Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Ss. 166, 168 – Personal injury claims – Father and son, both injured in same accident – Multiple fractures, surgeries, prolonged hospitalization – Approach to quantum – “Just and reasonable” compensation – Heads of damages – Role of disability certificates issued by treating doctor (not Medical Board) – Enhancement granted. Father (junior superintendent, Central Warehousing Corporation) and son were riding a scooter when a school van (insured with Shriram General Insurance) came from opposite direction and collided with them, causing multiple fractures and serious injuries to both. The MACT, Rajahmundry, by common award, partly allowed both claims, granting (i) Rs. 3,87,794 to the father in M.V.O.P. No.195/2010 and (ii) Rs. 1,02,000 to the son in M.V.O.P. No.157/2011. Claimants filed MACMAs for enhancement; insurer filed MACMA against the award in the father’s case alone, having withdrawn the appeal in the son’s case. The High Court held that once the insurer had withdrawn its challenge in the connected claim arising from the same accident and same defence, questions of negligence and liability were no longer open and the only surviving issue was adequacy of quantum. Relying on Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad Simon, Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, Yadava Kumar v. National Insurance Co., Rajkumar v. Ajay Kumar, Sidram v. United India Insurance and R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India), the Court reiterated that: (i) assessment in injury cases involves some guesswork but must avoid both windfall and eyewash; (ii) disability certificates by treating orthopaedic surgeon cannot be brushed aside merely because they are not issued by a Medical Board, especially where the doctor has treated the claimant and is cross-examined; and (iii) reasonable amounts must be awarded under distinct heads such as pain and suffering, future medical needs, attendant charges, loss of amenities, disability and special diet. On facts, having found seven injuries to each claimant, long hospitalization, multiple surgeries and long-term discomfort, the Court enhanced the father’s compensation from Rs. 3,87,794 to Rs. 8,04,794 and the son’s from Rs. 1,02,000 to Rs. 3,35,000, both with 7.5% interest p.a., maintaining insurer’s liability. Insurer’s appeal was dismissed. (Nittala Ravindra v. Kolusu Appanna & Ors; N.V.N. Pavan Kumar v. Kolusu Appanna & Ors; Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nittala Ravindra & Ors, M.A.C.M.A. Nos. 4089 & 4090 of 2012 and 2473 of 2014, decided on 05-12-2025 (AP), per A. Hari Haranadha Sarma, J.)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Ss. 166, 168 – Personal injury claims – Father and son, both injured in same accident – Multiple fractures, surgeries, prolonged hospitalization – Approach to quantum – “Just and reasonable” compensation – Heads of damages – Role of disability certificates issued by treating doctor (not Medical Board) – Enhancement granted.
Father (junior superintendent, Central Warehousing Corporation) and son were riding a scooter when a school van (insured with Shriram General Insurance) came from opposite direction and collided with them, causing multiple fractures and serious injuries to both. The MACT, Rajahmundry, by common award, partly allowed both claims, granting (i) Rs. 3,87,794 to the father in M.V.O.P. No.195/2010 and (ii) Rs. 1,02,000 to the son in M.V.O.P. No.157/2011. Claimants filed MACMAs for enhancement; insurer filed MACMA against the award in the father’s case alone, having withdrawn the appeal in the son’s case. The High Court held that once the insurer had withdrawn its challenge in the connected claim arising from the same accident and same defence, questions of negligence and liability were no longer open and the only surviving issue was adequacy of quantum. Relying on Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad Simon, Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, Yadava Kumar v. National Insurance Co., Rajkumar v. Ajay Kumar, Sidram v. United India Insurance and R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India), the Court reiterated that: (i) assessment in injury cases involves some guesswork but must avoid both windfall and eyewash; (ii) disability certificates by treating orthopaedic surgeon cannot be brushed aside merely because they are not issued by a Medical Board, especially where the doctor has treated the claimant and is cross-examined; and (iii) reasonable amounts must be awarded under distinct heads such as pain and suffering, future medical needs, attendant charges, loss of amenities, disability and special diet. On facts, having found seven injuries to each claimant, long hospitalization, multiple surgeries and long-term discomfort, the Court enhanced the father’s compensation from Rs. 3,87,794 to Rs. 8,04,794 and the son’s from Rs. 1,02,000 to Rs. 3,35,000, both with 7.5% interest p.a., maintaining insurer’s liability. Insurer’s appeal was dismissed.

