(ii). The learned MACT erred in taking disability at only 30%. When there is
total loss of vision in the left eye and loss of earning capacity should have been
considered at 100%.
For Respondent No.2 / Insurance Company:
13. Charge sheet is not the total basis. The claimant stated before the
Criminal Court that he could not identify the driver of the vehicle, which
amounts to false evidence. Owner and Insurance Company of the vehicle in
which the claimant was engaged are liable under Workmen‟s Compensation
Act. But, the liability was imposed on the respondent Nos.1 and 2 without any
basis.
14. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 submitted that respondent No.4 is
not liable to pay compensation and that the learned MACT has rightly
dismissed the claim against respondent No.4
15. Extensive arguments are submitted by both sides reiterating their
respective contentions.
9
16. Points that arise for determination in these appeals are:
1) Whether the pleaded accident, negligence of the driver of the
offending vehicle bearing No.AP 04 U 9090, the claimant sustaining
injuries in the pleaded accident and the effect thereof are properly placed
by the claimant and whether the findings of the learned MACT as to
negligence, entitlement of the claimant for compensation and
quantification thereof are sustainable in law and on facts or whether any
interference is necessary, and if so, to what extent and on what grounds?
2) What is the result of the appeal in M.A.C.M.A.No.2224 of 2012?
3) What is the result of the appeal in M.A.C.M.A.No.737 of 2012?
Point No.1:
Accident and negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle:
Statutory Guidance:
17(i). It is relevant to note that the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 are
applicable in deciding the cases by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals and they
are made in exercise of powers conferred under Section 176 of the Motor
Vehicles Act which reads as follows:
176. Power of State Government to make rules.–A State
Government may make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect
the provisions of sections 165 to 174, and in particular, such rules
may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:–
10
(a) the form of application for claims for compensation and the
particulars it may contain, and the fees, if any, to be paid in respect
of such applications;
(b) the procedure to be followed by a Claims Tribunal in holding
an inquiry under this Chapter;
(c) the powers vested in a Civil Court which may be exercised by
a Claims Tribunal;
(d) the form and the manner in which and the fees (if any) on
payment of which an appeal may be preferred against an award of
a Claims Tribunal; and
(e) any other matter which is to be, or may be, prescribed.
(ii). Chapter „11‟ of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 commencing from
Rule 455 to Rule 476A deals with the powers of the Tribunal and all other allied
aspects like form of application, registration, notice to parties, appearance and
examination of parties, local inspection, summary examination of parties,
method of recording evidence, adjournments, framing and determination of
issues, judgments and enforcements of awards, Court fee relating to claim
petitions applicability of Civil Procedure Code and the application for claim
basis to award the claim by the claims tribunal. Rule 476 of the A.P. Motor
Vehicles Rules, 1989 reads as follows:
Rule 476: Application for claim :-
(7) Basis to award the claim :- The Claims Tribunal shall
proceed to award the claim on the basis of;-
(i) Registration Certificate of the Motor Vehicle involved in
the accident;
11
(ii) Insurance Certificate or Policy relating to the
insurance of the Motor Vehicle against the Third party
risk;
(iii) Copy of First Information Report;
(iv) Post-mortem certificate or certificate of inquiry from
the Medical Officer; and
(v) The nature of the treatment given by the Medical
Officer who has examined the victim.
(7A) Specification of amount of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal to each victim:- Where compensation is awarded to
two or more persons, the Claims Tribunal shall also specify the
amount payable to each of them.
18. As per Rule 476 of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, the crime record
can be the basis. 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.
19. 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
12
to establish is preponderance of probability only. The legal position to this
extent is settled and consistent.
Precedential Guidance:
20. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road
Transport Corporation1, 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 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..”
Analysis and Evidence:
21(i). As per Ex.A1-FIR, the accused is shown as one D. Vijaya Kumar, driver
of the offending vehicle. Under Ex.A3, charge sheet was laid against the said
D. Vijaya Kumar.
(ii). Claimant is an injured eye witness. Evidence of claimant as P.W.1 is
clear and categorical as to the rash and negligent driving of the offending
vehicles and the effect of injuries as to broken glass pieces pierced into his left
eye and also regarding the treatment undergone by him at various hospitals.
(iii). It is relevant to note that there is no evidence was placed by the
respondents in any form. Therefore, in the light of evidence of P.W.1, who is
1
2009 (13) SCC 530
13an eyewitness to the accident, coupled with the entries in Ex.A1-FIR and
Ex.A2-Wound Certificate, the irresistible conclusion can be addressed that the
accident and negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle are shown.
