1 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA M.A.C.M.A.No.707 of 2017 JUDGMENT: The appellant-APSRTC the respondent in M.V.O.P.No.241 of 2012 on the file of learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Kadapa [for short “MACT”], feeling aggrieved by the Decree and Order dated 06.09.2016 filed the present appeal. 2. The respondent herein, Bachampalli Mohan Kumar [herein after referred as ‘the claimant’] filed the claim petition invoking Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 before the learned MACT, claiming a compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for the injuries suffered by him in the road traffic accident dated 14.02.2011 and the learned MACT granted compensation of Rs.14,91,502/- under the impugned award and decree. 3. Heard learned counsel for both sides. 4. For the sake of convenience, parties will be hereinafter referred to as claimant and respondent. Case of the claimant in brief: 5. [i] On the date of accident i.e. on 14.02.2011 at about 3.30a.m., the claimant boarded APSRTC bus bearing No. AP 28 Z 3263 [herein after referred as ‘the offending vehicle’], at Kadapa bus-stand to go to Kurnool as a passenger. When the bus reached Hussainaiah Swamy Darga, driver of 2 the bus drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the stationed sand lorry bearing No.AP 16 TV 3507, from its behind and caused the accident. The claimant sustained fractures on both legs and injuries all over the body and several other inmates of the bus also sustained injuries and one of the passengers died on the spot. Some of victims were shifted to Government Hospital, Proddutur and some were taken to RIMS Hospital, Kadapa. The claimant was shifted from RIMS Hospital, Kadapa to CMC Hospital, Vellore where he took treatment for about one month. His parents assisted him extending all sorts of services. [ii] Claimant is unable to walk freely, getting pain, his right leg became shortened by 2 inches and disability is permanent in nature. The accident occurred due to negligent driving of the driver of the bus, in the course of his employment. The claimant had plans to go to U.S.A. for Post Graduate studies. But lost every hope in life. He was a medical student studying M.B.B.S. Course by the date of accident. Had his dreams materialized, his earning can be at least Rs.50,000/- per month. The accident made his life dark. Hence, he is entitled for the compensation claimed. Case of the Respondent/Appellant-APSRTC: 6. Claimant shall prove his age, educational qualification, negligence of the driver of the bus etc., possibility of earning at Rs.50,000/- per month is speculative, maximum income that can be taken in respect of non-earning 3 person @ Rs.15,000/- p.a.. There was no rash or negligent driving on the part of the driver of the RTC bus, the driver of the lorry kept the vehicle on wrong side without sufficient indication and the claim against respondent- RTC is not sustainable. The quantum of compensation claimed is excessive. The claimant shall prove the nature and effect of injuries including the disability pleaded. 7. On the strength of pleadings, learned MACT settled the following issues for trial: 1) Whether the petitioner received injuries in a motor vehicle accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 28 Z 3263 on 14.02.2011? 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? 3) To what relief? 8. Evidence before the learned MACT: For the Claimant For the Respondents Exhibit No. Description Exhibit No. Description Ex.A1 Certified copy of F.I.R. in Cr.No.18 of 2011 of Duvvur Police Station - Nil - Ex.A2 Certified copy of Charge Sheet Ex.A3 Wound Certificate Ex.A4 Discharge summary (03Nos.) issued by CMC Hospital, Vellore. Ex.A5 Consolidated Receipt (03 Nos.) issued by the CMC Hospital, Vellore for Rs.3,07,895/-) Ex.A6 Disability Certificate issued by the District Medical Board, Kadapa Ex.X1 Admission Record pertaining to C.M.C. Hospital, Vellore dated 15.02.2011 4 Ex.X2 Admission Record pertaining to C.M.C. Hospital, Vellore dated 01.09.2011 Ex.X3 Admission Record pertaining to C.M.C. Hospital, Vellore dated 20.02.2012 Ex.X4 Admission Record pertaining to C.M.C. Hospital, Vellore dated 10.08.2012 Ex.X5 Discharge summary pertaining to C.M.C. Hosptial, Vellore Ex.X6 Patient record pertaining to C.M.C. Hospital, Vellore Ex.X7 Bill (duplicate) for Rs.15,135/- is issued by CMC Hospital, Vellore. Ex.X8 Bills for Rs.28,472/- issued by CMC Hospital, Vellore Witnesses examined Witnesses examined PW.1 Bachampalli Mohan Kumar [Claimant / Petitioner] RW.1 Vastad Shaik Issaqmia [Driver of the Offending vehicle] PW.2 Dr.C.Sanjeevaiah [Assistant Professor of Orthopaedic Department, RIMS, Kadapa] PW.3 T.Sundara Raj [Senior Accountant