1 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA M.A.C.M.A.No.2643 of 2016 JUDGMENT: 1. One K. Hanumantha Rao (hereinafter referred to as “the claimant”) feeling aggrieved by the order and decree dated 22.01.2016 passed in M.V.O.P.No.8 of 2014 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Narasapur (for short “the learned MACT”) filed the present appeal contending that the compensation awarded to him at Rs.2,50,000/- as against the claim made for Rs.6,50,000/- is not just and adequate. 2. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 / driver and owner of the Auto bearing No.AP 37 X 6455 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) remained ex parte before the learned MACT. Respondent No.3 / Insurance Company alone contested the case. Case of the claimant: 3. Appellant is aged about 40 years; hale and healthy; attending agricultural labour works and earning Rs.3,000/- per month. On 12.05.2011, when the claimant along with his wife proceeding on Hero Honda motor cycle from Panditavalluru Village, Poduru Mandal, West Godavari District and when they reached near Balamvari Penta at about 09:00 P.M., the offending vehicle coming from Achanta side and dashed against the bike in a rash and negligent manner 2 causing the accident, whereby the claimant and his wife sustained injuries. The injuries sustained by the claimant are as follows: 1. Skull-Nell bony injury 2. Nasal bone Fracture. 3. Cervical BL. Wedge D8-Compound Fracture. 4. Left Eye Carnial lacerated Wound. 5. Fracture of Maxile Complex Fracture. 6. D8 wedging and Retraprepulsan causing compression over Cord. 4. The claimant was taken to Rama Rao Hospital at Achanta. First aid was given at Rama Rao Hospital, Achanta and he was referred to Government Hospital, Palakole. From there, the doctors referred him to Government General Hospital, Kakinada. There he was treated as in-patient from 13.05.2011 to 12.07.2011 and he has undergone two surgeries on 18.06.2011, for the grievous injuries to D7 to D9 caused in the accident and implants were inserted with Rods & Screws. After discharge from the Government Hospital, Kakinada, he was admitted in the Varma Hospitals, Bhimavaram and took treatment from 02.09.2011 to 05.09.2011. Thereafter, he was admitted at Aditya Hospitals, Tanuku and treatment is continued. The injury to the Spinal Cord could not be cured and the same has led to the paraplegic condition of the claimant and he has lost all the movements and sensation below the chest. The bladder is not functioning; Urine discharge was by using Catheter four to five times a day. As 3 the rectum is not functioning, stool is manually removed everyday and attendant must assist him for daily nature calls for his remaining life. He is completely bedridden. Claimant has spent Rs.1,00,000/- for the treatment and medicines. The owner, driver and Insurance Company of the offending vehicle are liable to pay the compensation. Case of the Insurance Company: 5. There is no proper driving licence for the driver of the offending vehicle. There is violation of conditions of policy. There was no valid permit for the offending vehicle. There was no proper insurance for the offending vehicle. Negligence of the rider of the motor cycle is the cause for accident. Petitioner is bad for non-joinder. The claimant shall prove the pleaded injuries, treatment undergone, medical expenditure incurred, age, occupation and income of the claimant. In any event, the quantum of compensation claimed is excessive. 6. On the strength of pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial by the learned MACT: 1) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent manner of driving of driver of Auto bearing No.AP 37 X 6455 by 1st Respondent? 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation and if so, to what extent? 3) To what relief? 4 7. Evidence before the learned MACT: Description Remarks Oral evidence P.W.1: K. Hanumantha Rao Claimant / Injured P.W.2: Dr. P. Venkata Narayana Civil Surgeon Assistant (C.A.S),Palakol Government Hospital P.W.3: Dr. Naresh Poranki Orthopaedic Surgeon R.W.1: K. John Victor Senior Assistant, RTA office, Tanuku R.W.2: Eeda Prakasham Development Officer of Respondent Insurance Company. Documentary evidence Ex.A1: Attested copy of FIR Ex.A2: Attested copy of charge sheet Ex.A3:Attested copy of wound certificate Ex.A4: O.P. card Ex.A5: Medical bills (36) Ex.A6: Medical prescription (16) Ex.A7: Disability certificate Xerox copy Ex.A8: X rays(4) On behalf of the petitioner(s). Ex.B1: Copy of Insurance policy Ex.X1: Authorization letter Ex.X2: Attested copy of driving licence. On behalf of Respondent –Insurance Company. Findings of the learned MACT: 8. Evidence of PW.1 / the injured, as to nature of the accident, negligence of driver of the offending vehicle is convincing to believe the negligence of the driver 5 of the offending vehicle. Want of transport endorsement for the driver of offending vehicle is not shown as reason for the accident. Therefore, the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle is believed. 