1 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA M.A.C.M.A.No.474 of 2016 JUDGMENT: The claimant in O.P.No.144 of 2014 on the file of learned VI Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gooty, Anatapur District (for short “MACT”), is the appellant before this Court. Feeling dissatisfied by the award and decree dated 22.09.2015 passed by the learned MACT wherein a compensation of Rs.1,40,000/- with interest at 7.5 % per annum, awarded in his favour as against his claim for Rs.4,00,000/-, as in adequate this appeal is filed invoking Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the M.V. Act”). 2. Respondents 1 and 3 herein were the respondents 1 and 3 before the learned MACT being the owner and driver of the Eicher Van bearing No.AP29V3300 (hereinafter referred to as “offending vehicle”) and they remained ex parte before the learned MACT. The 2nd respondent herein as 2nd respondent before the learned MACT and contested the matter. Case of the claimant in brief: 3. On the fateful day viz., 27.02.2014 at about 1-30 p.m., when he was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing No.AP02Q6477 near Anjaneyaswamy Temple on Bukkapatnam to Tadipatri Road, the offending vehicle came in opposite direction and dashed the claimant, causing the accident, whereby the 2 claimant fell down and sustained fractures and bleeding injuries. He was shifted to Government General Hospital, Tadipatri, from there to YSR Hospital, Anantapuramu for better treatment, where operation was conducted by Orthopedic Doctor, steel rods were inserted and he was inpatient for more than one month, incurred expenditure of Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical, attendant and other expenses etc, he was advised to take physiotherapy treatment, he became disabled, unable to sit and walk normally and lost his earnings. A case in Crime No.22 of 2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “I.P.C.”) was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle viz., R3. R1 is its owner. R2 is the insurer. Hence, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. Case of R2-Insurance Company: 4. The claimant shall prove the pleaded accident, negligence of the driver of the crime vehicle, nature of injuries, treatment undergone, medical expenditure incurred, effect of injuries, disability pleaded, loss of earning capacity etc., clearly. Further, the negligence and contribution of the claimant are the reasons for the accident and he did not even possess the driving licence. The claimant shall prove the compliance of conditions of policy, by R1-owner of the crime vehicle and also valid and effective driving licence to the driver of the offending vehicle viz., R3. Under any circumstances, the 2nd 3 respondent-Insurance Company shall not be mulcted with any liability and that the compensation claimed is excessive. 5. On the strength of the pleadings, the learned MACT settled the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the road accident occurred on 27.02.2014 at about 1.30 pm near Anjaneya Swamy Temple on Bukkapatnam to Tadipatri Road near G.C.Palli, Putlur Mandal due to rash and negligent driving of Eicher Van bearing No.AP29V3300 by its driver as alleged by the petitioner? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief? 6. Evidence before learned MACT: Sl.No. Description Remarks Oral evidence P.W.1: K.Venkatanarayana Reddy Claimant P.W.2: Kethireddy Mohan Reddy Doctor Documentary evidence Ex.A1: Attested Xerox copy of FIR Ex.A2: Attested Xerox copy of wound certificate. Ex.A3: Attested Xerox copy of charge sheet. Ex.A4: Bunch of medical prescriptions and reports. Ex.A5: Original medical bills. Ex.A6: Original discharge card. Ex.A7: X-ray films. On behalf of petitioner Ex.B1: Copy of Insurance Policy On behalf of respondents. 4 Findings of learned MACT: 7. [i] Contributory negligence on the part of the claimants is not proved. The claimant is the injured and eyewitness, stated about his moving on extremely left side of the road and the offending vehicle hitting him by coming in opposite direction and the consequences i.e., accident and sustaining injuries etc.. A case in Crime No.22 of 2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 337 and 338 I.P.C. was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle, vide Ex.A1 and under Ex.A3, the said driver was charge sheeted. There is no evidence to accept the suggestion as to negligence of the claimant. Therefore, the negligence on the part of the crime vehicle is believed. [ii] With regard to entitlement of claim for compensation and liability, the learned MACT found that there is negligence of R3 in driving the vehicle. R1 is the owner. The vehicle was insured with R2. Violations are not proved. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for compensation and R2 is liable. [iii] While quantifying the compensation, the learned MACT found that the claimant as P.W.1 stated about medical expenditure as Rs.2,00,000/-, advise for removal of rods costing to Rs.50,000/-, evidence of Doctor as to nature of injuries suffered by the claimant, treatment done, grievous nature of injuries, medical bills standing for Rs.1,16,000/- and concluded the entitlement of claimant for compensation, at Rs.50,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.50,000/- towards hospital and treatment charges, Rs.15,000/- towards 5 transport, attendant charges and extra nourishment and Rs.25,000/- towards loss of earnings during the treatment and in total, awarded Rs.1,40,000/-, while permitting 50% of withdrawal on deposit. Arguments in this appeal: 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the medical bills are standing for Rs.1,16,000/-. Hospitalization, treatment, nature of injuries being grievous are spoken. The quantification of compensation done by the learned MACT is unjust and inadequate. The quantum of Rs.4,00,000/- compensation claimed by the appellant itself is very low and the learned MACT should have awarded more compensation than what claimed. