MACMA No.315 of 2019 is filed by the insurance company against
the Order dated 15.10.2018 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
- cum - I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Secunderabad, in
M.V.O.P. No. 631 of 2016. By the impugned Order, the Tribunal awarded a
compensation of Rs.14,13,700 to the claimant/injured, with proportionate
costs and interest at 7.5% per annum, holding respondent No.2 (driver of the
crime vehicle), and respondent No.3 (insurer of the crime vehicle) jointly
and severally liable to pay the compensation.
1.1 The claimant filed Cross-Objections No.52 of 2019,
dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation.As the matters arise out of
the same impugned order, they were heard together and taken up for
common disposal. For convenience of reference, the parties will be referred
to as the claimant and the insurance company.
2. Brief facts of the case, so far as relevant for dealing with these
appeals, are that on 09.10.2016, at around 8:00 PM, the claimant (Mr. Ravi
Nakkala), was proceeding from Sadashivpet Village to Narmetta Village in
Warangal District, on his Hero Honda Splendor motorcycle (bearing No.AP-
36P-2270) and when he reached near Peddamma Temple at Bachannapet
Village, a Glamour motorcycle (bearing No.TS-03-EB-2645) coming behind
the claimant's motorcycle, and driven by its rider in a rash and negligent
macma_315_2019&xobj_52_2019
NBK, J
manner, dashed into the motorcycle of the claimant, causing the accident,
and the claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries.
2.1 PW-2, Ganti Mahesh, testified before the Tribunal with regard
to occurrence of accident. The Tribunal, after considering the oral evidence
of PWs.1 to 7 and documents Ex.A1 to A31 and Ex.X1 to Ex.X6 adduced
on behalf of the claimant; and the oral evidence of RW.1 and documents
Ex,.B1 to B3 adduced on behalf of the insurance company, passed the
impugned Order dated 15.10.2018 awarding compensation of Rs.14,13,700
with interest at 7.5% per annum, holding respondent No.2 (owner of
Glamour motorcycle bearing No.TS-03-EB-2645) and respondent No.3
(insurer of Glamour motorcycle) jointly and severally liable to pay the
compensation.
2.2 Aggrieved by the Order dated 15.10.2018, the insurance
company filed MACMA No.315 of 2019, and the claimant filed Cross
Objections No.52 of 2019.
3. Heard Mr. V. Sambasiva Rao, learned counsel for the insurance
company; and Mr. Akkam Eshwar, learned counsel for the claimant. Perused
the record.
4. Learned counsel for the insurance company essentially contends that
the insured vehicle (TS 03 ED 2645) was not involved in the accident that
allegedly occurred on 09.10.2016 at 8:30 PM; that the injured claimant was
actually riding a different vehicle -- Motor Cycle No. AP 36 P 2270 --
which skidded, leading to self-inflicted injuries; that the insured vehicle was
fraudulently planted as the accident vehicle, in collusion with the police and
the vehicle owner, to claim compensation from the insurer; that the claimant
deliberately suppressed crucial medical documents -- specifically Ex.B.2:
Medico Legal Record dated 10.10.2016 (Yashoda Hospital) and Ex.B.3:
macma_315_2019&xobj_52_2019
NBK, J
Injury Certificate dated 02.12.2016 (Yashoda Hospital), and these records
clearly state that the injuries were due to a "two-wheeler skid", and not due
to a collision or third-party vehicle involvement; that the alleged eyewitness
(PW2) admitted in cross-examination that he did not report the accident to
the police; that this undermines the credibility of PW2 and presence at the
accident scene, suggesting he did not witness the accident but was brought
in to support the false claim; that the hospital entry, made by the injured's
brother (Karunakar), clearly mentions a two-wheeler skid accident, and this
hospital entry contradicts the later claim that another vehicle (i.e., the
insured vehicle) was involved, further highlighting fabrication; that the
Tribunal awarded a substantial compensation of Rs. 14,13,700/- with 7.5%
interest per annum, despite lack of credible evidence linking the insured
vehicle to the accident, suppression of key documentary evidence by the
claimant, contradictions in witness testimony and hospital records and hence
the award was arbitrary, erroneous, and unjust. It is also contended that the
injured, Nakkala Ravi, did not appear before the tribunal for cross-
examination, despite being physically and mentally fit (as seen from his
attending the court and using a cellphone); that his avoidance casts doubt on
the veracity of his claims and suggests deliberate evasion to avoid scrutiny;
that the injured was allegedly driving the bike (AP 36 P 2270) without a
driving licence and without knowing how to drive, leading to the skid and
self-inflicted injuries, and hence the accident was a result of the claimant's
own negligence, not the fault of a third party or the insured vehicle.
