2026:APHC:20753 APHC010226022008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3311]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

Thursday the twelth day of March two thousand and twenty six Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi M.A.C.M.A.No: 4993 of 2008 Between:

C. Lakshmipathy (died) and others ...Appellants and T Krishna Prasad and Others ...Respondents Counsel for the appellants:

S. Varadarajulu Chetty Counsel for the respondents:

Rama Mohan Rao Kotha The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT:

This is an appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and the decree dated 14.08.2006 in M.V.O.P.No.315 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal –cum-V Additional District Judge, Chittoor at Tirupathi.

2. The case of the claimants, stated briefly, is as follows:-

On 24.07.2001 at about 9.00 p.m. when the claimant was standing along with the Sub-Inspector of Police, Nagari and three others on the road margin, at the main road near Ramapuram cross, the driver of a lorry bearing No.AP 16 U 3285 drove it with high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant and three others. The lorry turned turtle thereafter. As a result, the claimant sustained multiple injuries all over his body. The Sub-Inspector of police and the cleaner of the lorry died on the spot. The claimant was shifted to Government Hospital, Puttur and later to SVIMS Hospital, Tirupathi. The claimant is permanently disabled. He was aged 34 years. He was working as an Assistant Supervisor in Sapthagiri Fabs, Chennai and earning Rs.5,000/- as salary. He lost his job and earning capacity. Therefore, he sought compensation of Rs.12,00,000/-.

3. The respondent No.1 filed written statement opposing the petition, denying all the averments in the petition. Further, it was stated that the driver of the lorry drove cautiously but a person suddenly crossed the road near the vehicle and in a attempt to avoid him, as the lorry was swerved, the lorry turned turtle. This respondent claimed that the vehicle was insured with the respondent No.2 and the policy was in force at the time of the accident. Therefore, this respondent sought to fasten liability against the insurance company.

4. The respondent No.2 filed a separate written statement denying the claim and also the manner of the accident stated by the claimant. It is further stated that the terms and conditions of the policy were violated, disowning its liability.

5. On behalf of the claimants, P.W.s 1 to 6 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A9, Ex.X1 and Ex.X2 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was adduced but a copy of insurance policy was marked as Ex.B.1.

Ex.A1: Certified copy of F.I.R.

Ex.A2: Discharge summary of S.V.I.M.S., Hospital.

Ex.A3: Medical Certificate issued by Superintendent, S.V.R.R., Hospital, Tirupathi.

Ex.A4: Discharge summary of C.M.C., Vellore.

Ex.A5: P.D.Certificate.

Ex.A6: Salary Certificate.

Ex.A7: Bunch of Medical Bills worth Rs.2,30,825.33.

Ex.A8: Out patient Bill.

Ex.A9: Income Tax returns.

Ex.X1: Case sheet. Ex.X2: Case sheet.

Ex.B1: Copy of insurance policy.

6. The Tribunal allowed the claim petition partly awarding compensation of Rs.3,80,600/- with interest @ 7.5 % p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment payable by both the respondents to the claimant. Advocate fee of Rs.500/- was fixed.

7. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation contending it as low, the claimant preferred the appeal seeking enhancement of compensation by Rs.8,19,400/- in addition to the amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the evidence of employer examined as PW5 and the document i.e., salary certificate marked as Ex.A6 and merely assessed the income on par with a labourer with low income. In addition to that, he submitted that the Tribunal erred in assessing permanent disability @ 60% instead of 100% as the claimant lost