(Nittala Ravindra v. Kolusu Appanna & Ors; N.V.N. Pavan Kumar v. Kolusu Appanna & Ors; Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nittala Ravindra & Ors, M.A.C.M.A. Nos. 4089 & 4090 of 2012 and 2473 of 2014, decided on 05-12-2025 (AP), per A. Hari Haranadha Sarma, J.)

II. STRUCTURED ANALYSIS

1. Procedural posture and clubbing

• Two claim petitions before MACT, Rajahmundry (common judgment):

  • M.V.O.P. No.195 of 2010 – claimant: Nittala Ravindra (father).

  • M.V.O.P. No.157 of 2011 – claimant: N.V.N. Pavan Kumar (son).

• Three appeals before High Court:

  • MACMA 4089/2012 – by father (claimant in O.P. 195/2010) – enhancement.

  • MACMA 4090/2012 – by son (claimant in O.P. 157/2011) – enhancement.

  • MACMA 2473/2014 – by Insurance Company (R–3 & 4 in O.P. 195/2010) – reducing / disputing quantum & liability.

• Another appeal by insurer in the son’s case (MACMA 2475/2014) was withdrawn.

• As both O.P.s arise out of same accident, same van, same policy and same defence, the High Court heard the three MACMAs together and delivered a common judgment.

2. Facts in brief

• Accident date: 16.02.2009.

• Place: Near Housing Board Colony Weigh Bridge, Lalacheruvu, Rajahmundry.

• Claimants:

  • Father (Ravindra) – riding/occupying scooter AP 05 BA 4155.

  • Son (Pavan Kumar) – accompanying on same scooter.

• Offending vehicle: School van AP 28 V 5249 of Adarsha Educational Society:

  • R–1 – driver (Kolusu Appanna).

  • R–2 – owner (Adarsha Educational Society).

  • R–3 & R–4 – Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Jaipur HQ & Rajahmundry branch).

• Mode of accident: Van came from opposite direction and dashed scooter.
  FIR in Crime No.30/2009 of Bommuru PS; charge sheet filed against van driver.

• Injuries & treatment:

  • Both sustained multiple injuries (seven each), many fractures.

  • Initially shifted to Swatantra Hospital, then Abhaya Hospital, then Apex Emergency Hospital.

  • Father (PW1) hospitalized up to 23.03.2009; underwent two surgeries (ORIF for humerus, forearm, trochanter, both bones leg); clavicle fracture and some fractures treated conservatively; developed cerebral edema and jaundice during treatment.

  • Son (PW2) also sustained fractures (particularly left leg, both bones, right humerus and forearm) and soft tissue injuries.

3. Pleadings & Issues before MACT

• Claimants’ case:

  • Accident solely due to rash and negligent driving of van driver.

  • Detailed injuries; large medical expenditure; long absence from work for father; loss of earnings for son; residual disability.

• Insurance Company’s defence:

  • Non-joinder: owner/insurer of scooter not impleaded.

  • Driver of van allegedly without valid licence – violation of policy.

  • Accident allegedly due to negligence of scooter rider (son).

  • Quantum excessive.

• Issues framed by MACT (common):

  1. Whether injuries were suffered in accident on 16.02.2009 due to rash and negligent driving of van AP 28 V 5249?

  2. Whether petitioners are entitled to compensation, and if so, to what amount?

  3. Whether R–1 to R–4 are liable?

4. Evidence before MACT

• Oral:

  • PW1 – Father / claimant in O.P. 195/2010.

  • PW2 – Son / claimant in O.P. 157/2011.

  • PW3 – Dr. Karri Srinivas, Consulting Orthopaedic Surgeon, Apex Hospital.

  • PW4 – Dr. Y. Sudarshanam, Medico-legal consultant, Apex Hospital.