5. Learned counsel for the claimant, on the contrary, contends that the
Tribunal awarded Rs. 14,13,700/- as compensation, which is grossly
insufficient compared to the claimed amount of Rs. 20,00,000/-; that the
award fails to take into account the full extent of injuries, permanent
disability, future loss of earnings, and the ongoing need for medical care and
macma_315_2019&xobj_52_2019
NBK, J
rehabilitation; that the Tribunal erred in law and on facts by failing to
properly evaluate the oral and documentary evidence presented by the
claimant; that there was no detailed analysis of the earnings and disability of
the injured claimant, which led to a mechanical and unjust determination of
compensation; that the Tribunal awarded a consolidated amount for loss of
earnings and disability without assessing the injured's occupation before the
accident, and without determining the percentage of permanent disability,
and without considering how the disability would impact future
employability and income generation; that the Tribunal completely ignored
the future prospects of the injured claimant, and especially considering that
the injured was young and had potential for career growth, which is now
severely impacted due to the injuries; that the principle laid down in
landmark judgments (e.g., Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation1,
National Insurance Co. v. Pranay Sethi2) regarding future prospects has not
been followed; that the claimant submitted medical bills totaling Rs.
10,82,684/- (Ex. A-5) but the Tribunal did not grant full reimbursement of
these expenses, without valid justification; that the entire medical cost
should have been awarded, as these are actual and necessary expenses
directly arising from the accident; that the Tribunal failed to grant any
amount towards future or follow-up treatment, which is inevitable in the
case of serious or long-term injuries; that the injured will require continued
medical attention, physiotherapy, and possibly surgeries or assistive devices,
which were not factored into the award; that the compensation awarded is
not just and fair, especially considering the pain and suffering endured, the
permanent disability and disfigurement (if any), the impact on quality of
(2009) 6 SCC 121
(2017) 16 SCC 680
macma_315_2019&xobj_52_2019
NBK, J
life, social mobility, and independence, the Tribunal failed to balance these
human considerations with the financial components.
6. At the outset, the occurrence of accident on 09.10.2016 at about 8:00
PM involving Splendor motorcycle (No.AP-36P-2270) ridden by the
claimant, and the claimant sustaining injuries on his vehicle being hit by
Glamour motorcycle (No.TS-03-EB-2645) from behind, near Peddamma
Temple at Bachannapet Village, Warangal District, is not in dispute.
6.1 A perusal of the impugned Order would show that PW-2 (Sri
Ganti Mahesh) deposed before the Tribunal that he was proceeding on
09.10.2016 at about 08:00 PM from Sadashivpet to Bachannapet side, and
he saw one person proceeding on bike No.AP-36P-2270, on extreme left
side of the road with great care and diligence and when he reached near
Peddamma Temple at Bachannapet Village and mandal, Warangal District,
suddenly a Glamour motorcycle bearing No.TS-03-EB-2645 came in a rash
and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the injured motorcycle
from behind and the injured fell down on the road and sustained injuries.
6.2 Further, RW-1 during his cross examination admitted that the
policy was in force as on the date of accident and the policy covered third-
party risks and the petitioner (i.e., claimant) is a third-party and the liability
is fastened on the rider of crime vehicle (i.e., Glamour motorcycle) in the
charge sheet and the documents relied on by the petitioner (claimant) also
stand against the rider of the crime vehicle (i.e., Glamour motorcycle); and
therefore the contentions of the learned Standing Counsel for the insurance
Company that the claimant sustained injuries due to skidding of his
Splendor motorcycle, or that the crime vehicle (Glamour motorcycle) has
been planted for illegal gain, or that PW-2's non-informing the police
macma_315_2019&xobj_52_2019
NBK, J
undermines the credibility of involvement of crime vehicle etc., cannot be
countenanced.
6.3 A perusal of the impugned Order would show that the claimant
suffered injuries, namely, Severe TBI, Lt Frontal Contusion, Lt FT SDH, Rt
Temporal EDH and other multiple injuries all over the body. He had taken
treatment initially at Government Area Hospital, Jangaon, and later at MGM
Hospital, Warangal, and later at Yashoda Hospital as inpatient on
10.10.2016, operated and discharged on 26.102016 due to financial
constraint, and on same day admitted at Osmania General Hospital,
Hyderabad, as inpatient on 26.10.2016 for further management and
discharged on 01.11.2016, and later admitted as inpatient in Sri Sai
Srinivasa Hospital at Hyderabad on 01.11.2016 and discharged on
25.11.2016, and again admitted in Sri Sai Srinivasa Hospital, Hyderabad on
29.04.2017 and discharged on 13.05.2017; and the claimant/PW-1 deposed
that he incurred Rs.12,00,000 for medical treatment, extra nourishment, and
that he is undergoing treatment.
