MACMA/74/2019 of Ubited India Insurance CO. LTD Vs V DINESH REDDY on 1 April 2026

JUDGMENT:-

1. As these two (02) appeals are arising out of the Judgment dated 10.09.2018 MVOP No.122 of 2013, on the file of Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X Additional District Judge, Tirupati, there being disposed of by this common

Judgment.

2. MACMA No.3062 of 2018 was filed by the claimant for enhancement of compensation, whereas MACMA No.74 of 2019 was filed by the Insurance Company questioning the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as, they were referred before the Tribunal.

4. The petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 166(1)(a) of the Motor Accidents Act, 1988 and the Rules made there under claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- for the injuries received by him in the accident that occurred on

08.03.2012, in which the offending school bus bearing Registration No.AP03 W 9878 was involved.

5. It is the case of the petitioner he was studying X standard in the first respondent school. On 08.03.2012 he boarded the bus to go to school and when the offending reached Arigala Kandriga Yanadi Centre, the driver of the offending bus drove the same in rash and negligent manner at high speed, thereby he lost control over the bus and it turned turtle on the road. In view of the said mishap, the petitioner sustained crush and degloving injuries on left forearm. The inmates of the bus also sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, the petitioner was taken to Area Hospital, Srikalahasthi for treatment, later he was shifted to Both Hospital, Tirupati for better treatment. It was further case of the petitioner that he undergone major surgery to his left arm and he took treatment for four (04) months as in patient in the said hospital. It was further stated that the petitioner had to discontinue the studies and became permanently disabled, which was assessed at 80%. It was further case of the petitioner that in view of the injuries sustained by him, he is unable to attend day to day activities and he became unfit for certain jobs and therefore he approached the Tribunal claiming Rs.25,00,000/- towards compensation under various heads.

6. The 1st respondent remained Ex-parte. The 2nd respondent resisted the claim, contending that the compensation claimed by the petitioner was excessive inter alia denying the averments made in the claim petition. It was also denied that the driver of the 1st respondent had no valid driving license and the offending bus had no permit and valid Registration Certificate as on the date of accident. It was further contended that the petitioner was not earning member and the injuries sustained by him were in simple in nature which do not result in permanent disability. It was also contended that the 2nd respondent would indemnify the insured subject to confirmation of policy and the driver had valid license etc.,

7. In order to prove the case of the petitioner, he was examined as PW-1 and the doctors who treated him were examined as PWs-2 & 3. He also filed documents which were marked as Exs.A1 to A12. On the other hand, the Insurance Company filed the Insurance Policy, which was marked as B-1. It had examined RWs-1 & 2 and Exs.C1 & C2 and Exs.X1 to X3

were marked through the witnesses. Considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal by order under challenge awarded compensation of Rs.9,55,500/- to the petitioner under various heads together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

8. Heard counsel for the claimant and counsel for the Insurance Company. Despite service of notice, there is no appearance for Vikas English Medium School.

9. Perused the record.

10. Though several grounds are raised in the appeal filed by the Insurance Company, during the course of hearing, the counsel for Insurance Company confined arguments as against the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal by contending that, the same is excessive and prayed to allow the appeal filed by the Insurance Company.

11. The counsel for the insurance company would submit that the petitioner was not earning member of the family, therefore the Tribunal ought not to have granted compensation of Rs.9,55,500/-. He would further submit that the injuries received by the petitioner were simple in nature and the Tribunal erred in awarding the said amount. Further, it was argued that the Tribunal placing reliance on the disability of the petitioner as 80%, though the same is to a particular limb awarded excessive compensation.

12. On the other hand, the counsel for the claimant would submit that the injuries received by the petitioner were grievous in nature and to substantiate the same, reliance is placed on wound certificate, which was marked as Ex.A3. He would further submit that the petitioner underwent for several surgeries and he was inpatient for a period of four (04) months. He would also submit that in view of the injuries sustained by him, he had to discontinue his studies. In support of his contention, copies of discharge summary, a bunch of medical bills and disability certificate were placed on record and the same were marked as Exs.A5, A6, A9 and A10. Apart from the same, he also placed digital photographs which were marked as Ex.A11 to show the nature of injury sustained by him. He would further submit that the petitioner is unable to move his left hand as he was before. It was further argued that in view of his inability to lead normal life, he lost the earning capacity and therefore he should be adequately compensated for the loss suffered by him. He would further submit that the Tribunal without taking all these aspects into consideration, awarded a meager amount of Rs.9,55,500/- as compensation, though he is entitled to receive compensation as he claimed.