• Key documents:

  • Exs. A1–A6 – FIR, complaint, rough sketch, charge sheet etc. – establish accident, involvement of van, and prosecution of van driver.

  • Exs. A2, X2 – wound certificates (father & son).

  • Exs. A7, A9 – bunches of medical bills (over Rs. 3 lakhs each).

  • Exs. A11, A12 – disability certificates:

    • 60% for father; 50% for son (by PW3 – Orthopaedic Surgeon).

  • Exs. A13–A15 – discharge summary, sanction order, salary certificate (father’s employment & leave).

  • Ex.B1 – Insurance policy.

5. MACT’s findings

(A) Negligence

• On FIR, charge sheet and oral evidence of claimants, MACT held van driver negligent; no contributory negligence recorded.

(B) Quantum – original award

• Father – O.P. 195/2010: claim Rs. 15,18,325; award Rs. 3,87,794:

  • Rs. 2,59,794 – loss of medical leave & part loss of earnings.

  • Rs. 1,22,000 – mental agony/pain & suffering.

  • Rs. 6,000 – transport.

  • No amount for disability, loss of amenities, attendant, future treatment, etc., and no separate medical expenses, since employer reimbursed.

• Son – O.P. 157/2011: claim Rs. 17,34,187; award Rs. 1,02,000:

  • Rs. 85,000 – mental agony (grievous injuries).

  • Rs. 10,000 – medical expenses (lump sum).

  • Rs. 6,000 – transport.

  • No amount for disability, loss of amenities, future treatment, attendant charges etc.

(C) Liability

• MACT fastened liability jointly and severally on all respondents, including insurer, holding that:

  • Negligence of R–1 (driver) is proved.

  • Van belongs to R–2 (owner).

  • R–3 is insurer under Ex.B1; no violation of policy proved.

6. Arguments in the High Court

• Claimants (MACMA 4089 & 4090/2012):

  • MACT failed to properly appreciate gravity of injuries, surgeries, hospitalization.

  • Disability certificates and long-term physical restrictions ignored.

  • Awards are unreasonably low; heads like disability, loss of amenities, future treatment, special diet, attendant charges have been under or non-compensated.

• Insurer (MACMA 2473/2014):

  • Characterises accident as head-on collision, argues contributory negligence of scooter rider.

  • Argues complete or substantial negligence on scooter’s side, seeks scaling down or exoneration.

  • Also disputes quantum as inflated.

---

7. Technical aspect: limited scope for insurer

• The Court records that:

  • Insurer earlier filed another appeal (MACMA 2475/2014) regarding the son’s award in the same accident, but withdrew it.

  • Both claims arose from the same incident, were decided by common judgment, and insurer raised same defences.

• Therefore, having abandoned challenge in one case, and with negligence/liability already settled in common judgment, the Court holds:

  • Negligence and liability issues no longer remain open for contest in the present set.

  • Only question is “justness” of quantum in both claims.

• Effect: Insurer is confined to contesting quantum; contributory negligence / no liability arguments are effectively shut out.

8. Precedents relied on for quantum

The Court relies heavily on Supreme Court jurisprudence to re-calibrate compensation:

1. Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad Simon (2024/2025) and Kajal v. Jagdish Chand (2020) 4 SCC 413 – catalogue heads for injury compensation (medicines, loss of earning capacity, pain and suffering, future treatment, attendant charges, loss of amenities, future prospects, special education, conveyance & special diet, loss of marriage prospects).

2. Yadava Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2010) 10 SCC 341 – distinction between “damages” and “compensation”; compensation aims to place the injured as nearly as possible in pre-accident position, requires a liberal, realistic approach; no mechanical calculation.

3. Rajkumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343 – guiding principles on disability and loss of earning capacity:

   • Percentage of permanent disability ≠ percentage of loss of earning capacity.

   • Treating doctor can speak only to physical disability; Tribunal must assess functional loss in context of job, age, etc.

   • Recognises practical difficulties for claimants in getting Medical Board certificates; disability assessment by treating doctor is a relevant piece of evidence.

4. Sidram v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2023) 3 SCC 439 – elaborates heads and principles in injury cases, following Rajkumar.

