1. This memorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the MV Act’) assailing the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (III Additional District Judge) (Fast Track Court), Khammam in M.A.T.O.P.No.882 of 2005, dated 23.10.2008.

2. Appeal against respondent No.2 is dismissed vide docket order dated 08.12.2011.

3. Appellant is respondent No.2, respondent No.1 is the petitioner and respondent No.2 is the respondent No.1 before the Tribunal.

4.1 Respondent No.1 – petitioner has filed claim petition under Section 166 of MV Act claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of accident till the date of realization for the injuries sustained by him in the accident.

               4.2 On 09.04.2005 at about 08.00 p.m., respondent No.1 – petitioner loaded his Mirchi bags in the trolley auto bearing No.AP-20-W-587 was proceedings to keep the same in cold storage at Khammam when the auto reached near outskirts of Burugupadu village, driver of the auto by name P.Narasimha Rao drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed without taking minimum care and caution and failed to control the vehicle due to which the auto turned turtle. Due to the accident, respondent No.1 – petitioner right hand got struck in the auto and was totally crushed, he was shifted to Srujan Ortho and Accident Care Hospital, Khammam and was treated by Dr.P.N.V.S.V.Prasad as inpatient for a period of 10 days. During the course of treatment, blood transfusion has taken place and 4th and 5th fingers of right hand of respondent No.1 – petitioner were badly damaged and the doctor had amputated the same. The third finger of respondent No.1 – petitioner is also damaged but that was not amputated. Respondent No.1 – petitioner went to police station and on enquiry he came to know that no report was lodged regarding the accident, thereby he lodged a complaint before PS Dornakal, on the said complaint a case in crime No.56 of 2005 was registered for the offence under Section 338 of IPC and police has filed charge sheet. Respondent No.1 – petitioner was hale and healthy prior to the accident, was doing toddy tapping and agriculture and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month on toddy and Rs.80,000/- on agriculture. Due to the accident his life was paralyzed and his dependents have become helpless and 50% of his hand was amputated. Respondent No.1 – petitioner has spent Rs.30,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.20,000/- towards future medical expenses. He lost his past and future income. Due to the accident he was unable to do his agriculture work and toddy tapping, he engaged labourers for agriculture works and toddy tapping and he had to pay Rs.20,000/- per annum to them. The disability sustained by respondent No.1 – petitioner is permanent in nature and respondent Nos.1 and 2 (respondent No.2 and appellant herein) are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

5. Respondent No.1 (respondent No.2 herein) filed counter in MATOP and contended that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the auto, auto is insured with respondent No.2 (appellant herein), the policy is in force at the time of the accident and the driver possess valid driving licence to drive the auto. Hence respondent No.2 (appellant herein) is liable to indemnify respondent No.1 and liable to pay the compensation and prayed to dismiss the O.P against him.

6. Respondent No.2 (appellant herein) filed counter in MATOP and denied the age, earning and occupation of respondent No.1 – petitioner. Further denied the income of the respondent No.1 – petitioner apart from the money spent by him for his treatment, the claim of the respondent No.1 – petitioner is excessive, the policy is violated and prayed to dismiss the O.P.

7. The learned Tribunal has framed the following issues:

               1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the accident vehicle?

               2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation and from which of the respondents?

               3. To what relief?

8. Respondent No.1 – petitioner is examined as PW1, examined PW2 - Dr.P.N.V.S.V.Prasad and got marked Exs.A1 to A22. S.Seshagiri, Senior Assistant of the appellant – respondent No.2 is examined as RW1, got marked Ex.B1 – copy of policy, Ex.B2 – driving licence extract issued by Additional Licencing Authority, Khammam and also examined Ch.Satyanarayanamurthy, AO - cum – Additional Licencing Authority, Khammam as RW2 - got marked Ex.X1- driving licence extract.