in CMC Hospital, Vellore] PW.4 Dr.Vinod Mathew Cherian [Professor in Orthopedics in CMC Hospital, Vellore. Findings of the learned MACT:- 9. [i] The evidence of PW.1, as to travelling in RTC bus, occurrence and accident due to negligent driving of the driver of the bus, if seen in the light of Ex.A1-F.I.R. and Ex.A2-Charge sheet, negligence of the driver of the bus in occurrence of the accident is acceptable. Nature of injuries suffered; mental agony undergone and treatment taken can be believed with Ex.A3- wound Certificate; Ex.A4 -Discharge Summary; Ex.A5-consolidated receipts issued by the CMC Hospital, Vellore; Ex.X1 to Ex.X8 case sheets and the evidence of PW.4 as to the treatment given; admission and discharge of the 5 claimant form Hospital. Further, Ex.A6-Disability certificate shows 50% disability, basing on the evidence of PWs.2 to 4 and by referring to precedential guidance contemplated in Govind Yadav Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited1, learned MACT found that the claimant is entitled for compensation as follows and held that the respondent is liable to pay the same: S.No. Head Rupees 1. Compensation under the heads ‘injury’, ‘shock’, Pain and suffering. Rs.2,50,000/- 2. Compensation under the heads hospital, medical, transport, extra nourishment, attendant and other incidental and future medical expenses. Rs.4,51,502/- 3. Compensation under the heads, loss of earnings Earnings (past and present). Rs.5,40,000/- 4. Compensation under the group of heads, loss of Prospects of life, loss of amenities in life, loss of enjoyment in life, loss of opportunities in life, loss of expectation of life, social disability and physical disability Rs.2,00,000/- 5. Compensation for future surgery. Rs.50,000/- TOTAL: Rs.14,91,502/- Arguments in the Appeal: For the Appellant-respondent-APSRTC:- 10. [i] The quantum of compensation awarded is excessive. There was no rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the bus. The owner and the Insurance Company of the lorry, are also necessary parties 1 2001 (11) ACC 668 6 and the claim Petition is bad for non-joinder, as there was contribution of negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. The quantum of compensation awarded under various heads like medical expenditure, attendant charges, extra nourishment, transportation charges is excessive. Notional income taken at @Rs.15,000/- p.m., is excessive. For the Respondent-Claimant: [ii] Negligence of the driver of the bus is established with the evidence of PW.1 and the findings of the learned MACT are justified in the light of the evidence on record and there are no grounds to interfere. Learned MACT ought to have awarded more compensation than what claimed. Taking of income @15,000/- per month is not correct. When the claimant was pursuing MBBS Course, MACT should have considered the same and added future prospects also while quantifying compensation. Appeal is fit to be dismissed but enhancing the compensation awarded as there is no bar to award compensation more than what is awarded under the impugned decree, even in the absence of appeal by the claimant. Scope of Appeal : 11. The respondent before the learned MACT is disputing the assertions as to the negligence, nature of the injuries and entitlement of claimant for compensation claimed and filed the present appeal. Therefore, the scope of appeal would include the examination of negligence, nature and effect of 7 injuries, entitlement of claimants for compensation including quantum and liability of the respondent as well. 12. Perused the evidence on record. 13. Thoughtful consideration given to the arguments advanced by the both sides. 14. Now the points that arise for determination in this appeal are that - 1) Whether the pleaded accident dated 14.02.2011 has occurred owing to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus. 2) Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation, if so, to what quantum and what is the liability of the respondent-appellant- APSRTC? 3) Whether the compensation of Rs.14,91,502/- granted by the learned MACT is just and adequate in the context of the case? Or require any interference like either reduction or enhancement? 4) What is the result of the appeal? Point No.1: 15. The objections of the appellant-APSRTC are that, the lorry was wrongly parked and there was negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. Hence, owner and Insurance Company of the lorry are necessary parties and there was contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry, and that there was no negligence on the part of the RTC bus driver. 