The High Court · 2025

Judgment

These two appeals are being disposed of L , this common judgment since M.A.C.M.A,No.260 of 2O2O filed ry the injured, seeking enhancement of the compensation and M. a C.M.A.No.2g of 2O2O ltled b-y the lnsurance Company, are directec rgainst t]rc very same order and decree, dated O2.O7.2()1t , perssecl in M.V.O.P.No.156 of 2016 on the file of the t.r clitional Motor Accident Clairns Tribunal-cum_l Additional Distr;< and Sessions Judge, Adilabad (for short .the Tribunal,,).

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties rv I be hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed bcfore the learned lr 5unal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the 1,t ritioner filed a claim-petition under Section 166 (1) (a) of Motor Vt, icles Act, lggg read with Rule 455 of Andhra pradesh Motor Veh:r e Rules, I9g9, claiming compensatron of Rs.6,OO,O0O/- for the rr; rries sustained by her in a road accident, which occurred on 1)lt )6.2015. It is stated that on 23.06.2015, while the petitioner, long with one Alwala Bapu Rao @ Babu Rao, was proceeding on motorcycle bearing No.AP, 1-A-9689 from Kagaznagar towzll ( s Asifabad for attending labour work and when they reached KiL aznagar Cross ENNR, J Nlacmas-28 and, 260 -2020 2 Road. the rider of motorcycle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and lost control over the molorcycle, due to which the petitioner fell down and sustained (1) degloving injury to lett foot; (2) crush injury to left hand; (3) comminuted fracture ol left 3.d finger; (4) fracture of left Glenoid; (5) fracture of I to 4 left ribs arrd (6) head injury apart from other injuries all over the body lt is further stated that immediately after the accident, the petitioner was shifted to Government Hospital, Bellampalti and obtained hrst aid and from there she was shiftedtoFortuneMedicareHospital'Karimnagarforbetter treatment, where she und'erwent surgical operation ald implants wercinsertedoverthefractureinjuries.Duringthecourseof treatment, the petitioner undergone several tests' examination and X-rays and she was discharged from the above hospital with an advice to take complete bed rest and follow up treatment and she spent Rs.4,50,O00/- towards medical expenses'

4. Basing on a complaint' the Police' Rebbena' registered a case inCrimeNo.2lof2015againsttherideroftheMotorcycle,forthe offence punishabte under Section 338 of I P C' It is further stated that the petitioner was hale and healthy 5. and aged about 45 years and was earning Rs'8'0OO/- per month by doing labour work. Due to the aforesaid injuries sustained by her' \ 3 NNR,.I \ , mas 28 and 260 2O2O she was una ble to sit and stand properly and u I rble to at tend her daily activities easily. Due to the injuries she r; fferr:d lot of pain both mentalll. and physically. Hence, she filed he cl4im petition against the respondents, who are the rider_cunr r !\.ner ancl insurer of the motorcycle.

6. Respondent No_1-rider-cum_owner the motorcycle remained ex porte.

7. Respondent No.2-United India Insuranc(. ( ompany Limited, filed counter denying the avermcnts made in tl-rc r aim_petition and also specially denied the involvement of the offt r drng vehicle, the manner in r,r,hich the accident took place, injuries sustained by the petitioner, treatment undergone by her and the expenditure incurred by her. It is specificalry contended thr the rider of the motorcycle was not having valid driving licenct: z.- thc time of the accident, as such, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation and prayed to dismiss the claim-pr.t tion.

8. Basing on the above pleadings, the learne:l .l.ribunal the following issues:- framed

1. WheLher the accident took place ir:; alleged by the petitioner on 23.06.2015 while the peli i ,nr:r along with respondent No. 1 was proceeding on rn: orcycle bearing No.AP-1-A-9689 from Kagaznagar towards l rilzrbad to attend -- 4 NNR, J Macmas 28 aod 26OJO2O Iabour work and at about 9 a.m. when they reached at Kagaznagar X-road, all of sudden the respondent No.1/rider of motorcycle drove the motorcycle in rash and negligent manner with high speed and lost control over it and fell dorvn on the ground due to which the petitioner sustained injuries, or whether there was any contributory negligence on the part of the Petitioner?

2. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries? If so, whether it leads to disability as alleged?

3. Whether the motorcycle bearing No.AP- l-A-9689 was stood insured with respondent No.2/Insurance Compaly? And if so, does the policy cover the risk of petitioner and if so, was there any breach of policy conditions by the owner/ respondent No. 2?

4. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation? If so, what is the quantum and against whom?

5. To what relieP 9 Having heard both sides, the learned Tribunal has recasted the issues and framed the following issues:- 1 . Whether the accident dated 23.06.2O 15 was due to the rash and negligent driving of Motorcycle bearing No'AP-O 1 - A-g6ag and the said accident resulted in injuries to the petitioner?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation' if so' to what amount and from whom? (

3. To rvhat relieP 5 NNR, J Maclr s lB and 260_2020

10. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the clarrn I rt. P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.Al to 14 were marked, -r behalf of the respondents, R.W. 1 was examined and Exs.Ei artrl 82 were marked. I l. Alter considering the contents of the claim I :tition, counter hled by the insurance company and evaluatir! thc oral and documentary evidence produced by the petition' , rlre Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and r :gligen t <lriving of the rider of the motorcycle and allowed the M \. ).p in part and granted compensation of Rs.3,84,O00/- togethe,r r-ith costs and interest at 7 .Soh per annum from the date of petiri ) r rill the date of realization pavable by the respondents jointly an<i s .verally.

12. Being aggrieved by the said quantum of c() tpensation and liability, the petitioner filed M.A.C.M.A.No.260 t 2O,).O seeking enhancement of compensation on the following grr L nds:- (i) that the learned Tribunal, without considr .ing the income of the petitioner and t-he injuries sustained by l-rc had awarded meager amount of compensation. 6 NNR"J illacmas 28 ar,d 260 2O2O (ii) that the learned Tribunal did not consider the evidence placed by the petitioner with regard to the disability sustained by her. (iii) that the learned Tribunal awarded meager amounts under the heads of transportation, medical expenses, extra nourishment, incidental expenses, pain and sufferance and prayed to allow the appeal i3. Aggrieved by the liability imposed on it, respondent No 2- insurance company also prefe rred M.A.C.M.A.No.28 of 2O2O on the following grounds: - (i) that the accident occurred clue to the negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle and the petitioner being the pillion rider is not covered under Ex.Bl and Ex'A6 i'e, insurance policy and inspite of there being no liability, the learned Tribunal had imposed liability on the insurance company ignoring the fact that Ex.B 1 is an Act policy and the insurance company is not required to cover any risk of the pillion rider' (ii) -that the learned Tribunal ought to have restricted the award against respondent No. 1-rider-cum-owner of the motorcycle and so also the learned Tribunal has taken the income of the without any basis and awarded injured at Rs.4,500/- 7 NNR. .I Rs.3,OO,O00/ towards medical expenses without herc beirrg any medical record or proof and Ex.A4 is not reliable ( )cument in the absence o[ corresponding bills with regard to the t,: 1.ment made by petitioncr ancl the learned Tribunal ought nol rr hal.e ar,varded Rs.3,8a,000/ wirh interest and prayed to dismis; b_v allowing the M.A.C.M.A.No. 28 of 2O2O.

14. Respondent No. 1-rider-cum-owner of the rnc orcycle did not choose to contest the appeals.

15. Having heard Mr.S.Surender Reddy, learnerl counsel for the appellant in M.A.C.M.A.No.26O of 2O2O and S.- Srinivasa Rao Vutla, learned Standing Counsel for the insuran< r compalv i.e., appellant in M.A.C.M.A.No.28 of 2O2O and perusu r of the material on record, tl-re following points that arose for consi I 'ration. (1) Whether the petitioner has made ouI an,,r.alicl ground to enhance the compensation? (2) Whether the insurance company has macle out any ground to interfere with the order passed by thc I arned Tribunal with regard to the liability imposed on it?