9. Income of the claimant is taken at Rs.3,000/- per month which comes to Rs.36,000/- per annum. For the age group of the claimant, multiplier „15‟ is applicable. The disability is assessed at 30% for the whole body. Therefore, the entitlement of claimant under the head of loss of earning is at Rs.1,62,000/-, Rs.18,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.10,000/- towards transportation. Therefore, in all, the claimant is entitled for Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation. Arguments in the appeal: 10. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the paraplegic condition of the claimant is unfortunately ignored by the learned MACT. Operation and treatment undergone are categorically spoken, but the learned MACT failed to consider the evidence with empathetical concern. Granting of compensation is done casually without proper appreciation of the evidence and condition of the claimant. The claimant is entitled for more compensation than what claimed, mofussil pleadings are to be considered liberally. Hon‟ble Supreme Court time and again stated that there is no bar for awarding more compensation than what claimed, if the claimant is otherwise entitled. The present case is a 6 classic example where the plight of the victim is not considered by the learned MACT in proper perspective. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the learned MACT ignored about the contributory negligence of the injured claimant in riding the motor cycle, valid and effective driving licence particularly the absence of transport endorsement to the driver of the offending vehicle. He has added that the quantification already done is excessive and that there are no grounds to interfere. Answers to objections as to Negligence and Driving Licence: 12. The defences as to want of transport endorsement does not merit any consideration in the context of judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court. The legal position as to a person holding of non-transport category driving licence of „Light Motor Vehicle‟ driving transport vehicle has been addressed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited1 [Mukund Dewangan(2016)] and Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited2 [Mukund Dewangan(2017)]. 13. Further, reference made on the point whether “a person holding a licence for a „Light Motor Vehicle‟ class non transport can drive a „Transport Vehicle‟ without 1 (2016) 4 SCC 298 2 (2019) 12 SCC 816 7 a specific endorsement, provided the „Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW)‟ of the vehicle does not exceed 7,500 Kgs?” is answered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited vs. Rambha Devi and Others3 at length and the observation are made under the caption of conclusion vide para Nos.125 to 131 which are as follows: 125. The licensing regime under the MV Act and the MV Rules, when read as a whole, does not provide for a separate endorsement for operating a „Transport Vehicle‟, if a driver already holds a LMV license. We must however clarify that the exceptions carved out by the legislature for special vehicles like e-carts and e-rickshaws74, or vehicles carrying hazardous goods75, will remain unaffected by the decision of this Court. 126. As discussed earlier in this judgment, the definition of LMV under Section 2(21) of the MV Act explicitly provides what a „Transport Vehicle‟ „means‟. This Court must ensure that neither provision i.e. the definition under Section 2(21) or the second part of Section 3(1) which concerns the necessity for a driving license for a „Transport Vehicle‟ is reduced to a dead letter of law. Therefore, the emphasis on „Transport Vehicle‟ in the licensing scheme has to be understood only in the context of the „medium‟ and „heavy‟ vehicles. This harmonious reading also aligns with the objective of the 1994 amendment in Section 10(2) to simplify the licensing procedure. 3 2024 SCC Online SC 3183 8 127. The above interpretation also does not defeat the broader twin objectives of the MV Act i.e. road safety and ensuring timely compensation and relief for victims of road accidents. The aspect of road safety is earlier discussed at length. An authoritative pronouncement by this Court would prevent insurance companies from taking a technical plea to defeat a legitimate claim for compensation involving an insured vehicle weighing below 7,500 kgs driven by a person holding a driving license of a „Light Motor Vehicle‟ class. 