(iv). Violations of policy conditions by respondent No.1 were neither pleaded
in categorical terms nor proved with any semblance of evidence.
(v). It appears that much effort was putting as to the driving licence
particulars of the claimant etc.
22. Evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5 related to the driving licence aspects of the
claimant. P.W.4-Motor Vehicle Inspector stated that he does not have any
knowledge as to whether the claimant / Jyothi Pratap continued as a driver
after the accident and whether he applied for licence or not and during cross
examination he has stated that Ex.A10 is the copy of driving licence of P.W.1.
Evidence of P.W.5 is also relating to the driving licence of Jyothi Pratap, who is
the claimant.
23. Respondent No.2, for avoiding liability, can take the defence of absence
of a valid driving licence to the driver of the vehicle insured with respondent
No.2. The driving licence particulars of the claimant have nothing to do with the
violations aspect. Therefore, the driving licence of the claimant will not have
any effect on the liability of respondent no.2.
24. Respondent No.2 / Insurance Company, which is the appellant in
M.A.C.M.A.No.2224 of 2012, would argue that the claimant failed to identify the
driver of the offending vehicle in the criminal case. Therefore, his evidence is
14
not creditworthy. But, neither the judgment of the said Criminal Court nor the
evidence of the claimant in the criminal case are placed before the Court. Even
otherwise, the excuse that the evidence of claimant in Criminal Court is
different and found as not an important merit and the said objection is found fit
to be ignored.
Quantification of compensation:
Precedential Guidance:
25. A reference to parameters, for quantifying the compensation under
various heads, addressed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court is found necessary, to
have standard base in the process of quantifying the compensation, to which
the claimant is entitled.
(i) With regard to awarding just and reasonable quantum of
compensation, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Baby Sakshi Greola vs.
Manzoor Ahmad Simon and Anr.2, 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.3, referred to
various heads under which, compensation can be awarded, in injuries cases
vide paragraph No.52, the heads are as follows:-
2
2025 AIAR (Civil) 1
3
2020 (04) SCC 413
15S. 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.,4 vide para No.10, by
referring to Sunil Kumar Vs. Ram Singh Gaud5,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 Corporation6, as to
fixing of quantum of compensation with liberal approach, valuing the life and
limb of individual in generous scale, in para 17 observed that :-
“The High Court and the Tribunal must realize that there is a distinction between
compensation and damage. The expression compensation may include a claim for
damage but compensation is more comprehensive. Normally damages are given for
an injury which is suffered, whereas compensation stands on a slightly higher footing.
It is given for the atonement of injury caused and the intention behind grant of
compensation is to put back the injured party as far as possible in the same position,
as if the injury has not taken place, by way of grant of pecuniary relief. Thus, in the
matter of computation of compensation, the approach will be slightly more broad
based than what is done in the matter of assessment of damages. At the same time it4
2010(10)SCC 341
5
2007 (14) SCC 61
6
1992(2) SCC 567
16is true that there cannot be any rigid or mathematical precision in the matter of
determination of compensation.”
(iii). In Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another7, the Hon‟ble Apex
Court summarized principles to be followed in the process of quantifying the
compensation after referring to socio economic and practical aspects from
which, the claimants come and the practical difficulties, the parties may face in
the process of getting disability assessed and getting all certificates from either
the Doctors, who treated, or from the medical boards etc. principles
summarized vide para No.19 are as follows:
19. We may now summarise the principles discussed above:
(i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do
not result in loss of earning capacity.
(ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the
whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage
of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of
loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of
permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on
the basis of evidence, concludes that the percentage of loss of
earning capacity is the same as the percentage of permanent
disability).
(iii) The doctor who treated an injured claimant or who examined
him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability
can give 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,7
2011 (1) SCC 343
17depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age,
education and other factors.
(iv) In Sidram vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr.8
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.9. 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.
Evidence and analysis:
26. The claimant, as P.W.1, stated about the injuries and the treatment
undergone by him at Government General Hospital, Kurnool; Sarojini Devi Eye
Hospital, Hyderabad; Medivision Eye and Health Care Hospital, Hyderabad and
8
2023 (3) SCC 439
9
1995 (1) SCC 551
18also with Dr. Ravikumar Reddy, Eye Specialist, Hyderabad. He added that he
became 50% blind and lost total vision in the left eye. He incurred huge
expenditure at Rs.37,000/- towards medicines. He has lost certain bills apart
from his medical expenditure. He also incurred expenditure towards
transportation, attendant charges and extra nourishment etc.