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submitted that the compensation already awarded itself is excessive and the contribution of negligence on the part of the claimant in riding the motorcycle, ought to have been taken into note and the compensation should have been scaled down to the extent of negligence on the part of the claimant. There is no disability either pleaded or proved with proper evidence, therefore, the compensation awarded by the learned MACT need not be interfered and appeal is fit to be dismissed with costs. 10. Perused the record. 11. Thoughtful consideration is given to the arguments advanced by both sides. 6 The scope of appeal: 12. Although it is argued by the respondent-Insurance Company that the negligence on the part of the claimant ought to have been considered by the learned MACT, there is neither cross-appeal nor cross-objections from the Insurance Company. Further, the evidence on record is clear as to the negligence of R3-driver of the offending vehicle, no steps were taken to examine R3. The claimant as P.W.1 being eyewitness, categorically stated about the negligence. Therefore, the arguments on the point of negligence advanced on behalf of the respondent Insurance Company deserved to be ignored. Accordingly, not considered. 13. The other arguments as to want of driving licence etc., also out of scope of appeal since the appeal is by the claimant, questioning the quantum of compensation @Rs.1,40,000/- granted as against Rs.4,00,000/- claimed. Even entitlement of compensation of claimant is also out of dispute as he being victim of accident. 14. Now the points that arise for determination in this appeal are: 1. Whether what is just and reasonable compensation to which the claimant is entitled and whether the compensation of Rs.1,40,000/- awarded by the learned MACT require any enhancement, if so to what tune and on what grounds? 2. What is the result of the appeal? 7 15. Precedential Guidance: (i) With regard to awarding just and reasonable quantum of compensation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Baby Sakshi Greola vs. Manzoor Ahmad Simon and Anr.1, 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.2, 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 xxxxx Disability 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) 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. 12025 AIAR (Civil) 1 22020 (04) SCC 413 8 (iii) Hon’ble Apex Court in Yadava Kumar Vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited and Anr., 3 vide para No.10, by referring to Sunil Kumar Vs. Ram Singh Gaud4,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 Corporation5, as to fixing of quantum of compensation with 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.” (iv). In Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another6 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 32010(10)SCC 341 4 2007 (14) SCC 61 5 1992(2) SCC 567 6 2011 (1) SCC 343 9 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 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…” (v) In Sidram vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr.7 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. (vi) In Sidram’s case, it is also observed by referring to a case in R.D. Hattangadi V. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd.8 (para 12), that while fixing amount of compensation in cases of accident, it involves some guess work, 7 2023 (3) SCC 439 8 1995 (1) SCC 551 10 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. (emphasis added). Analysis of evidence: 16. Oral Evidence:- [i] Claimant as PW.1 stated that due to impact of the accident, he fell down, received factures, bleeding and simple injuries. He was shifted to Government Hospital, Tadipathri, thereafter Dr.Y.S.R. Hospitals, Anantapur, operation was conducted, steel rods inserted by the Orothopaedic Doctor. He has incurred expenditure of Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical, hospital, travelling and other expenses. He became disabled could not work normally. Unable to lift heavy weights, sit or squat normally. Further operation may costs about Rs.50,000/- by way of surgery etc.. During the Cross-examination, it was suggested to him that he was doing his work usually without any difficulty. No rods were inserted. He did not incurred Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical, hospital, travelling etc., expenses, he has created bills/Ex.A4 to Ex.A7 and his claim is excessive. [ii] PW.2, the Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon and Managing Director of Y.S.R. Hospital, Anantapur, deposed as follows:- 11 “The patient Mr.K.Venkata Narayana Reddy, S/o.K.Lakshmi Reddy, age 47 years was admitted in our Hospital, due to RTA on 27.02.2014 at 3.40 p.m. with the following injuries : 1. The fracture of transverse process of TI vertebra. 2. Fracture of posterior part of right 1st and 2nd ribs. 3. Fracture of posterior part of left 2nd, 3rd and 4th ribs. The patient was admitted in ICU and Inter costal drainage tube was placed into chest cavity. He was treated with I.V. antibiotic, Neubulisation and physiotherapy. He was discharged after one week. He was under regular follow up treatment. He sustained injuries were of grievous nature. My treatment was related to the blunt injury of chest wall as mentioned in Ex.A2. The Ex.A4 is the Medical reports, medical Investigation relates to the patient. The Ex.A5 contains pharma and consultant and Hospital charges belong to their Hospital. The medical bills were purchased by the patient in our hospital pharmas as prescribed by me. The Ex.A7 is the X-ray, and C.T. Scan, M.R.I. scan reports belongs to the patient. The Ex.A6 is admission and discharge card of the patient issued by me. He underwent debridement and traders