128. In an era where autonomous or driver-less vehicles are no longer tales of science fiction and app-based passenger platforms are a modern reality, the licensing regime cannot remain static. The amendments that have been carried out by the Indian legislature may not have dealt with all possible concerns. As we were informed by the Learned Attorney General that a legislative exercise is underway, we hope that a comprehensive amendment to address the statutory lacunae will be made with necessary corrective measures. 129. Just to flag one concern, the legislature through the 1994 amendment in Section 10(2)(e) in order to introduce „transport vehicle‟ as a separate class could not have intended to merge light motor vehicle (which continued as a distinct class) along with medium, and heavy vehicles into a single class. Else, it would give rise to a situation in which Sri (our hypothetical character), wanting to participate in the cycling sport, is put through the rigorous training relevant only for a multisport like Triathlon, which requires a much higher degree of endurance and athleticism. The effort therefore should be to ensure that the statute remains practical and workable. 9 130. Now harking back to the primary issue and noticing that the core driving skills (as enunciated in the earlier paragraphs), expected to be mastered by all drivers are universal - regardless of whether the vehicle falls into “Transport” or “Non-Transport” category, it is the considered opinion of this Court that if the gross vehicle weight is within 7,500 kg - the quintessential common man's driver Sri, with LMV license, can also drive a “Transport Vehicle”. We are able to reach such a conclusion as none of the parties in this case has produced any empirical data to demonstrate that the LMV driving licence holder, driving a „Transport Vehicle‟, is a significant cause for road accidents in India. The additional eligibility criteria as specified in MV Act and MV Rules as discussed in this judgment will apply only to such vehicle („medium goods vehicle‟, „medium passenger vehicle‟, „heavy goods vehicle‟ and „heavy passenger vehicle‟), whose gross weight exceeds 7,500 Kg. Our present interpretation on how the licensing regime is to operate for drivers under the statutory scheme is unlikely to compromise the road safety concerns. This will also effectively address the livelihood issues for drivers operating Transport Vehicles (who clock maximum hours behind the wheels), in legally operating “Transport vehicles” (below 7,500 Kg), with their LMV driving license. Perforce Sri must drive responsibly and should have no occasion to be called either a maniac or an idiot (as mentioned in the first paragraph), while he is behind the wheels. Such harmonious interpretation will substantially address the vexed question of law before this Court. 10 131. Our conclusions following the above discussion are as under:— (I) A driver holding a license for Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) class, under Section 10(2)(d) for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight under 7,500 kg, is permitted to operate a „Transport Vehicle‟ without needing additional authorization under Section 10(2)(e) of the MV Act specifically for the „Transport Vehicle‟ class. For licensing purposes, LMVs and Transport Vehicles are not entirely separate classes. An overlap exists between the two. The special eligibility requirements will however continue to apply for, inter alia, e-carts, e-rickshaws, and vehicles carrying hazardous goods. (II) The second part of Section 3(1), which emphasizes the necessity of a specific requirement to drive a „Transport Vehicle,‟ does not supersede the definition of LMV provided in Section 2(21) of the MV Act. (III) The additional eligibility criteria specified in the MV Act and MV Rules generally for driving „transport vehicles‟ would apply only to those intending to operate vehicles with gross vehicle weight exceeding 7,500 kg i.e. „medium goods vehicle‟, „medium passenger vehicle‟, „heavy goods vehicle‟ and „heavy passenger vehicle‟. (IV) The decision in Mukund Dewangan (2017) is upheld but for reasons as explained by us in this judgment. In the absence of any obtrusive omission, the decision is not per incuriam, even if certain provisions of the MV Act and MV Rules were not considered in the said judgment. 11 14. There is no evidence placed by the Insurance Company to prove the contributory negligence on part of the injured claimant in riding the motor cycle. Having failed to discharge the burden to prove the plea of contributory negligence, the Insurance Company cannot make any objection at this stage. Further, it is relevant to note that no appeal is filed by the Insurance Company. Therefore, the accident, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, violations if any, of conditions of the policy and entitlement of claimant for compensation as well as liability of the Insurance Company are all out of the scope of appeal. 