27. P.W.2 / Dr.K.N. Sree Kavitha, Assistant Professor in Ophthamology at
Sarojini Devi Hospital, deposed that the claimant was admitted on 18.08.2005
with ruptured left eye with scleral tear and uveal tissue prolapsed. Emergency
wound repair was done under anesthesia. He was admitted in the cornea
department and discharged on 27.08.2005. The claimant lost total eyesight in
the left eye. The eyeball became small and disorganized.
Discharge Summary-Ex.A5 was issued by Sarojini Devi Eye Hospital,
Hyderabad. During cross-examination it is elicited that the right eye is normal.
28. P.W.3 / Dr. K. Ravi Kumar Reddy, Medical Superintendent, stated that
there was vitreous hemorrhage and treatment was given for absorption of blood
in the eye.
29. On 27.09.2005, the petitioner visited the hospital with the complaint of
defective vision in the right eye. The petitioner‟s vision in the right eye
improved. Nothing important could be elicited during cross examination except
that the disability is 30% and the same is permanent. It is also elicited that
I.V. injections were administered to the claimant.
19
30. Claimant was driver by profession and the other documentary evidence
relied by the claimant includes Ex.A7-hospital record / treatment cards and
prescription; Ex.A8-Medical Bills, Ex.A9 is the prescription issued by Dr.
Pradeep Kumar. Ex.A11 is the certificate for the blind issued by the Medical
Board showing disability shown at 30% and Ex.X1 is the case sheet
corroborating the evidence of the petitioner as to treatment undergone.
Employment, income, disability and loss of income:
31. Claimant was working as a driver as on the date of the accident i.e.
18.08.2005. Upon considering the socio economic circumstances of the year
2005, the income claimed by the petitioner at Rs.3,900/- per month is found
reasonable. Considering the socio economic circumstances of the year 2005,
the petitioner, aged 36 years and in private employment, 30% towards progress
in income can be safely accepted by rounding the monthly income at to
Rs.4,000/- per month. Then the income of the petitioner can be taken at
Rs.5,200/- per month and Rs.62,400/- per annum.
32. Petitioner cannot work as a driver. However, the disability is shown at
30% and he can opt for other employment. The functional disability of the
petitioner as a driver is 100%. His ability to do other work is a mitigating
circumstance. However, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, that
cannot be the sole basis.
33(i). In this context, this court find it proper to refer observations of the
Hon‟ble Apex Court in Gurdev Singh vs. Reliance General Insurance
20
Company Limited and others10, wherein 30% visual disability assessed by
the Medical Board in respect of claimant who was a driver was treated as 100%
functional disability. Paragraph 5 of the Judgment reads as follows:
5. Insofar as the assessment of the disability, we note that the
МАСТ, on taking into consideration all aspects of the matter
including the disability certificate and the avocation of the appellant,
has recorded its finding in para 24 as follows:
“(24) That, the disability certificate, issued by the Medical
Board of Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital, Delhi and as
per disability certificate, there is 30 per cent permanent
visual impairment disability in relation to his left eye and
because of the grievous injuries sustained by the petitioner
in the road accident and due to said disability, he is not
able to work. The petitioner-injured was a professional
driver at the time of accident and was driving the heavy
goods vehicle and was also having valid DL, therefore, in
the given facts and circumstances, he is unable to drive
any heavy vehicle in future because of disability and this
Tribunal is of the considered view that there is 100 per
cent permanent functional disability of the petitioner.”
(ii). In paragraphs 7 and 8 of the same judgment (10 supra), while finding
fault with the assessment of the High Court in abruptly reducing the disability to
not more than 30%, the Hon‟ble Apex Court observed that the functional
disability can be reckoned at 100%.
34. Therefore, the disability of the petitioner/claimant can be taken at 100%
and the loss of income to the claimant can be taken at Rs.5,200/- per month
and Rs.62,400/- per annum. The multiplier applicable for the age group of „36‟
10
2023 ACJ 1255
21
years is „15‟. Therefore, under the head of the permanent disability, the
entitlement of claimant for compensation at Rs.9,36,000/- (Rs.62,400/- x 15).