16.Point No.2 relate s to liability of insurance crl4p44E: ENNR, J luacmas 28 and. 260 2O2O B The main grievance ol the learned Standing Counsel for the insurance company, appellant in M.A.C.M.A.No.2B of 2020 is that Ex.B1-policy being an Act policy and not being the comprehensive package policy, the petitioner being the pillion rider is not covered under the said Act policy.

77. Admittedly, the petitioner was pillion rider and it is sell made accident committed by the rider of the motorcycle. It is not disputed and it is clearly established by lr'ay o[ the evidence that the accident occurred only due to the rider of the motorcycle as he drove the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner at highspeed and lost control, thereby the petitioner fell dorvn and sustained injuries. It is not the case of the petitioner rvith regard to the involvement of another vehicle in the present case. In view of the accident being self made accident, the only issue which has to be considered in the present case is whether the liabiliry can be imposed upon the insurance company.

18. Admittedly, as per Ex.Bl-policy the said motorcycle was insured with respondent No.2 uide policy bearing No.0519823115P102388582 valid frorn 02.06.2O 15 to 01'O6 2016 and the said policy was subsisting as on the date of accident which occurred on 23.06.2015. On perusal of the said policy, premium of ^\ Rs.588/- is paid and it appears to be coverage of third party- Since 9 NNR, J l"l, ( nas 28 and 260 2O2O the said policy is only in respect of third party, tt' r qltestion $'hich arose whether the pillion rider carr be treated as I ird parly.

19. In vieu, of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apr; Court in United India Insurqnce Co. Ltd., Sim'la a. Tilak S,t gh and othersl u,hercin the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that t re pillion rider is not covered in the Act Policy and the Insuraftr Companf is not liable to pay compensation to the pillion rider.

20. In vieq' ol the judgment of the Apex Cou- , this Court is o[ the opinion that the insurance company is not liable to pay thc compensation when it is a case of self negligencrr rn the part ol thc rider of thc motorcycle and the pillion rider l:ing not covered under the Act policy. Accordingly, this point is ,: rs',vcred in favour o[ thc appellant in M.A.C.M.A.No.28 of 2O2O.

21. Point No.1 relates to the enhancement of r ompensation:- Coming to the aspect of enhancement o :ompensation, as per the petitioner, who is said to be a labour: and the learnerl Tribunal relving upon the judgment of the Holr rle Apex Court in Ramachand.rappa us. Manager, F,a.gol SL,.: daram Alliance Insurance Conpang Linite& had considerec -he rncome o[ the injured at Rs.4,5O0/- per month but in view oi c e judgment of the ' (2006) 4 scc 404 'z lzorr; r: scc z:o E 10 NNR' J Nlacmas 2tl and 260 2O'2O Hontrle Apex Court in Syed Sadiq a. United India Insurance Co. !td.3, additional Rs.500/- has to be increased for every year in respect of the notional income. In the present case, the accident occurred on 23.06.2015, therefore, the monthly income of the petitioner ought to have been taken at Rs.9,O00/- per month by considering the judgment of the Honbte Apex Court in Sged Sadiq (2 supra). Since the petitioner hersell claimed that she was earning Rs.S,OOO/- per month the same can be adopted and this Court inclined to take the income of the injured at Rs.8,000/- per month-

22. By taking the notional income of the petitioner at Rs 8,OO0/- per month, this Court would like to feassess the compensation amount.

23. The learned Tribunal did not choose lo considcr the disability certificate-Ex.A 12, which was issued by P w.3, who is the member of the District Medical Board, Adilabad. As per Ex A12, the petitioner is suffering from temporary disabitity and P W 3 assessed the percentage of disability aL 7lok. As per Ex-A12, the disability is in relation to her left lower iimb, impaired reach, post traumatic sequel limbs. The petitioner had examined P W'3, who had issued the disability certihcate. P.W.3 stated in his evidence 3 (2014)2 scc 73s 11 NNR.I Mac r rs 28 and 25O 2O2O that he had examined the petitioner and issued t - : Certihcate for person with disability to the petitioner as per G.l Ms.No.31, WD CW & DW Department, dated Ol. t2.2OOg. As per the evidence of P.W.3, the petitioner has to attend for reassessmr r t after a period of five years from the date of issue.