5. R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd. (1995) 1 SCC 551 – assessment involves some guess work and conjecture, but must avoid speculation and extremes; compensation must be neither a windfall nor a mere eyewash.

The Court uses these precedents to justify a more generous, structured and principled approach than the MACT’s.

---

9. Treatment of medical evidence and disability

• PW3 (orthopaedic surgeon):

  • Treated both claimants, performed surgeries, issued wound certificates and disability certificates (Exs. A11 & A12 – 50% and 60%).

  • Cross-examined; admitted that District Medical Board is competent to certify disability, but no contrary medical evidence is given by insurer.

• MACT discarded disability for want of Medical Board certificate.
  High Court disagrees:

  • Holds that non-Medical-Board disability certificates by treating doctor cannot be brushed aside in entirety.

  • Given multiple fractures, surgeries, long hospitalization and the nature of work, some realistic disability-based compensation must be awarded, even if exact percentage is treated notionally.

---

10. Re-assessment: Heads and amounts

The Court notes:

• Father and son both suffered seven injuries each, with a mix of simple and grievous injuries.

• Father had prolonged in-patient stay (over a month), two surgeries and residual difficulty (stick-assisted walking, long leave from work).

• Both require consideration for:

  • Pain & suffering

  • Transport

  • Future medical needs

  • Attendant charges

  • Loss of amenities

  • Disability (functional / not necessarily loss of job)

  • Special diet
    (Medical expenses for father already reimbursed - so only adjusted via leave/loss of earnings.)

Accordingly, the Court re-tabulates compensation as follows:

(A) Father – O.P. 195/2010 / MACMA 4089/2012

Head	MACT	High Court
Loss of medical leave & part loss of earnings	2,59,794	2,59,794
Mental agony, pain & suffering (7 injuries; surgeries & fractures)	1,22,000	2,00,000
Transport	6,000	25,000
Future treatment / medical needs	–	75,000
Attendant charges	–	10,000
Loss of amenities of life	–	15,000
Disability	–	2,00,000
Special diet	–	20,000
Total	3,87,794	8,04,794

Medical bills are not separately granted because employer reimbursed, but the Court bolsters other heads accordingly.

(B) Son – O.P. 157/2011 / MACMA 4090/2012

Head	MACT	High Court
Medical expenses	10,000	25,000 (as corrected base)
Mental agony, pain & suffering (3 simple + 3 grievous injuries taken into account)	86,000	1,20,000
Transport	6,000	25,000
Future treatment / medical needs	–	10,000
Attendant charges	–	10,000
Loss of amenities of life	–	25,000
Disability	–	1,00,000
Special diet	–	20,000
Total	1,02,000	3,35,000

The Court explicitly stresses the need to factor long-term discomfort and loss of amenities even when earning capacity is not conclusively proved to be destroyed.

---

III. RESULT / OPERATIVE DIRECTIONS

1. MACMA No. 4089 of 2012 (Father – Ravindra)

   • Partly allowed.

   • Compensation in O.P. 195/2010 enhanced from Rs. 3,87,794 to Rs. 8,04,794.

   • Interest: 7.5% p.a. from date of petition till realisation.

   • Liable party: Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 (insurer) – jointly and severally.

   • Time for deposit of balance: two months.

   • Insurance Company permitted to deposit directly into claimant’s bank account, with proof before MACT.

   • Claimant entitled to withdraw entire amount on deposit.

   • No order as to costs in the appeal.

2. MACMA No. 2473 of 2014 (Insurer’s appeal)

   • Dismissed.

   • No order as to costs.

3. MACMA No. 4090 of 2012 (Son – Pavan Kumar)

   • Partly allowed.

   • Compensation in O.P. 157/2011 enhanced from Rs. 1,02,000 to Rs. 3,35,000.

   • Interest: 7.5% p.a. from date of petition till realisation.

   • Liable party: Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 (insurer) – jointly and severally.

   • Same directions regarding deposit within two months, direct credit to claimant’s account, and full withdrawal.

   • No order as to costs in the appeal.

4. All pending miscellaneous petitions in the MACMAs stand closed.