13. A perusal of the evidence of Dr.P.Hari Prasad, who was examined as PW-2, it is clear that the petitioner was admitted in Both Hospital, Tirupati on 08.03.2012 crush and degloving Injury to left forearm and he went surgery on the same day, further the petitioner was also underwent surgery for debridement and primary clousure + DLT flap coverage + split thickness skin grafting under Anaesthia by plasting surgeon and he was discharged on 26.03.2012. The evidence of PW-2 would further disclose that the petitioner was again admitted on 09.04.2012 with the raw area in the left upper limb and he was underwent surgery on the same day and the raw area is covered with split thickness skin grafting and he was discharged on 14.04.2012. Again another surgery was conducted on 06.09.2012 for FDL release of ring and middle finger of the left hand and flap advancement under Anaesthia and he was discharged on 08.09.2012. The discharge summary treated 05.09.2015 was marked as Ex.C1. Subsequently, the petitioner was examined clinically and radio logically and found that he is unable to extend the rist and fingers and the disability was assessed as 80% to a particular limb. The disability certificate was marked as Ex.C2.

14. Further, Dr.R.Babu Rao was examined as PW-3, who deposed that the petitioner having wrist drop (unable to extend the hand) with contracture of the thumb. He further deposed that the petitioner requires stabilization of the rist and thumb realized. He further deposed that the petitioner suffered disability of 80%. Though, PWs-2 & 3 were cross examined at length, nothing was elicited to disprove their evidence.

15. Further, the oral evidence adduced by RW-1 & RW-2 is in relation to the manner in which the accident was occurred and with regard to the alleged violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Therefore, the evidence put forth by the Insurance Company do not help to prove its case. In the circumstances, the contention of the counsel for the insurance company cannot be accepted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company is dismissed.

16. As can be seen from the evidence of PW-2 & 3 coupled with the documents filed in the claim petition, there is no dispute that the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries to his left hand. Further, disability certificate dt.04.08.2017 would show that the petitioner has suffered 80% of disability to his left hand. By virtue of the said injury, the petitioner is unable to move his left hand freely as it was before and he is facing difficulties in attending day to day activities. From the above, it is clear that the petitioner is not able to lead normal life as he was before and the same cannot be restored. Therefore, the petitioner has to be compensated adequately in fair, reasonable and equitable manner by taking into consideration of the physical disability and the loss suffered by him as a result of the said disability.

17. A perusal of the order and challenge, the Tribunal did not consider the case of the petitioner in its proper prospective and the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar” 1 was not taken into consideration. Further it is not in dispute that the petitioner was studying 10th standard as on the date of accident and he had to discontinue his studies. Further, the petitioner also lost his 1(2011) 1 SCC 343

earning capacity, marriage prospects etc. By taking into consideration of all the above aspects, the income of the petitioner is fixed as Rs.10,000/- per month and accordingly the compensation is computed as under: S.No. Head Compensation Awarded

Net monthly Income Rs.10,000/-

Future Prospects (50%) Rs.5,000/-

Total Income (Net monthly) Rs.15,000/-

Multiplier

Disability 80%

Loss of future income Rs.15,000 x 12 x 18 x 80% = Rs.25,92,000/-

Medical Expenses (Treatment) Rs.2,95,392/-

Loss of amenities pain and suffering Rs.2,00,000/-

Loss of marriage prospects Rs.3,00,000/-

Attendant charges Rs.2,00,000/- TOTAL Rs.35,87,392/-

18. For the reasons recorded supra, the appeal filed by the claimant is allowed and the Insurance Company is directed to pay Rs.35,87,392/- together with interest @ 9% from the date of petition till the date of realization.

19. It is needless to mention that the Insurance Company is directed to pay the said compensation within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

20. In the result, MACMA No.3062 of 2018 is allowed and MACMA No.74 of 2019 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.

______________________ JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR 02.04.2026 DR

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR

MACMA No.3062 OF 2018 AND MACMA No.74 OF 2019

Date 02.04.2026

U RMD/DR