9. The learned Tribunal after analyzing the evidence adduced by the parties and after going through the documents marked thereon has partly allowed the O.P. by awarding compensation of Rs.1,12,273/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit holding that respondent Nos.1 and 2 (respondent No.2 and appellant herein) are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant – respondent No.2 submits that the Tribunal failed to see that there is no permit and approval to carry any person other than the driver on the goods trolley, without any permit and provision, nobody is allowed to sit on the vehicle in the goods trolley and there is no provision to carry the owner of the goods and as such the provision is for a heavy goods vehicle and medium goods vehicle covering long distance. The Tribunal has not considered Ex.B1 – copy of policy and Ex.B2 - driving licence extract, the driver of the crime vehicle does not possess valid driving lience as on the date of accident, the Tribunal has not discussed anything with regard to the liability as per Ex.B1 – copy of policy and prayed to allow the appeal.

11. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 - petitioner submits that the learned Tribunal has not awarded just compensation for fourth and fifth fingers of right hand of the respondent No.1 – petitioner which are amputated, there is fracture injury to third finger of the right hand and crush injury to right hand which are grievous in nature. The Tribunal has not considered Ex.A6 – disability certificate issued by District Medical Officer, Khammam, which shows that the injured has sustained 25% permanent disability. In support of his contentions has relied on the decisions in the cases of (i) Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and Others ((2003) 2 SCC 274) , (ii) Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited ((2011) 13 SCC 236), (iii) Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others ((2013) 9 SCC 54), (iv) Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Others ((2016) 4 SCC 298), (v) Surekha and Others Vs. Santosh and Others (2020 ACJ 2156), (vi) Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Rambha Devi and Others  ((2025) 3 SCC 95) , (vii) Sunita and Others Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited and Others (2025 ACJ 1841) and (viii) Adam Indur Muttemma and Others Vs. Rathod Reddia and Others (2015 (4) ALT 775 (LB)).

12. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 – petitioner has filed calculation memo seeking enhancement of compensation.

13. Heard learned counsel on record and perused the material.

14. Now the points for consideration are:

               (i) Whether the respondent No.1 – petitioner was awarded just compensation, if so?

               (ii) Whether the award passed by the learned Tribunal in M.A.T.O.P.No.882 of 2005, dated 23.10.2008 suffers from any perversity or illegality, if so, does it require interference of this Court?

Point Nos.1 and 2:

15. Appellant – respondent No.2 has challenged that the driver of the crime vehicle do not possess valid driving licence at the time of accident and there is no permit and approval to carry any person other than the driver on the goods trolley, which has no provision to carry owner of the goods and there is no contractual and statutory liability on the appellant – respondent No.2 – insurance company and Ex.B1 – policy is violated.

16. Ex.A2 – C.C. of charge sheet in FIR.No.56/2005 which goes to show that Pittala Narsimha Rao, driver of trolley auto bearing No.AP-20- W-587 is charged for the offence under Section 338 of IPC. PS Dornakal, but he was not charged under the MV Act that he do not possess valid driving licence.

17.1 Senior Assistant of the appellant – respondent No.2 is examined as RW1 and deposed that Ex.B1 – copy of policy covers the trolley auto bearing No.AP-20-W-587, at the time of accident i.e., on 09.04.2005 the driver of the crime vehicle by name P.Narasimha Rao was possessing driving licence vide D.L.No.4391/2001 which is non transport licence, he drove the crime vehicle without having transport licence and the crime vehicle is meant for carrying goods, one person is permitted as per RC and respondent No.1 – petitioner was travelling as unauthorized passenger at the time of alleged accident.

               17.2 In his cross examination he stated that the crime vehicle is a goods vehicle and respondent No.1 – petitioner was taking his Mirchi bags to the market. Crime vehicle is an auto rickshaw and the driver has got driving licence to drive auto rickshaw, non transport at the time of the accident.

18. Additional Licensing Authority is examined as RW2 – Ch.Satyanarayanamurthy, he has produced Ex.X1 - driving licence extract of P.Narasimha Rao S/o. Venkateswarlu, driver and he is authorized to drive auto rickshaw, non transport, it was issued on 25.07.2001 and valid up to 25.07.2021. In his cross examination he stated that he do not know the class of the crime vehicle in the case.

