Back
2026 Supreme(AP) 641
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J.
Dake Suryachandra Rao R/o Velpur - Appellant
Vs.
Neelapu Venkata Rao Others S/o Appa Rao - Respondent
Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3202 of 2012
Decided On : 19-06-2026
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : A K Kishore Reddy
For the Respondent: A Jayanthi
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Motor Accident Claim
Act Referred
Headnote
Facts of the case:
The claimant, a minor student, sustained grievous injuries in a road traffic accident involving an auto. The Tribunal awarded Rs.26,500/- as compensation, rejecting claims for significant medical expenses. The claimant appealed for enhancement on grounds of gravity of injuries and medical records.
Findings of Court:
The appellate court found the initial compensation insufficient, noting gaps in awarding damages for heads like pain and suffering and incidental expenses, and revised the total amount to Rs.55,000/-
Issues: Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and adequate for the injuries sustained, or warrants enhancement.
Ratio Decidendi: In computing motor accident compensation, while mathematical precision is not possible, the court must adopt a broader, objective approach to place the victim as closely as possible to their pre-accident position, accounting for incidental expenses even in the absence of stringent documentary proof.
Result: Appeal partly allowed.
JUDGMENT:
A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J.
Introductory:
1. Claimant in the M.V.O.P.No.204 of 2004 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) Tanuku, West Godavari District (for short “the learned MACT”), dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation of Rs.26,500/- awarded as against the claim made for Rs.1,50,000/-, filed the present appeal seeking enchantment of compensation disputing the quantification.
2. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the driver and owner of the offending vehicle remained ex parte before the learned MACT. Respondent No.3 is the Insurance Company contested the matter.
3. For the sake of convience, parties will be hereinafter referred to as the claimant/petitioner and the respondents with reference to their status before the learned MACT.
Case of the petitioner:
4(i). On 31.12.2003, while the petitioner was proceeding on his bicycle, an Auto bearing No.AP 37 U 6481 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”), driven by respondent No.1 owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3, without following traffic rules etc., came in a negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner, causing the accident and resulting in injuries all over the body of the petitioner. Matter was reported to the Police. A case in Crime No.160 of 2003 was registered on the file of Tanuku Police Station for the offences under Section 338 IPC and the petitioner was taken to Vamsi Hi-Tech Super Specialty Hospital, Tanuku, where he has incurred expenditure of Rs.60,000/- towards treatment, medicines etc.
(ii). Petitioner was hale and healthy and aged about '16' years by the date of accident and he was a student. He suffered grievous injuries on the head and fore arm. The driver of the offending vehicle/auto is responsible for the accident. Hence, Respondent No.2 being the owner and respondent No.3 being the insurer are liable to pay compensation.
Case of respondent No.3 / Insurance Company:
5. The petitioner shall prove the pleaded accident, negligence of the driver of the auto/ the offending vehicle, injuries sustained by the petitioner, treatment undergone, expenditure incurred, nature and effect of injuries, entitlement for the compensation claimed including compliance with the conditions of the policy etc.
Evidence:
6(i). During enquiry / trial, for answering the issues touching accident, negligence, entitlement of the claimant for compensation and its quantification, the claimant relied on evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. P.W.1, the mother of the claimant, stated about the accident, admission of the petitioner in the hospital, expenditure incurred for treatment etc. and examined P.W.2 the doctor who treated the claimant.
(ii). In addition to the oral evidence, the claimant relied on documentary evidence. Ex.A1-attested copy of FIR, Ex.A2-Accident register copy, Ex.A3-attested copy of MVI report and Ex.A8-attested copy of C.T. Scan report are the crime records relating to the accident. Ex.A4 is the attested copy of the policy Ex.A5 is the C.T. Scan report, Ex.A6 is the discharge summary, Ex.A7 is the bunch of medical bills, Ex.A8 is the attested copy of C.T. Scan report, Ex.A9 is the discharge bill and Ex.A10 is the C.T. Scan report.
Findings of the learned MACT:
7. The learned MACT, by referring to the evidence, held that the negligence of the driver of the auto/offending vehicle is the cause for accident and that the claimant is entitled for compensation and the respondents are liable to pay the same. While quantifying the compensation, relying on the evidence of P.W.2, the medical officer, wound certificate, bills etc. the learned MACT awarded compensation of Rs.26,500/- observing the same as just and reasonable compensation. The heads under which the compensation was awarded by the learned MACT are: Rs.10,000/- for injury No.1, Rs.1,500/- for the injury No.2, Rs.10,000/- towards medicines and treatment and Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering.
Arguments in the appeal
