MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 — Ss. 166, 168 — Personal injury — Compensation — Principles — Disability assessed by treating doctor — Medical Board certificate not mandatory — Quantum enhanced on appeal — Negligence and liability — Insurer having withdrawn connected appeal arising from same accident cannot reopen findings on negligence — Only quantification of compensation left open — Award enhanced substantially — Insurance Company’s appeal dismissed.
Where father and son, travelling on a scooter, suffered multiple injuries in a collision with a school van, the MACT partly allowed both claims but awarded limited amounts without considering disability and long-term discomfort merely because disability certificates were issued by the treating orthopaedic surgeon and not a District Medical Board.
Held, that (i) once insurer withdrew its appeal arising out of the same accident in the connected case, challenge to negligence and liability stood foreclosed and only quantum could be examined; (ii) disability certificates issued by the treating orthopaedic surgeon cannot be discarded solely for want of Medical Board certification — evidence must be assessed practically, keeping in view litigants’ difficulties; (iii) compensation cannot be either a windfall or an eyewash — it must reflect just and reasonable recompense for pain, trauma, discomfort and loss of amenities.
Following 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), compensation was recalculated under distinct heads including pain and suffering, future medical expenses, disability, loss of amenities and attendant charges.
Father’s award enhanced from Rs. 3,87,794 to Rs. 8,04,794; son’s award enhanced from Rs. 1,02,000 to Rs. 3,35,000, with interest @ 7.5% p.a. — Insurer’s appeal 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, MACMA Nos. 4089 & 4090 of 2012 and MACMA No. 2473 of 2014, decided on 05-12-2025 (AP), per A. Hari Haranadha Sarma, J.)
II. ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW
A. Factual Matrix and Procedural Background
-
Two claim petitions were filed before MACT, Rajahmundry — the father (O.P. 195/2010) and son (O.P. 157/2011), arising out of one accident (16.02.2009) involving a school van AP 28 V 5249, insured with Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.
-
MACT partly allowed both claims, awarding Rs. 3,87,794 and Rs. 1,02,000, respectively.
-
Father and son appealed for enhancement; insurer appealed only in one case disputing quantum and liability — but withdrew its other appeal arising out of the same accident.
B. Negligence and Liability — Effect of Withdrawal by Insurer
The High Court held that:
-
Negligence and liability had been adjudicated under common judgment by the MACT.
-
Once the insurer withdrew MACMA No. 2475/2014 in the son’s case arising from the same facts,
objections on negligence/liability “no longer remain for contest”.
-
Thus, insurer was confined only to quantum arguments.
C. Medical Evidence and Disability Assessment
-
Petitioners sustained multiple fractures (7 injuries each), surgeries, long inpatient treatment, neurological complications (in father).
-
Disability certificates (father — 60%, son — 50%) were issued by treating orthopaedic surgeon, and he was cross-examined.
-
MACT refused to consider disability claims solely because certificates were not issued by a Medical Board.
D. Applicable Principles of Law
The Court applied Supreme Court guidelines:
-
Baby Sakshi Greola, Kajal v. Jagdish Chand — injury compensation requires distinct head-wise determination.
-
Yadava Kumar — compensation aims to restore victim to pre-accident status; liberal but rational approach required.
-
Rajkumar v. Ajay Kumar —
-
disability of limb ≠ disability of earning capacity
-
treating doctor’s disability opinion cannot be discarded
-
-
Sidram v. UIIC — cataloguing of heads and functional loss assessment.
-
R.D. Hattangadi — discretion acceptable, but must avoid speculation and extremes.
E. Reassessment Mechanism Adopted by Court
The Court noted MACT deficiencies:
-
No award for disability, loss of amenities, special diet, attendant charges.
-
No realistic award for future medical treatment.
-
MACT failed to consider long-term hardship and discomfort.
The Court therefore enhanced compensation head-wise:
For father — increased amounts for:
-
Pain & suffering
-
Transport
-
Future treatment
-
Disability
-
Attendant charges
-
Loss of amenities
-
Special diet.
For son — granted amounts for:
-
Loss of amenities
-
Disability
-
Transport
-
Future treatment
-
Attendant charges
-
Special diet.
Medical expenditure disallowed for father due to reimbursement — compensated via other heads.
F. Final Quantification and Judicial Reasoning
-
Father’s compensation enhanced from Rs. 3,87,794 to Rs. 8,04,794
with interest @ 7.5% p.a., citing hospitalization, surgeries, disabling discomfort. -
Son’s compensation enhanced from Rs. 1,02,000 to Rs. 3,35,000
with interest @ 7.5% p.a., citing multiple fractures and functional hardship.
G. Insurer’s Appeal Outcome
-
Insurer’s challenge to liability rejected as barred by withdrawal doctrine.
-
Its appeal dismissed as the Court found MACT’s quantification inadequate, not excessive.
III. CONCLUSION / DISPOSAL SUMMARY
-
MACMA No. 4089/2012 (father) — partly allowed
-
Compensation enhanced to Rs. 8,04,794
-
Interest @ 7.5% p.a. from petition date to realization
-
Insurer liable; two months’ time to deposit; claimant entitled to full withdrawal.
-
-
MACMA No. 4090/2012 (son) — partly allowed
-
Compensation enhanced to Rs. 3,35,000
-
Same interest rate, liability directions and withdrawal rights.
-
-
MACMA No. 2473/2014 (insurer’s appeal) — dismissed
-
Negligence / liability not open for contest due to earlier withdrawal
-
No costs.
-
-
All pending miscellaneous petitions — closed.
No comments:
Post a Comment