19. Admittedly the driver of the crime vehicle is possessing driving licence non transport.

20. The learned Tribunal observed in the award in paragraph No.10 which reads as under:

               “The learned counsel for R-2 also submitted that the driver of the crime auto has no valid D.L at the time of accident, and thus, R-1 has violated the policy conditions and thus R-2 is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. He also submitted that the driver of the auto has D.L. only to drive Non-transport Auto Rickshaw. R-2 also examined R.W.2 Addl. Licencing Authority, Khammam, and filed Ex.X.1 D.L. Extract of erring driver and he deposed that by Ex.B.2 and X.1, the erring driver was authorized to drive Auto Rickshaw non-transport only. R-2 admitted that the crime auto is a goods vehicle and thus, the erring driver has valid D.L. to drive crime trolley auto. Thus, R-2 proved that R.1 violated the terms and conditions of the policy by allowing the person who has no valid D.L. to drive the auto, Thus, in view of cogent and coherent proof filed by R-2, it is proved that the R.1 has violated the terms and conditions of the policy. Though R-1 violated the policy terms and conditions, as Ex.B-1 policy was in force. R-2 is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner first and thereafter he is entitled to recover the same from R-1.”

21.1 Ex.B1 – copy of policy is goods carrying commercial vehicle (open) gross vehicle weight is 975.

               21.2 Respondent No.1 – petitioner also contended that though he has not filed cross appeal for enhancement of compensation but he is entitled for just compensation.

22.1 In the MV Act there is no restriction that compensation could be awarded only up to the amount claimed by the claimant. In an appropriate case, where from the evidence brought on record if the Tribunal/Court considers that the claimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed, the Tribunal may pass such award. The only embargo is it should be "just" compensation, that is to say, it should be neither arbitrary, fanciful nor unjustifiable from the evidence. [See: Nagappa1, Rajesh3, Surekha5 and Adam Indur Muttem8]

               22.2 In Mukund Dewangan4 the Supreme Court has framed questions which are required to be referred to the Larger Bench in order to resolve conflict in the views expressed by different Benches of the Supreme Court the questions are as under:

               “59.1. What is the meaning to be given to the definition of "light motor vehicle" as defined in Section 2(21) of the MV Act? Whether transport vehicles are excluded from it?

               59.2. Whether "transport vehicle" and "omnibus" the "gross vehicle weight" of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg would be a "light motor vehicle” and also motor car or tractor or a roadroller, "unladen weight" of which does not exceed 7500 kg and holder of licence to drive class of "light motor vehicle" as provided in Section 10(2)(d) would be competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the "gross vehicle weight" of which does not exceed 7500 kg or a motor car or tractor or roadroller, the "unladen weight" of which does not exceed 7500 kg?

               59.3. What is the effect of the amendment made by virtue of Act 54 of 1994 w.e.f. 14-11-1994 while substituting clauses (e) to (h) of Section 10(2) which contained "medium goods vehicle", "medium passenger motor vehicle", "heavy goods vehicle" and "heavy passenger motor vehicle" by "transport vehicle"? Whether insertion of the expression "transport vehicle" under Section 10(2)(e) is related to the said substituted classes only or it also excluded transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class from the purview of Sections 10(2)(d) and 2(41) of the Act?

               59.4. What is the effect of amendment of Form 4 as to operation of the provisions contained in Section 10 as amended in the year 1994 and whether procedure to obtain driving licence for transport vehicle of class of "light motor vehicle" has been changed?”

               22.3 A driver holding a licence for light motor vehicle (LMV) class, under Section 10(2)(d) for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight under 7500 kg, is permitted to operate a "transport vehicle" without needing additional authorisation under Section 10(2)(e) of the MV Act specifically for the "transport vehicle" class. For licensing purposes, LMVs and transport vehicles are not entirely separate classes. An overlap exists between the two. The special eligibility requirements will however continue to apply for, inter alia, e-carts, e-rickshaws, and vehicles carrying hazardous goods.[See: Rambha Devi6]

               22.4 In Sunita7 the Supreme Court has directed the insurance company to pay the compensation and then recover the amount from the owner alone basing on the judgments of Mukund Dewangan4 and Rambha Devi6.

               22.5.1 In Ramachandrappa2 the Supreme Court has taken the earnings of the coolie at Rs.4,500/- per month wherein the MVC case is filed in the year 2004.