24. On perusal of the evidence of P.W.2, the doc or, rvho is said to have trcated the petitioner in Fortune Mi r icarc Hospital, Karimnzrgar, $'herein he had stated that the petirioner had sustained icft foot crush injury and left hand crr- r :r injury, which are gricvotrs injuries. P.W.2 conducted surg: 1. on lelt foot "Extensive Degloving of Left Foot; dead skin tissur excised, K-wire hxalion were done and proximal phalanx of left g eat toe and 4th and 5m after medical care left distal, radius fractu: K-u,ire fixation were done. During the surgery eight units of blc r I transftrsed to the petitioner and she was discharged on 04.() .2O I 5 with an advice to take bcd rest for a period of six mon t]r anrl follow up treatment and also advised to take prescribe: medicines for healing of the injury. Further another surgery is r :quired and the petitioner is unable to do any work in normal matr er u.ithout help and cannot walk, sit properly and lift the weight u.i -r hand.

25. Having considered the entire medical r corcl ancl the disability certificate being placed by the petitjcr:r, the leamed t2 N\R. J lvlacmas 28 and 2602020 Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration of the disability certihcate and flx the disability, but the learned Tribunal at paragraph No.20 has held that the disabiliry certificate shows that it is temporary disability and relying upon the judgment of this Court in tlnited India Insurance Cotrytang a' J'Kolrlruro'ia,h and other{heldthatunlessthepetitionerf-rlesdisabilitycertificate she cannot claim any compensation under the head of continuing or permanent disability. Though considering that the petitioner had sustained two grievous injuries ald awarded Rs 50'000/ under the head of continuing or permanent disability' which appears to be incorrect. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner wouid be entitled for compensation though it may not be permanent disability but taking the temporary disabiliry into consideration, the petitioner rvould be entitled for compensation under the head of loss of earnings As stated supra' the income of the petitioner is at Rs.8,000/- per month' Apart from the same, the petitioner is also entitled to addition of 25o/o towards future prospects, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Ins,a,rance Compang Limited Vs' 'Sethi and otherss. Therefore, monthly income of the petitioner comes to Rs. 1O,OO0/- (Rs.8,000/- + Rs'2O00/-) and the Pranag o (2010) 2 An.w.R. 319 (A.P.) para 6 ' 2017 ACJ 2700 IJ N\R, J tvlacma ; 18 :.rnd 260- 2020 annual incomc u-ould be Rs.1,20,000/- Taking the ncome of the petitioner at Rs.1,20,000/- per annum, the Ios-' of earnings susfained by the petitroner with the disability at i Lol' would be Rs.85,2OO/- per annum. Since the age of the petitior )r at the time ol the accident rvas 47 years, the appropriate multipl er for the age group 46 to 50 is '13' as per Clause 4 of the $6hsrl rle prescribed by the Apex Court in the decision reported in Sar la Venna Vs' Delhi Transport CorPordtion6. Adopting multipli': '13" the total loss of earnings on account of the disability would I e Rs'85,200/ - x 13 = Rs.10,22,4O0/-. Apart from that the p(l tioner is also entitled to a sum of Rs.16,O00/- towards loss of : rnings during the treatment period; Rs.5,000./- towards transpor ation charges; Rs.3,00,O00/- towards medical expenses; Rs.2C, tOO/- towards pain and sulfering as awarded by the Tribunal. I rus, in all, the petitioner is entitled Rs.13,63,4O0/-. The compe I ;ation au'arded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.3,84,00O/- to s i3,63,4O0/-' Accordingly, this point is answered. \ \

26. As statecl supra in Point No.2, respondent Io 1-rider-cum- owner of the motorcycle alone is liabie to pay he afcrresaid compensation by exonerating the insurance co.r pany from the liability. 6 2oo9 acl tz98 r.+ NNR, J Macmas 28 and 260 2O2O !

