Common Judgment:

1. This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the appellant/claimant, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 19.09.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.2480 of 2013 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short, “the Tribunal”), seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant/claimant filed I.A.No.1 of 2025 seeking amendment of the claim by enhancing the compensation from Rs.15,00,000/- to Rs.40,00,000/-. Since the said application and the main appeal arise out of the same award and are interconnected, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

4. The brief facts of the case are that on 09.04.2013 at about 00:30 hours, i.e., during the midnight of 08.04.2013, the claimant, along with his friend Santosh, was proceeding on a Hero Honda motorcycle bearing registration No.AP-09-AK-7301 from Barkatpura Bus Depot towards Barkatpura ‘X’ Roads. When they reached near Dhoudas Sweet Company, Barkatpura, the Auto Trolley bearing registration No.AP-24- TA-1768, being driven in a rash and negligent manner at high speed on the wrong side of the road, came in the opposite direction and dashed against the motorcycle. As a result, the claimant fell down and sustained multiple fractures and grievous injuries. The claimant sustained crush injury to the right lower limb, compound fracture of both bones of the right lower limb with open knee dislocation, vascular injury with non-viable leg, crush injury to the right hand with open fracture of the third metatarsal, and laceration and degloving of the right upper arm. He ultimately underwent right above-knee amputation on 09.04.2013. Debridement, suturing and splintage of the right hand, debridement and suturing of the arm laceration and revision flap were also performed. The Kachiguda Police registered a case in Crime No.82 of 2013 against the driver of the offending Auto Trolley under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code. The claimant filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the offending Auto Trolley, respondent No.2 is its insurer and respondent No.3 was impleaded as the policyholder. Respondent Nos.1 and 3 remained ex parte before the Tribunal. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company contested the claim by filing a counter, disputing the manner of accident, negligence of the driver, nature of injuries, disability and income, and contending that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle and awarded total compensation of Rs.13,20,310/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization, directing respondent No.2/Insurance Company to deposit the amount and recover the same from respondent Nos.1 and 3.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submitted that the claimant suffered right above-knee amputation and substantial permanent disability, resulting in serious impairment of his earning capacity. Learned counsel further submitted that the claimant was working as a Building Supervisor in a construction company and that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate.

6. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2/Insurance Company opposed the appeal as well as the application for enhancement (IA.No.1 of 2025), contending that the claim cannot be arbitrarily enhanced at the appellate stage.

7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh ((2003) 2 SCC 274), Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh ((2013) 9 SCC 54) and Ramla v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. ((2019) 2 SCC 192) has held that there is no restriction under the Motor Vehicles Act preventing the Tribunal or the appellate Court from awarding compensation in excess of the amount claimed. The Court is required to award just compensation under Section 168 of the Act. Therefore, if, on proper application of the principles governing assessment of compensation, the claimant is found entitled to an amount higher than that originally claimed, the same can be awarded, subject to payment of the requisite court fee. In view of the above settled position, I.A.No.1 of 2025 is allowed.

8. Coming to the merits of the appeal, the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Auto Trolley bearing registration No.AP-24-TA-1768 has not been seriously disputed before this Court. The said finding, therefore, does not call for interference.

9. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal took the income of the claimant at Rs.6,000/- per month. The claimant claimed that he was working as a Building Supervisor in a construction company and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. PW-4, who was examined on behalf of the claimant, deposed regarding the claimant’s employment and stated that he was being paid Rs.14,000/- per month while working as a Supervisor till 2010. However, the said evidence does not establish the income of the claimant at the time of the accident in 2013. Having regard to the nature of his avocation, the date of accident and the overall circumstances of the case, this Court considers it appropriate to fix the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.9,000/-. The claimant was aged 38 years at the time of the accident. Therefore, in terms of the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi ((2017) 16 SCC 680), 40% of the established income is required to be added towards future prospects. Thus, the monthly income of the claimant works out to Rs.12,600/- (Rs.9,000/- + Rs.3,600/-) and the annual income comes to Rs.1,51,200/-. As per Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation ((2009) 6 SCC 121), the appropriate multiplier for the age group of 36 to 40 years is ‘15’. Ex.A10 is the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board of Gandhi Hospital, Hyderabad, assessing the claimant’s permanent partial disability at 80%. PW-2-Assistant Professor of Orthopaedics, also supported the said disability assessment. Having regard to the nature of injuries and the medical evidence on record, the permanent disability is taken at 80%. Accordingly, the compensation towards loss of earning capacity comes to Rs.18,14,400/- (Rs.1,51,200/- × 15 × 80%).

10. The claimant sustained grievous injuries involving extensive crush injury to the right lower limb, compound fracture of both bones with open knee dislocation, vascular injury, crush injury to the right hand, laceration and degloving of the right upper arm and extensive muscle and bone loss. He ultimately underwent right above-knee amputation. The medical record further discloses that debridement, suturing and splintage of the right hand, debridement and suturing of the arm laceration and revision flap were performed. The Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering. Having regard to the nature and severity of the injuries, the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering is enhanced from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/-. The Tribunal awarded Rs.5,000/- towards attendant charges and Rs.5,000/- towards transportation charges. Having regard to the nature of injuries and the treatment undergone, the said amounts are enhanced to Rs.10,000/- each. The Tribunal awarded Rs.1,15,310/- towards medical expenses on the basis of Exs.A7 and A8 and Rs.1,00,000/- towards artificial limb. The medical bills and the artificial limb estimation are supported by the documentary evidence on record. Ex.A11 contains an estimation of Rs.4,86,000/- towards the artificial limb; however, having regard to the evidence and the amount awarded by the Tribunal, this Court does not find it appropriate to enhance the amount under the said head. Thus, the compensation payable to the claimant is recomputed as follows:



11. As regards the liability of respondent No.2/Insurance Company, the Tribunal, on appreciation of the evidence of RW-2 and the material on record, found that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence and directed respondent No.2 to satisfy the award at the first instance with liberty to recover the same from respondent Nos.1 and 3. The said finding does not call for interference. Accordingly, the principle of pay and recover is maintained.

12. In the result, I.A.No.1 of 2025 is allowed. M.A.C.M.A.No.242 of 2019 is partly allowed. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.13,20,310/- to Rs.20,69,710/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with accrued interest, within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, with liberty to recover the same from the respondent Nos.1 and 3. On such deposit, the appellant/claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire compensation amount along with accrued interest, without furnishing any security, subject to payment of the requisite court fee on the enhanced amount. No costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.