               22.5.2 Coming to the case on hand the date of accident is 09.04.2005, the age of the respondent No.1 - petitioner is shown as 25 years and his annual income is shown as Rs.1,00,000/- per annum (Rs.80,000/- per annum on agricultural crops + Rs.20,000/- per annum on toddy). Ex.A7 is the C.C of pahani for the year 2004 – 2005, which shows an extent of Ac.1-20 guntas but the name of the land owner is not mentioned therein. This Court is of the view that if the earning of respondent No.1 – petitioner is taken at Rs.4,500/- per month which will meet the ends of justice.

23.1 Insofar as the disability is concerned the evidence of PW2 Dr.P.N.V.S.V Prasad is that the patient by name Upender (respondent No.1 herein) visited his hospital on 10.04.2005 with crush injury of right hand, as the circulation was impaired, fourth and fifth fingers were amputated and his third finger was fixed with K-wires, he was discharged on 18.04.2005, amputated at metacarpo phallangeal joints and third finger at present is not functioning, as he lost part of tissue to third finger and the remaining disability of the third finger is permanent and the patient was under his follow up till 03.05.2005. The original of Ex.A3 – C.C. of wound certificate was issued by the hospital, Ex.A4 - discharge card and Ex.A5 are the treatment bills.

               23.2 In his cross examination he stated that the amputation of the fingers is minor operation and there is no need to use costly medication. He denied the suggestion that the petitioner can attend for his agricultural operations as earlier and he is giving false evidence.

24. Ex.A6 is the disability certificate issued by the Chairman, District Medical Board, Khammam, which shows 25% post treatment amputation finger. Respondent No.1 – petitioner has not examined any one from the District Medical Board, Khammam to prove his disability. This Court is of the view that the disability is taken at 15% in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pappu Deo Yadav Vs. Naresh Kumar and Others (AIR 2020 SC 4424).

25. The learned Tribunal has rightly taken the age of the respondent No.1 – petitioner as 25 years and wrongly fixed the income at Rs.60/- per day i.e., Rs.1,800/- per month, which is on a lower side. As per Ex.A3 - certified copy of wound certificate there is crush injury to right hand, which is grievous in nature with devitalized little and ring fingers and compound PP middle finger

26. As per the evidence of PW2, respondent No.1 – petitioner was admitted in the hospital on 10.04.2005, discharged on 18.04.2005, he was under his follow up treatment till 03.05.2005 and hence the loss of earning is taken for one month. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards pain and suffering, transportation charges, attendant charges and extra nourishment hence the respondent No.1 – petitioner is entitled for the same.

27. As the income is taken at Rs.4,500/- per month, annual income of the respondent No.1 – petitioner comes to Rs.54,000/- (4,500 x 12). As the respondent No.1 – petitioner is aged about 25 years as on the date of accident appropriate multiplier is ‘18’ as per Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. 10 , which comes to Rs.9,72,000/- (54,000 x 18). If 15% disability is taken loss of income due to disability would be Rs.1,45,800/- (9,72,000 x 15%).

28. The calculation arrived by this Court is as under:

               

                

29. As observed by the learned Tribunal in paragraph No.10 stated supra appellant – respondent No.2 is liable to indemnify the compensation amount and recover the same from the owner, but in the operative portion of the award it held that respondent Nos.1 and 2 (respondent No.2 and appellant herein) are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation, that portion is set aside and the appellant – respondent No.2 is liable to pay the enhanced compensation to respondent No.1 – petitioner and recover the same from respondent No.2 – respondent No.1 – owner of the vehicle. The interest awarded by the Tribunal is not disturbed. Hence points are answered accordingly.

30. In the result, MACMA.No.2173 of 2012 is partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced as under:

               a) The impugned award dated 23.10.2008, passed in M.A.T.O.P.No.882 of 2005, stands modified.

               b) The compensation awarded by the Tribunal i.e., Rs.1,12,273/- is enhanced to Rs.2,44,373/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till payment.

               c) The appellant – respondent No.2 is hereby directed to deposit the awarded amount with interest and costs less the amount already paid if any within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and then recover the same from respondent No.2 – respondent No.1 – owner of the vehicle.

               d) Respondent No.1 – petitioner is permitted to withdraw his entire amount with costs and interest thereon without furnishing security.

As a sequel miscellaneous application/s pending if any shall stand closed. No costs.