Back
2026 Supreme(AP) 1137
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
V.SUJATHA, J.
Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
C Rajarathnam/C Rakesh, S/o C.Neerajakshulu – Respondent
Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No: 299 Of 2023
Decided On : 31-03-2026
For the Appellant : Harinath Reddy Soma
For the Respondent: M Venkata Ramana Reddy
An appellate court will not disturb a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award of compensation if the amount is supported by consistent medical evidence regarding permanent disability and established principles for loss of earning capacity, and where the liability for negligence is clearly proven by documentary evidence and witness testimony.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act - Section 166 - Motor accident claim - Quantum of compensation - Permanent disability - Calculation of loss of future earnings - Tribunal awarded compensation for physical injuries and loss of earnings due to 50% permanent disability resulting from fractures - Appellant challenged negligence and quantum of compensation, arguing claimant was contributory to the accident and that disability assessment was inflated - Court upheld Tribunal's award, noting clear evidence of rash driving by car driver and that claimant, a budding mechanic, suffered significant loss of livelihood - Multiplier method applied for 20-year-old claimant correctly determined at 18. (Paras 12, 14, 20, 21)
Facts of the case:
Claimant sustained severe fractures and injuries after the vehicle in which he was a passenger was hit by an oncoming car driven rashly while it was attempting to overtake a tanker lorry. Claimant underwent surgeries and was found to have 50% permanent disability by the medical board, impacting his capability to perform mechanical and agricultural labor.
Findings of Court:
The Court confirmed that the evidence of eye-witnesses and police documentation (FIR/Charge Sheet) conclusively established the car driver's sole negligence. The compensation was found reasonable given the medical evidence and consistent employment records of the claimant.
Issues: Whether there was contributory negligence by the claimant and whether the quantum of compensation awarded was excessive.
Ratio Decidendi: An appellate court will not interfere with compensation awarded by a Tribunal if the determination is based on sound medical evidence and established principles regarding loss of future income and permanent disability, especially when the negligence is clearly attributed to the offending vehicle.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
V.SUJATHA, J.
The Insurance Company/ Respondent No.3 filed the present Appeal challenging the order and decree 28.02.2022 in M.V.O.P.No.260 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Chittoor, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.13,74,360/- to the Claimant/ Respondent No.1 herein, as against the claim of 18,00,000/- (Rupees eighteen lakhs only) for the injuries sustained by the Claimant in a motor accident that occurred on 14.12.2015.
2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The case of the Petitioner is briefly as follows:
On 14.12.2015, at about 5.45 p.m, the Claimant, after completion of his duty, while he was returning to his village, on a motorcycle bearing No. AP 03 AQ 7058 of one Mr. M. Prathap Achari as pillion rider, on the way, when they reached near Katappagaripalle cross, on Chittoor – Palamaner road (NH-4), one car bearing No. KA 54 4131 of Respondent No.1 driven by Respondent No.2 came at high speed in a rash and negligent manner on the wrong side of road while overtaking a tanker lorry and hit their motorcycle and thereby, they both fell down and the said car ran over his right leg and thereby he sustained fractures and other injuries. A case in Crime No. 168 of 2015 was registered by the Police, Banagarupalyam Police Station.
4. Before the Tribunal, Respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are owner and driver of the car bearing No. KA 54 4131 remained ex parte.
5. Respondent No.3/ Insurance Company filed Written Statement contending that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle on which the Claimant was proceeding at the relevant time. Therefore, the Respondents are not liable and at the time of accident, the rider of the motorcycle was not having valid driving license. There is violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Therefore, the Respondent No.3 is not liable to pay compensation.
6. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:
“1. Whether the Petitioner/ C. Rajarathnam @ C.Rakesh sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 14.12.2015 at about 6.30 p.m, due to the rash and negligent driving of TATA Indica Car bearing No. KA 544131 belonging to the 1st respondent?
2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for compensation? if so, to what amount and from which respondent?
3. To what relief?”
7. On behalf of the Claimants, P.Ws 1 to 6 were examined and Exs.A1 to A13 were marked and Exs.X1 to X5 were marked through PW-6. On behalf of respondent No.3/Insurance Company, no witness examined and Exs.B1 was marked.
8. After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition against Respondent Nos.1 to 3, awarding compensation of Rs.13,74,360/- with subsequent interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization and directed Respondents No.1 to 3 to pay jointly and severally the said amount within a month from the date of the order. 9. Aggrieved by the said award, the Respondent No.3/Insurance Company preferred this appeal contending that there is no rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the car bearing No. KA 54 4131 and that the accident was occurred only due to rash and negligence of the rider of motor cycle only. Rider of the motor cycle failed to observe the opposite coming vehicle and dashed the care in opposite direction. In the instant case, there is a collision of two vehicles in opposite direction does not looked into by the Tribunal. Further, the claim petition is bad for not making the rider, insured and insurer of the motor cycle as per and necessary party to the lis for proper adjudication. Further, the Insurance Company has no liability to pay compensation for the reason that the driver of the car did not have valid and effective driving
