Heard, Sri Sreemannarayana Vattikuti, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Hemanth Kumar Venna, learned counsel for the 1st respondent and perused the entire material on record.

1. Assailing the Award and Decree, dated 09.01.2018, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional District Judge in M.V.O.P.No.124 of 2016, the 2nd respondent in the M.V.O.P. has filed this appeal contending that the Award of compensation is abnormal.

2. The averments and the narration of the parties will be as referred in the present appeal.

3. The contentions of the claimant/2nd respondent herein are that the claimant was aged 32 years and a wholesale vegetable vendor, getting an income of Rs.90,000/- per month. On 05.01.2016, at about 01:15 P.M., while he was travelling as a passenger in the KSRTC bus bearing No.KA 42/F 1762 from Chittoor to Kolar to purchase vegetables, near Sudha Supriya Hotel on Palamaner-Chittoor road, the 1st respondent i.e., the driver of the KSRTC bus drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 03/Z 0134 as a result of which, the claimant sustained injuries on his person and fracture to his right hand and was shifted to the Government Hospital, Palamaner through 108 Ambulance. The claimant further averred that he was referred to a private hospital for better treatment and was shifted to Kishore Hospital, Chittoor and thereafter to Billroth Hospital, Chennai for conducting surgery of his right hand on the advice of Dr.Kishore Kumar. There, he has undergone surgery and in pursuance, a steel rod was fixed from shoulder 4 GTK,J M.A.C.M.A.No.2079 of 2018 to elbow. Further, he is taking physiotherapy and on account of the injuries, he is unable to lift his right hand and lost his earnings.

4. Crime No.1/2016 was registered for the offence punishable under Section 337 of IPC by the Station House Officer, Palamaner Urban Police Station, against the driver of the crime vehicle-KSRTC bus bearing No.KA 42/F 1762 and after investigation charge sheet was filed.

5. The claimant further stated in the Claim Petition that due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he became permanently disabled person and unable to do any work after the accident and the accident was solely occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the KSRTC bus driver and hence both are jointly liable.

6. In oppugnance, the driver filed written statement denying the allegations mentioned as concocted and created for the purpose of the case. He further asserts that the bus was driven in a very cautious and slow manner and it is the mistake of the APSRTC driver, who was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner and that the compensation claimed is very excessive. Collaborating the stance of the driver/1st respondent, the appellant/2nd respondent also filed his adversaries denying the averments that the accident happened was not due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver/1st respondent and when the bus reached Gunthur, the driver of the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 03/Z 0134 applied sudden brakes, without following traffic rules, which indicates the rashness and negligent manner and thereby the driver of the APSRTC bus is liable for the accident and projects that the driver/owner and the insurance company of the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 03/Z 0134 are liable and hence are necessary parties and further stated that the petition is to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties and also that the amount of compensation claimed by the claimant is highly excessive.

GTK,J M.A.C.M.A.No.2079 of 2018

7. Basing on these facts, which surfaced in the Original Petition, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

8. The Tribunal, while awarding the compensation, has considered the evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties, which is reflected in the Award. The Tribunal was conscious inter alia filtered the evidence meticulously to arrive at the conclusion that the driver of the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 03/Z 0134 is not involved and only the driver of the KSRTC bus with bearing No.KA 42/F 1762 is involved. The evidence of the driver of the KSRTC bus explicitly reflects that the KSRTC bus has dashed the APSRTC bus from backside and that the front portion of the KSRTC bus was damaged which engulfs the fact that the driver of the APSRTC bus is not involved and hence this Court finds no fault rather any legal infirmity or incorrectness in the Award passed by the Tribunal and hence regarding the issue No.1, this Court upheld the order passed therein.

9. Regarding awarding of compensation, the Tribunal has taken into consideration the bills adduced as evidence by the claimant and while taking into consideration the multiplier method, the Tribunal rightly taken the age of the injured as 32 and applied the multiplier „16‟ as per the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another 1 . But, while calculating the compensation amount, the Tribunal has mistakenly multiplied as below:

2009 (3) ALD 83 (SC) 6 GTK,J M.A.C.M.A.No.2079 of 2018

10. There is a glaring arithmetical mistake and instead of the multiplier „16‟, the calculation was made by applying the multiplier „18‟, which was derived as Rs.6,99,840/-. But, in fact, the Tribunal applying the multiplier ‟16‟, considering the Sarla Verma‟s case (supra), which should be as follows:

11. Generally, when mistakes are emanated from the judgments of the Court below, the corrections are rectified as per Section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code. This principle is enunciated in the judgment of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Jayalakshmi Coelho v. Oswald Joseph Coelho2 , wherein it was held that mistake by a Court ought not to cause a party to suffer and also that whatever be the intention of the Court while passing a decree or order, should be clearly reflected therein, maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit. The mistakes rectified from arithmetical or clerical or accidental in the judgment or decree which may cause prejudice to any party held must be rectified.

(emphasis supplied)

12. Regarding the quantum of compensation awarded in view of the injuries on account of the accident, the claimant stated that he used to earn income of Rs.90,000/- per month, which is not supported by any evidence. On the other hand, one M.Raja Sekhar was examined as PW4 who happens to be the President of the Vegetable Market Association, Chittoor, mentioned in his affidavit about the claimant running Vegetable Shop No.260 in the market premises and was earning Rs.3,000/- to Rs.4,000/- per day and even in the cross-examination, there was no rebuttal to the evidence adduced regarding the earning of Rs.3,000/- to Rs.4,000/- per day. The Tribunal, having taken note of the said affidavit of the President, Vegetable Market Association, ought to have 2 (2001) 4 SCC 181 7 GTK,J M.A.C.M.A.No.2079 of 2018 considered the affidavit in a positive manner instead of suspecting the said statement and no reason indicated for disbelieving.