repair by surgery of the leg. The patient also had fracture of lateral malleolus of right ankle treated P.O.P. cast. Because of the multiple ribs fracture and lung damage during injury patient will have compromised lung function and breathing problems.” During the Cross examination, he has denied the suggestion that the bills were issued by his hospital to help the claimant and the patient was treated under Aarogyasri Scheme. Documentary Evidence:- [iii] Ex,A2 is the wound certificate reflecting the following injuries: 1) “A laceration measuring around 10x3x1 cm bone deep on left leg. 12 2) An abrasion measuring around 1 x 1 cm present over left knee 3) Blunt injuries over the right side of chest.” [iv] Ex.A4 is consisting of bunch of laboratory reports and tests conducted including E.C.G. etc., apart from referral letter from the DM&HO, Tadipartri to the Government General Hospital, Anantapur. Further, the observations as to the tests conducted on Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad and STAR Hospital, Anantapur etc., during the period from April, to July of 2014 are available. [v] Ex.A5 is the bunch of medical bills of various Hospitals, the totaling is done @Rs.1,16,225/-, Ex.A6 is Discharge Card of YSR Hospital, indicating Admission of Hospital on 27.02.2014 and discharged on 05.03.2014. Future medical treatment etc., are not spoken by PW.2. Insertion of rods and removal of them etc., are also not clearly stated by PW.2. However, hospitalization for one week, follow up treatment for more than two to three months etc., are clear from the evidence on record. 17. As per the averments in the petition, the claimant is aged about 46 years, he was attending cultivation cum business works. However, indicating involvement of claimant in the business, there is no documentary evidence. Solitary, oral assertion of the claimant alone is the basis. In the context of the case, considering the age and other aspects, earning of the claimant including further prospects, particularly considering the date of the accident etc., can be accepted at Rs.5,000/- per month. 13 18. Evidence indicating permanent disability etc., is not there on record except oral evidence of the claimant. The Disability Certificate issued by the Medical Board etc., are the usual and standard material guides to the Courts to believe the disability, otherwise only guess work has to be done. Guess work is permissible in respect of non-pecuniary damages but in respect of pecuniary damages like specific loss of income, a reasonable calculation with some rational basis is necessary. There cannot be much guess work. Pain and suffering, nervous short, loss of amenities, attendant charges, possibility of travelling expenditure, are the aspects where some guess work is possible. Likewise, the income also to some extent can be notionally taken, where placing of clear evidence is not possible. Even for that, age, occupation etc., shall be the guidance factors. 19. In the light of the material available on record, the entitlement of the claimant for compensation under various heads concluded by the learned MACT, require re-examination. The compensation awarded by the learned MACT at Rs.50,000/- for pain and suffering, require enhancement to Rs.80,000/- in view of the treatment, follow up etc., for around 3 months. 20. Towards medical expenditure, the amount covered by the medical bills/ Ex.A5, Rs.1,20,000/- is fit to be accepted as PW.1 and PW.2 in one voice confirmed about the same. For future medical needs, reasonable amount can be awarded as the assertion of appellant/claimant is not put to PW.2 by the 14 Insurance Company. Hence, under the head of future medical needs Rs.25,000/- can be awarded to the claimant. 21. Towards Transportation etc., sum of Rs.15,000/- awarded can be enhanced to Rs.25,000/-, and for attendant charges, nourishment, extra nourishment compensation granted can be enhanced to Rs.25,000/- in view of follow up treatment for 3 to 4 months. 22. Loss of earnings during the period of treatment can be considered for 5 months, @Rs.5,000/- per month, totaling to Rs.25,000/-. On that count, the compensation amount awarded by the learned MACT, found fit to be confirmed. However, under the head of loss of income, due to permanent disability, no compensation can be awarded to the claimant. 23. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the interest awarded by the learned MACT, @7.5% is also fit to be enhanced to 9% per annum. 24. In the light of the discussion made above, the compensation awarded by the learned MACT and the amount found just and reasonable by this Court are tabulated as follows:- Sl. No Head Granted by MACT Found just by this Appellate Court 1. Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/- Rs.80,000/- 2. Medical Expenditure Rs.50,000/- Rs.1,20,000/- 4. Future medical expenditure Nil Rs.25,000/- 15 5. a)Attendant Charges & Extra Nourishment Rs.15,000/- - Rs.25,000/- c)Transportation charges Rs.25,000/- 6. Loss of earnings during treatment etc Rs.25,000/- Rs.25,000/- 8. Loss of income due to permanent disability Nil Nil Total: Rs . 1,40,000/- Rs.3,00,000 /- In view of the discussions made and for the aforestated reasons, point No.1 is answered in favour of the appellant. Point No.2:- 26. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part as follows: 1) the Compensation amount awarded by the learned MACT @Rs.1,40,000/- with interest @7.5% per annum is enhanced to Rs.3,00,000/- with interest @9% per annum. 2) Costs etc., awarded by the MACT are confirmed. 3) Appellant is entitled for withdrawal of the amount at once, on deposit. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeal shall stand closed. ____________________________ A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J Date: 06.03.2025 Arr/Pnr 16 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA M.A.C.M.A.No.474 of 2016 Dt. 06.03.2025 Arr/Pnr