APHC010112342006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Thursday, the Fourteenth day of August, Two Thousand and Twenty Five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S. Bhanumathi Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No: 1986 of 2006 Between: Prathipati Sreenu ...Appellant and J. Prasad Babu and another ...Respondents Counsel for the appellant: 1. A. Rajendra Babu Counsel for the respondents: 1. Gudi Srinivasu The Court made the following: 2 M.A.C.M.A.No.1986 of 2006 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award and the decree dated 10.10.2005, allowing-in- part M.V.O.P.No.1103 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Guntur (I/C. III Additional District Judge, Guntur). 02. The appellant is the claimant and the respondents are the respondents before the Tribunal. 03. The case of the claimant is briefly as follows: a. On 18.09.2002 at about 03.35 P.M. while the claimant was proceeding in a jeep bearing No.A.P.7W 1988, as the driver of the jeep drove it in a rash and negligent manner and hit the lorry near Vishnupriya Theatre, Amaravathi, Guntur. The claimant sustained fracture injuries to his thigh bone and fracture of both bones of left leg below the knee joint. The claimant spent Rs.20,000/- for medical expenses. He suffered permanent disability due to the injuries suffered in the accident. The claimant was painter by occupation and used to earn Rs.100/- per day and he lost his earning capacity due to the injuries suffered in the accident. Therefore, he claimed Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation. The matter was reported to the Guntur Taluk Police Station and a case in crime No.291 of 2002 was registered. b. The respondent No.1 who is the owner of the jeep remained ex parte. c. The respondent No.2 who is the insurer of the jeep filed a written statement opposing the claim and denying the averments made in the petition. 3 M.A.C.M.A.No.1986 of 2006 d. The claimant himself got examined as P.W.1 and Dr.V.N.Krishna Prasad was examined as P.W.2 and the following documents were marked through them: Ex.A1 Dt.19.09.2002 Certified copy of F.I.R. in crime No.291 of 2002 of S.H.O. of Guntur Taluk Police Station. Ex.A2 Dt.26.10.2002 Certified copy of charge sheet. Ex.A3 Dt.20.10.2002 Certified copy of wound certificate. Ex.X1 Dt.19.09.2002 Case sheet maintained by the Government General Hospital, Guntur relating to the claimant. Ex.X2 Dt.18.09.2002 O.P. Chit. Ex.X3 Dt.20.09.2002 Prescription chit issued by P.W.2. Ex.X4 Dt.20.09.2002 Two X-rays. e. No evidence was led by the respondent No.2. f. After hearing both the parties, the Tribunal awarded Rs.38,500/- payable with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of deposit and proportionate costs, making both the respondents jointly and severally liable to pay the same. g. Aggrieved by the award, this appeal was filed contending that the Tribunal ought to have considered the permanent partial disability @ 30% and not 20%, as it was held and that the Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.1,000/- for each injury; that it is erroneous to apply multiplier 12 for the person aged 35 years; that the amount of compensation of Rs.2,500/- towards medical expenses is very low; that the Tribunal failed to award compensation for expenses like attendant charges, extra nourishment and travelling charges; and that the Tribunal 4 M.A.C.M.A.No.1986 of 2006 ought to have awarded compensation of Rs.15,000/- for pain and suffering as conventional mode of grant of damages. 04. As per the office endorsement, the notice of appeal was served on the respondent No.1, but no appearance has been made. 05. Sri R.Sanjeeva Reddy, learned counsel representing the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal awarded very low amount of compensation and he reiterated all the grounds of appeal as mentioned above. 06. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that the Tribunal ought not to have awarded compensation by applying multiplier since the injuries had not resulted in any permanent loss of future earnings and that there is no evidence regarding functional disability and therefore, the amount awarded towards disability is sufficient to meet the partial disability suffered. Insofar as compensation under the other heads claimed in the appeal, he relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar1. 07. The Tribunal, considering the claimant as a painter, observed that his earnings could be taken as Rs.15,000/- p.a. by resorting to the Schedule-II applicable to Section 163A of the M.V. Act, 1988 whereas, the claimant stated that he used to earn Rs.100/- per day. Since the claimant has not placed any evidence to establish his actual income, the Tribunal had to make a notional assessment of income of the claimant depending on his occupation. For that purpose, the Tribunal took guidance and assistance from Schedule-II and the same does not require any interference. Since the claimant suffered fractures on both bones of left leg, besides swelling of right thigh, he underwent surgeries. As per the evidence of the P.W.2, who is the doctor treated 1 (2011) 1 SCC 343 5 M.A.C.M.A.No.1986 of 2006 him, the claimant suffered permanent partial disability of 30%. It is settled law that compensation in case of permanent disability shall be granted as per the guidelines reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar (supra) which reads as follows: “19. We may now summarise the principles discussed above: (i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity. (ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that the percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as the percentage of permanent disability). (iii) The doctor who treated an injured claimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard to the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety. (iv) The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors.” 08. In the light of the above decision, unless it is established that the partial disability resulted in functional disability consequent to which there is loss of future earnings, the claimant is entitled to compensation 6 M.A.C.M.A.No.1986 of 2006 under other different heads, but not by applying multiplier. However, the Tribunal, taking the permanent partial disability at 20%, awarded Rs.36,000/- by taking 20% of annual income of Rs.15,000/- and multiplying the same by 12 which is applicable to the person aged about 35 years. The Tribunal could have awarded compensation for loss of amenities of life, expenses for attendant, extra nourishment, pain and suffering and charges for travelling etc. But, the Tribunal failed to grant any such compensation under those heads and erroneously granted compensation by adopting above said multiplier method, without observing that the permanent partial disability of the claimant resulted in loss of his future earnings. As a painter, the claimant can still attend the same kind of work even if he suffers permanent partial disability due to some limping or shortening of the leg. The evidence of P.W.2 does not indicate that the claimant suffered the nature of disability which reduced his future earnings and earning capacity. 09. As the claimant is entitled to compensation under the above said heads, it would be appropriate to grant compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.5,000/- towards travelling expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment and Rs.3,000/- towards attendant charges. In addition thereto, the claimant is entitled to Rs.10,000/- towards compensation of loss of amenities of life. The Tribunal awarded Rs.2,500/- towards medical expenses, but the same appears to be small amount as the claimant suffered fracture injuries and underwent surgeries. Though, treatment is taken in a Government General Hospital, one may have to meet certain expenses. Therefore, the amount of compensation of Rs.2,500/- can be enhanced to Rs.5,000/-. Thus, in total, the claimant is entitled to Rs.38,000/-. But, the compensation of Rs.36,000/- for the disability in the manner awarded by the Tribunal is unjust. 7 M.A.C.M.A.No.1986 of 2006 10. As the amount awarded by the Tribunal is a little more than what is the claimant entitled to, and there is no cross-appeal / objections filed, the award passed by the Tribunal does not require any interference. 11. Accordingly, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE B.S. BHANUMATHI Date: 14.08.2025 NSM 8 M.A.C.M.A.No.1986 of 2006 159 The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No: 1986 of 2006 Date: 14.08.2025 NSM