35. In the light of the precedential guidance and in view of the reasons and
evidence referred above, the entitlement of the claimant for reasonable
compensation in comparison to the compensation awarded by the learned
MACT is found as follows:
Sl. Head Granted by the Fixed by this
No. learned MACT Appellate Court
1. Pain and suffering Rs.13,000/- Rs.50,000/-
2. (a)Transportation Rs.25,000/-
(b)Medical expenditure Rs.50,000/-
/treatment Rs.30,000/-
(c)Extra nourishment Rs.15,000/-
(d)Attendant charges / Rs.15,000/-
assistance
3. Loss of income / earnings -Nil- Rs.15,000/-
during the period of
hospitalization etc.
4. Permanent disability Rs.2,10,600/- Rs.9,36,000/-
5. Loss of amenities of life -Nil- Rs.15,000/-
6. Future Treatment -Nil- Rs.15,000/-
Total: Rs.2,53,600/- Rs.11,36,000/-
36. For the reasons aforesaid and in view of the discussion made above, the
findings of the learned MACT fixing the liability on respondent Nos.1 and 2 are
found sustainable. But with regard to quantum of compensation awarded, this
22
Court is of the view that claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.11,36,000/-
with interest at the rate of 6% per annum and the order and decree dated
05.01.2012 passed by the learned MACT in M.V.O.P.No.528 of 2006 require
modification accordingly. The point framed is answered accordingly.
Granting of more compensation than what claimed, if the claimant is
otherwise entitled:-
37. The legal position with regard to awarding more compensation than what
claimed has been considered and settled by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court
holding that there is no bar for awarding more compensation than what is
claimed. For the said preposition of law, this Court finds it proper to refer the
following observations of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court made in:
(1) Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and Others11, at para 21 of the
judgment, that –
“..there is no restriction that the Tribunal/Court cannot award compensation
amount exceeding the claimed amount. The function of the Tribunal/Court
is to award “just” compensation, which is reasonable on the basis of
evidence produced on record.”
(2) Kajal Vs. Jagadish Chand and Ors.12 at para 33 of the judgment, as
follows:-
“33. We are aware that the amount awarded by us is more than the amount
claimed. However, it is well settled law that in the motor accident claim
petitions, the Court must award the just compensation and, in case, the just11
(2003) 2 SCC 274
12
2020 (04) SCC 413
23compensation is more than the amount claimed, that must be awarded
especially where the claimant is a minor.”
(3) Ramla and Others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and
Others13 at para 5 of the judgment, as follows:-
“5. Though the claimants had claimed a total compensation of Rs 25,00,000
in their claim petition filed before the Tribunal, we feel that the
compensation which the claimants are entitled to is higher than the same as
mentioned supra. There is no restriction that the Court cannot award
compensation exceeding the claimed amount, since the function of the
Tribunal or Court under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is to
award “just compensation”. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial and
welfare legislation. A “just compensation” is one which is reasonable on the
basis of evidence produced on record. It cannot be said to have become
time-barred. Further, there is no need for a new cause of action to claim an
enhanced amount. The courts are duty-bound to award just compensation.”
Point No.2:
38(i). In view of the discussion and conclusions drawn under point No.1, the
appeal filed by the Insurance Company vide M.A.C.M.A.No.2224 of 2012 is
liable to be dismissed.
(ii). In the result, M.A.C.M.A.No.2224 of 2012 is dismissed. There shall be
no order as to costs.
Point No.3:
39. In the result, the appeal filed by the claimant vide M.A.C.M.A.No.737 of
2012 is allowed as follows:
13
(2019) 2 SCC 192
24
(i) Compensation awarded by the learned MACT in M.V.O.P.No.528 of
2006 at Rs.2,53,600/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum is
modified and enhanced to Rs.11,06,000/- with interest at the rate of
6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.
(ii) Claimant is liable to pay the Court fee for the enhanced part of the
compensation, before the learned MACT.
(iii) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 before the learned MACT are liable to pay
the compensation.
(iv) Time for payment /deposit of the balance amount is two months.
(a) If the claimant furnishes the bank account number within 15 days
from today, respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall deposit the amount
directly into the bank account of the claimant and file the
necessary proof before the learned MACT.
(b) If the claimant fails to comply iv(a) above, respondent Nos.1
and 2 shall deposit the amount before the learned MACT and the
claimant is entitled to withdraw the amount at once on deposit.
(v) There shall be no order as to costs, in the appeal.
40. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these appeals
shall stand closed.
____________________________
A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J
Date:27.02.2026
Knr
25
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
M.A.C.M.A.Nos.737 and 2224 of 2012
27.02.2026
Knr