16. Evidence of RW.1 is only denial of negligence. What happened to criminal case in terms of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 is not even whispered; whether 8 any departmental action is taken against RW.1, driver of the bus, what is the result of such proceeding is also not mentioned. What prevented the APSRTC for seeking impleadment of the lorry owner and Insurance Company before the learned MACT is not known. Why no other eye witness to the accident was examined, has no answer from respondent- appellant. Ex.A1- F.I.R., A2-Charge Sheet coupled with the evidence of PW.1, the victim to the accident who is also an eye witness is found sufficient to believe the occurrence of accident and negligence of the driver of the bus. Therefore, this Court finds that the conclusions drawn by the learned MACT as to negligence of the driver of the bus, being the cause for accident are acceptable. Hence, concurred. Point No.1 is answered accordingly in favour of the claimant and against the respondent-APSRTC. Point Nos.2 and 3 : 17. Since point Nos.2 and 3 are being inter-linked, they are being discussed and answered together. Precedential Guidance: 18. A reference to parameters, for quantifying the compensation under various heads, addressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court is found necessary, to have standard base in the process of quantifying the compensation, to which the claimant is entitled. (i) With regard to awarding just and reasonable quantum of compensation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Baby Sakshi Greola vs. 9 Manzoor Ahmad Simon and Anr.2, arising out of SLP(c).No.10996 of 2018 on 11.12.2024, considered the scope and powers of the Tribunal in awarding just and compensation within the meaning of Act, after marshaling entire case law, more particularly with reference to the earlier observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court made in Kajal V. Jagadish Chand and Ors.3, referred to various heads under which, compensation can be awarded, in injuries cases vide paragraph No.52, the heads are as follows:- S. No. Head Amount (In ₹) 1. Medicines and Medical Treatment xxxxx 2. Loss of Earning Capacity due to Disability xxxxx 3. Pain and Suffering xxxxx 4. Future Treatment xxxxx 5. Attendant Charges xxxxx 6. Loss of Amenities of Life xxxxx 7. Loss of Future Prospect xxxxx 8. Special Education Expenditure xxxxx 9. Conveyance and Special Diet xxxxx 10. Loss of Marriage Prospects xxxxxx _________ Total Rs. …xxxxxx _________ (ii). Hon’ble Apex Court in Yadava Kumar Vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited and Anr.,4 vide para No.10, by referring to Sunil Kumar Vs. Ram Singh Gaud5,as to application of multiplier method in case of injuries while calculating loss of future earnings, in para 16 referring to Hardeo Kaur Vs. Rajasthan State Transport Corporation6, as to fixing of quantum of compensation with 22025 AIAR (Civil) 1 32020 (04) SCC 413 42010(10)SCC 341 5 2007 (14) SCC 61 6 1992(2) SCC 567 10 liberal approach, valuing the life and limb of individual in generous scale, in para 17 observed that :- “The High Court and the Tribunal must realize that there is a distinction between compensation and damage. The expression compensation may include a claim for damage but compensation is more comprehensive. Normally damages are given for an injury which is suffered, whereas compensation stands on a slightly higher footing. It is given for the atonement of injury caused and the intention behind grant of compensation is to put back the injured party as far as possible in the same position, as if the injury has not taken place, by way of grant of pecuniary relief. Thus, in the matter of computation of compensation, the approach will be slightly more broad based than what is done in the matter of assessment of damages. At the same time it is true that there cannot be any rigid or mathematical precision in the matter of determination of compensation.” (iii). In Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another7 vide para No.19, the Hon’ble Apex Court summarized principles to be followed in the process of quantifying the compensation after referring to socio economic and practical aspects from which, the claimants come and the practical difficulties, the parties may face in the process of getting disability assessed and getting all certificates from either the Doctors, who treated, or from the medical boards etc., it is observed that :- “…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 7 2011 (1) SCC 343 11 basis of evidence, concludes that percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as 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 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…” (iv) In Sidram vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr.8 vide para No.40, the Hon’ble Apex Court referred to the general principles relating to compensation in injury cases and assessment of future loss of earning due to permanent disability by referring to Rajkumar’s case, and also various heads under which compensation can be awarded to a victim of a motor vehicle accident. (v) In Sidram’s case, reference is made to a case in R.D. Hattangadi V. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd.9. From the observations made therein, it can be understood that while fixing amount of compensation in cases of accident, it involves some guess work, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of the disability caused. But, all these elements have to be viewed with objective standards. In assessing damages, the Court must exclude all considerations of matter which rest in awarding speculation or fancy, though conjecture to some extent is inevitable. 8 2023 (3) SCC 439 9 1995 (1) SCC 551 12 Analysis Of Evidence: 19. [i] Claimant as PW.1 stated that he was planning to go to USA for Post Graduate studies. He suffered permanent disability due to the injuries sustained in the accident and lost his opportunities. The permanent disability is assessed by Medical Board, Kadapa and the disability as such assessed is 50%. He has also referred Ex.A5-consolidated receipts, for the medical expenses incurred @Rs.3,07,895/- and wound certificate-Ex.A3, Discharge Summary-A4, issued by the CMC Hospital, Vellore. During the cross examination with regard to his educational qualifications, there is no denial. It was suggested to him that he did not undergo treatment at Vellore Hospital, and Ex.A4 and Ex.A5 are created and the disability assessed is also excessive. [ii] PW.2, Dr.C.Sanjeevaiah stated that he is member in Medical Board, relevant part of his evidence is as follows:- “I examined the petitioner, Mr.B.Mohan Kumar, S/o.Franchies, aged about 22 years, before the District Medical Board, Kadapa, on 22.11.2013. On examination I found the following findings: (1) Mal united fracture shaft of right femur with an evidence of exchange Nailing and bone grafting. (2) Mal united fracture of both bones of Left leg with an evidence of bone grafting. (3) Mal united fracture of both bones of Right Leg. (4) Painful and restricted movements of Rgiht Knee and Hip. (5) Painful and restricted movements of Left Knee due to mechanical block of the Nail. (6) Difficulty to stand on any one limb. 13 (7) Unable to squat and cross legged. Based on the above findings I assessed the permanent disability as 50%. I assessed the disability based on the physical examination, Wound Certificate, Discharge Summary issued by C.M.C. Vellore and X-rays.” [iii] During the cross-examination of PW.2, it is suggested that PW.2 did not treat the petitioner at any point of time, there is no amputation of any part of body. He has denied the suggestion that there is no restricted movement of left Knee and Right Knee due to Nail. He has asserted that the petitioner cannot sit, stand and squat cross legged without any difficulty. [iv] PW.3, T.Sundara Raj, Senior Accountant, CMC Hospital, Vellore stated about Ex.X7 and Ex.X8- Medical Bills, standing for Rs.15,135/- and Rs.28,472/- respectively, nothing more is elected during the cross- examination, without Ex.X7 and Ex.X8. [v] PW.4, Dr.Vinod Mathew Cherian, Professor in Orthopedic in CMC Hospital, Vellore, deposed before the Court vindicating the treatment given to the claimant at CMC Hospital, Vellore. Relevant part of his evidence is as follows:- “The patient by name B.Mohan Kumar was admitted on 15.02.2011 in our hospital under to fracture both bones of bilateral leg and fracture of right shaft of femur due to R.T.A.. The Patient was underwent surgery on 15.02.2011, Surgery No.1 closed. Reduction and Intramedullary I.L. Nail of Right femur, right Tibia and left Tibia. After that the patient was kept in I.C.U., for 4 days. He was discharged on 26.02.2011. The patient was again (2nd) admitted on 01.09.2011 with problem of delayed Union Bilaterial Tibia, Right Femur. He underwent Right Tibia Femur Dynamization + BMI from Left Iliac Crest, left tibia, static lock exit and dynamic lock insertion and autogenous cancellous bone grafting under spinal anesthesia 2/9/2011, he was discharged on 11/09/2011. He come again 14 admitted on 20/02/2012 due to non-union left tibia and he underwent surgery to right femur exchanging nailing and left tibia (exchanging nailing) and fibula cortieorxoy. He was dischargedon 28/02/2012, he was followed up regularly in O.P.D.. He waa admitted on 10/08/2012 and underwent bone grafting Left Tibia. He was discharged on 13/08/2012. He was attending O.P.D. as out-patinet. On 24/05/2013 he underwent a screw removal from the Left Leg. On 16/05/2014 