13. The reasoning of the Tribunal is erroneous being contrary to the ratio laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajwati alias Rajjo and Others vs. United India Insurance Company Limited and Others 3 , wherein it was held as follows:

14. In view of the observations of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, the evidence of PW4 cannot be taken so lightly and the Tribunal should not have taken note in a positive manner and should have considered the claimant‟s earning as Rs.400/- per day, which comes to Rs.12,000/- per month. Considering Rs.6,000/- per month as notional income of the claimant by the Tribunal appears to be a low figure. It is no more cavil of doubt that it is the statutory duty of the Tribunal or the Appellate Court to award reasonable and just compensation. The word „just‟ was elaborately discussed and some meaning need to be attached to the word „just‟ while awarding the compensation and not only on the evidence 3 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1699 8 GTK,J M.A.C.M.A.No.2079 of 2018 adduced. The word „just compensation‟ as was then used by Lord Denning is as follows:

15. The law of the land is that the compensation when awarded, the entire circumstances need to be taken into consideration and also the social status of the claimant. It is equally settled that there is no restriction that compensation could be awarded only up to the amount claimed by the claimant. This principle was reiterated in the case of Sanobanu Nazirbhai Mirza and others vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service 4 , wherein it was observed as follows:

(2013) 16 SCC 719 9 GTK,J M.A.C.M.A.No.2079 of 2018

16. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Ranjana Prakash and Others vs. Divisional Manager and Another 5 , at paragraph No.7 held as follows:

17. In the case of K.Suresh vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and Another6 , the Hon‟ble Apex Court while dealing with the word "just compensation", at paragraph Nos.8 and 9 held as follows:

In Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd v. Nirmala Devi [(1979) 4 SCC 365], this Court has expressed thus: (SCC p. 366, para 2) "2. ... the determination of the quantum must be liberal, not niggardly since the law values life and limb in a free country in generous scales."

9. In Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra SRTC [(1999) 1 SCC 90], while dealing with the concept of "just compensation", it has been ruled that: (SCC p. 108, para 28) "28. ... The word „just‟, as its nomenclature denotes equitability, fairness and reasonableness having a large peripheral field. The largeness is, of course, not arbitrary; it is restricted by the conscience which is fair, reasonable and equitable, if it exceeds; it is termed as unfair, unreasonable, unequitable, not just."

The field of wider discretion of the Tribunal has to be within the said limitations. It is required to make an award determining the amount of compensation which in turn appears to be "just and reasonable", for compensation for loss of limbs or life can hardly be weighed in golden scales as has been stated in State of Haryana v. Jasbir Kaur [(2003) 7 SCC 484]."

18. Following the above verdicts of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court and if this Court takes notional income as Rs.12,000/- per month in respect of the claimant who was a Vegetable Vendor, the same would be reasonable and justifiable according to the living conditions as on today. It is a settled law through the legion of judgments of the Hon‟ble Apex Court that the law must be applied according to the circumstances prevailing as on the date and not on mere assumptions. The compensation in the motor accident case is not adversarial litigation. Having found that the compensation awarded to the claimant is at a lesser figure and in consonance with the ratio laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, this Court is enhancing the compensation which is awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the Award and Decree passed by the Tribunal is modified, enhancing the compensation granted to the claimant from Rs.6,99,840/- to Rs.12,44,160/- (12000 x 12 x 16 x 54/100) towards pain and suffering, loss of income and loss of earnings.

GTK,J M.A.C.M.A.No.2079 of 2018

19. In regard to the other part of the Award, granting compensation under the heads of transportation etc., this Court is of the firm opinion that the Award needs no interference. Therefore, the total compensation would come to Rs.13,67,089/- (12,44,160 + 5,000 + 10,000 + 1,07,929).

20. In view of the above stated facts and circumstances, the Award and Decree, dated 09.01.2018, passed by the Tribunal in M.V.O.P.No.124 of 2016 is modified to the extent indicated above. The appellant and 2nd respondent herein are directed to deposit the aforesaid enhanced amount as indicated above, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, along with simple interest @ 7.5% per annum, as observed in Tamilnadu Transport Corporation Limited vs. Raja Priya 7 , after deducting the amount, if any, deposited earlier. On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the said amount.

21. In the result, the Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed, modifying the Award to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.

22. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

___________________________ TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA, J Date : 14-11-2025 Note : L.R. copy to be marked B/o BMS 7 2005 (4) ALT 14 SC 12 GTK,J M.A.C.M.A.No.2079 of 2018 HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI *THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA +MOTOR ACCIDENTS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2079 of 2018 Between:

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals Yes/No

3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment?

Yes/No _____________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA 13 GTK,J M.A.C.M.A.No.2079 of 2018 * THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA + MOTOR ACCIDENTS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2079 of 2018 % 14.11.2025 # Between:

! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Sreemannarayana Vattikuti ! Counsel for Respondents: Sri Hemanth Kumar Venna <Gist :