6.4 The Tribunal awarded Rs.8,80,000 (as against Ex.A5 medical
bill for Rs.10,82,684) towards medicines and investigations, and Rs.30,000
towards food and extra-nourishment; however, the medical bills under
Ex.A8 (Rs.85,574), and Ex.A10 (Rs.77,701), which are Final Bills of Sri Sai
Srinivasa Hospital, and the medical/pharmacy bills under Ex.A11
(Rs.68,540.42p), and Ex.A12 (Rs.30,837) have not been
awarded.Considering the nature of injuries and the treatment undergone by
the claimant, this Court is inclined to award the said amounts also
mentioned under Exs.A8, A10, A11, and A12, totaling to Rs.2,62,652.42
(rounded off to Rs.2,65,000), over and above the Rs.8,80,000 awarded by
the Tribunal.
macma_315_2019&xobj_52_2019
NBK, J
6.5 With regard to the contention of permanent disability, there is
neither oral nor documentary evidence adduced by the claimant before the
Tribunal. On the contrary, it is the specific recording of the Tribunal, at
Paragraph 9 (e) answering Issue No.2, which reads as follows:
"(e) ...... the evidence of PW-7 shows that the petitioner was on
temporary employment / under probation and that no doctors, who
treated the petitioner, declared the petitioner as a permanent
disabled person, this Court feels it fit and proper to award a
lumpsum.....".
6.6 Further, it can be seen from the Appendix of Evidence
(Witnesses Examined) mentioned in the impugned Order that PW-3 (Dr.
Anandh Bala Subramaniam), and PW-5 (Dr. Mustafa Faisal), that there is no
evidence adduced by the treating doctors about any disability, let alone
permanent disability that could affect future earning capacity. Further,
except a statement by PW-7 who is said to be Commercial Executive of
Softcell Company that the claimant lost his job due to disability, there is no
mention about either the nature of disability treating doctors i.e., PW-3, PW-
5, who are competent to depose about disability, if any, and which is to be
certified by the District Medical Board. In the absence of any authentic
evidence in that regard, it cannot be inferred that there is permanent
disability. Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner
with regard to permanent disability cannot be countenanced; and in the
absence of proven permanent disability, therefore there cannot be any
assessment of loss of future earnings, or future prospects in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
6.7 The Tribunal awarded Rs.1,50,000 towards compensation for
six grievous injuries (@ Rs.25,000 per injury); and Rs.20,000 towards
transportation charges; and Rs.30,000 towards food and extra-nourishment;
macma_315_2019&xobj_52_2019
NBK, J
and Rs.16,000/- towards attendant charges for four months considering that
the claimant might have taken bed rest. Considering the injuries suffered,
this Court is inclined to award Rs.25,000 towards pain and suffering, and
also enhance the attendant charges to Rs.30,000. The amounts awarded for
food and extra nourishment, and transportation charges are just and
reasonable.
6.8 The claimant is said to have been earning Rs.20,825 per month,
by working as Jr. Implementation Engineer at Softcell Technologies Ltd.
Considering the evidence of PW-7 (Commercial Executive of the
Company), the Tribunal has taken the monthly income as Rs.20,000/- for
the purposes of assessing loss of earnings and awarded Rs.2,40,000/-
towards loss of earnings for one year. This Court is inclined to enhance the
same to 2,50,000 considering the entire monthly income of Rs.20,825.
7. In view of the foregoing reasons, the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is enhanced as follows:
Head Compensation Compensation
awarded by the enhanced by
Tribunal this Court
Medicines and Investigations Rs.9,57,700 11,45,000
Grievous injuries, and Pain and Rs.1,50,000 Rs.1,75,000
suffering
Transportation Rs.20,000 Rs.20,000
Food and extra nourishment Rs.30,000 Rs.30,000
Attendant charges Rs.16,000 Rs.30,000
Loss of earnings during treatment Rs.2,40,000 Rs.2,50,000
Total Rs.14,13,700 Rs.16,50,000
8. Accordingly, MACMA No.315 of 2019 filed by the insurance
company is dismissed; and the Cross-Objections No.52 of 2019 filed by
the claimant is partly-allowedby enhancing the compensation to
Rs.16,50,000; however, reducing the interest to 6% per annum from the
date of claim petition till the date of actual payment, considering the
macma_315_2019&xobj_52_2019
NBK, J
judgment in Sarla Verma (supra). Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
________________________________
JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
18th September, 2025
ksm