the Patients Left Tibia I.M. (Intra Meduallary) nail was removed. The Ptient has to undergo surgery fpor removing nails in right femur and righ tibia. The patient has to spend Rs.50,000/- fo removal of riht tibia and feur nails. Ex.A4 and Ex.A5 are issued by our hospital authorities. Ex.X1 to Ex.X6 are case sheets of patient pertaining to different admissions including out paitnet record.” [vi] It was suggested to him that the first operation was not conducted properly and patient did not follow up properly, but he has denied the suggestion that he has also denied the suggestion that Ex.A5-Bills are exaggerated, documents pertaining to injuries and medical bills and treatment of claimant under Ex.A3-wound certificate and Ex.A4-Discahrge Receipts, Ex.A5-consolidated bills, Ex.A6- Disability Certificate, Exs.X1 to Ex.X8 Medical record pertaining to the claimant issued by CMC Hospital, Vellore. 20. Inferences possible from the evidence are that - 1) the claimant undergone treatment for the injuries suffered: 2) Claimant suffering permanent disability. 3) The argument is that the disability 50% does not contribute for loss of income @50%, disability for the body is different from the disability for the purpose of employment and earnings. The disability @50% cannot be taken as total for disability in respect of earning capacity. 15 21. Learned MACT has awarded Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation under the heads of Injury, shock, pain and suffering. This appears to have been awarded notionally but found fit for acceptance. Towards medical expenditure, learned MACT has awarded Rs.3,51,502/-. With reference to Ex.A4, Ex.A5 and Ex.X1 to Ex.X8, findings of the learned MACT in this regard, does not require any interference and they are fit to be confirmed, hence maintained. 22. Towards medical attendance, extra nourishment and transportation charges, leaned MACT has granted Rs.50,000/-, Rs.25,000/- and Rs.25,000/- respectively, the quantification in this regard is also found convincing. 23. Under the heads of loss of prospects in life, loss of amenities in life, loss of enjoyment, loss of opportunities in life, loss of pleasures in life, loss of expectation of life, social disability and physical disability, learned MACT awarded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- in lump sum and towards future surgery awarded Rs.50,000/-. 24. [i] With regard to awarding compensation for loss of earnings on account of permanent disability, learned MACT has taken the disability at 50%, accepting the evidence of Doctor, PW.2. Further learned MACT adopted the income @Rs.15,000/- per month notionally, adopted the multiplier ‘18’ applicable to the age of the claimant and arrived at total income [Rs.1,80,000/- x ‘18’] Rs.32,40,000/-. However, 16 taking 50% disability into consideration, found the loss of income @16,20,000/- . But learned MACT while adopting the disability with reference to injuries of two lower limbs, 1/6th of each in respect of whole body, scaled down Rs.16,20,000/- @1/6th for each limb and calculated the same @2,70,000/- [Rs.16,20,000/- x 1/6th ] for each limb and together for both limbs @5,40,000/- [2,70,000/- x 2]. Accordingly, awarded the same. . [ii] There is no appeal nor cross-objections filed by the claimant. The major part of the contentions of the appellant is as to negligence of the driver of the parked lorry and apportionment of the negligence among the two vehicles. Claimant was travelling in the bus of APSRTC, negligence part had been addressed under point No.1 and it is found that the driver of the RTC bus alone is negligent. [iii] There is no amputation, there is only restriction, percentage of shortening or restriction in movement and the same contributing for any loss of income and functioning of total body is not clear from the evidence. Hence, the reasoning of learned MACT in quantifying the compensation under all the heads is found fit to be accepted. Hence, accepted. 25. In view of the discussions made above, it is found that there are no grounds to interfere and the compensation awarded by the learned MACT @Rs.14,91,502/- is just and reasonable and the contention of the appellant 17 contra does not deserve consideration and there are no grounds to interfere. Point Nos.2 and 3 are answered accordingly. Point No.4:- 26. For the reasons stated above and the conclusions drawn under Points 1 to 3 above, the appeal is dismissed. However, no costs in the facts and circumstances. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed. ____________________________ A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J Date: 04.04.2025 Pnr 18 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA M.A.C.M.A.No.707 of 2017 Dt. 04 .04.2025 Pnr