27. In the result, both the appeals are a-llowed in part enhancing the compensation from Rs.3,84,000/- to Rs.13,63,40O/- with interest at the rate of 7 .5o/o per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Respondent No.I is directed to deposit the said amount together with costs and interest after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. [t is made clear that if any amount deposited by the insurance company pursuant to the directions of this Court, the insurance company is not entitled to recover the same from the petitioner and they are at liberty to recover the same from respondent No.l. However, the petitioner is directed to pay Dehcit Court Fee on the enhanced amount. There shall be no order as to COSTS

28. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed. To, SD/. M. OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,44 /(>' SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY//

1. The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District Judge, Adilabad.

2. One CC to SRI SRINIVASA RAO VUTLA, Advocate IOPUC] 3 One CC to SRI E.VENUGOPAL REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies Spare KVPJnvb HIGH COURT DATED:0610812025 /-.-*<. : : s]/vE { t{ L)() ,, i Ii.t 1$1q (i I I '.-..',i:n,-.'t' COMMON JU DGMENT+DECREE MACMA.Nos.28 AND 260 of 2020 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WIT {OUT COSTS [ 34431 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA M.A.C.M.A.Nos: 28 and 260 OF 2020 Between: The United lndia lnsurance Company Limited, Represented by its Branch Manager, Office. Caltex area Bellampalli, Diskict, Adilabad ...Appellant in MACMA No.28 of 202O and Respondent No.2 in MACMA 260 of 2020 AND

1. Pentaparthi Kamala, Wo Mondiah, Age 48 years ,Occ. Labour, R/o Chinthaguda Koya Wagu Village, R/M Kagaznagar,District Adilabad But Presently residing at Ramnagar, Adilabad. ...Respondent No.1 in MACMA 28 ot 20220 and Appellant in MACMA.No.260 ot 2O20

2. Alwala Bapu Rao @ Babu Rao, S/o Mondi, Age 60 Years ,Occ. Tapi Mestri - cum- Rider -cum- owner of Motor cycle bearing No. AP-1-4-9689, Rl/o H.No. 1 -16-132, Balajinagar, Kagaznagar -504296, District, Adilabad. ...Respondent No.2 in MACMA.No.28 of 2020 and Respondent No.1 in MACMA260 ot 2O20 Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in M.V.O.P.No-'156 of 2016 dated 02.07.2019 on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District Judge, Adilabad. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the argument of Sri V.Srinivas Rao, Advocate for the Appellant in MACMA .No.28 of 2020 and Respondent No.2 in MACMA 260 of 2020, Advocate for the Appellant in MACMA No.260 of 2020 anrl Respondent No.'l in MACMA 28 ol 2020 This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1 2 3 4 5 A That the both Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appo ls be and hereby are allowed by enhancing the compensation to Rs.3,84,00t - to f3,63,4001 with interest at the rate ol7.5% per annum on the enhancej amount from the date of petition till the date of realization. That the Respondent No.1j be and hereby is direct,: to deposit the said amount together with costs and interest after giving dtr, credit to the amount already deposited, if any within two months from the d: e of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. That the lnsurance company be and hereby is not . ttifled to recover the amount if any deposited by them pursuant to the direct rns of this court, from the petitioner. That the insurance company be and hereby are at liber r to recover the same from Respondent No.1. That the petitioner be and hereby is directed to pay tr ficit Court Fee on the enhanced amount. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Tribunal sl- i I stands confirmed in all other respects: and 7 That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. SD/- 1,I. OSMAN ALI BAIG ASS STANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-l r\ lditional District Judge, Adilabad. 2. Two CD Copies To, p Spare KVR/nvb / HIGH COURT DATED:0610812025 DECREE MACMA.Nos.28 AND 260 ot 2020 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITIIOUT COSTS \)o (L}^