15. The points that arise for determination in this appeal are: 1) What is the just and reasonable compensation that can be awarded to the claimant / appellant and whether the compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- awarded by the learned MACT is just and reasonable or require any enhancement if so, to what extent? 2) What is the result of the appeal? Point No.1: Precedential guidance as to quantum of compensation: 16(i). With regard to awarding just and reasonable quantum of compensation, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Baby Sakshi Greola vs. 12 Manzoor Ahmad Simon and Anr.4, 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 reasonable 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.5, 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 _________ 16(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. 42025 AIAR (Civil) 1 52020 (04) SCC 413 13 16(iii) 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 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…” 6 2011 (1) SCC 343 14 16(iv). In Sidram vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr7 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. 16(v). In Sidram’s case, reference is made to a case in R.D. Hattangadi V. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd8. From the observations 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. Analysis of Evidence: 17. Ex.A1-FIR was registered for the offences under Section 337 IPC and Ex.A2- charge sheet was laid for the offences under Section 338 IPC against the driver of the offending vehicle. Ex.A3-wound certificate is disclosing that the claimant suffered grievous nature of injuries. 7 2023 (3) SCC 439 8 1995 (1) SCC 551 15 18. Claimant / PW.1 has stated that he has suffered the following injures: 1. Skull-Nell bony injury 2. Nasal bone Fracture. 3. Cervical BL. Wedge D8-Compound Fracture. 4. Left Eye Carnial lacerated Wound. 5. Fracture of Maxile Complex Fracture. 6. D8 wedging and Retraprepulsan causing compression over Cord. 19. Further, he has stated that he was taken to Rama Rao Hospital at Achanta. After first aid was given at Rama Rao Hospital, he was taken to the Government Hospital at Palakol and on the advise of doctors, he was taken to the Government General Hospital at Kakinada, where he was treated as in- patient from 13.05.2011 to 12.07.2011 and he has undergone to surgery on 18.06.2011 for the grievous injuries to D7 to D9 caused in the accident, implants were inserted with rods and screws. After discharge from Government Hospital, Kakinada, he was admitted in Varma Hospital at Bhimavaram and took treatment as in-patient from 02.09.2011 to 05.09.2011. Thereafter, he was admitted in Aditya Hospitals at Tanuku and continued the treatment. He has relied on the Ex.A4-out patient card / discharge summary issued by the Varma Hospital, Bhimavaram. Ex.A5-Medical bills, Ex.A6-Medical prescriptions, Ex.A7-Disability certificate issued by the Andhra Pradesh Vaidya Vidhana Parishad, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District and Ex.A8-X rays. 16 20. During cross examination except suggesting that he was not getting Rs.3,000/- per month and details in the disability certificate are incorrect and that the claimant did not incur any medical expenditure and able to attend normal duties, nothing important is elicited. 21. PW.2 / Dr.P.Venkata Narayana deposed that he has issued wound certificate containing his signature. He has denied the suggestion that the injuries are simple in nature. 22. PW.3 / Dr. Sri Naresh Irriniki deposed that he is practicing as Orthopaedic Surgeon at Bhimavaram. He has issued the disability certificate with 77% disability. The lower part of the body is not functioning and totally paralyzed. He has no control over bowl and bladder. There is no chance to getting of walking and go to work in future. The disability is permanent. He has denied the suggestion that the Neurologist alone is only a competent person to decide / believe the disability. 23. During cross examination, it was elicited that he has not seen the investigation reports. It was suggested that the computer suggests that what kind of treatment is given. He has denied the suggestion that percentage of disability fixed at 77% is on higher side. 17 Documentary Evidence: 24. Ex.A7 is the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board / Andhra Pradesh Vaidya Vidhana Parishad, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. Copy of the same is Notarized. The cause of disability is shown as accident, Traumatic Paraplegia. Re-assessment is not recommended. Percentage of Disability is shown at 77%. The recitals in disability certificate is as follows: Medical Board: Community Health Centre, Bhimavaram ID No. of Person with Disability : 05061420030103098 Date of issue:30.12.2013  This is certified that Shri Kandregula Hanumanthu Rao, S/o. Musalayya, Male, age 40 years, resident of H.No.#4-110, Pandithavilluru Habitation, Pandithavilluru Village, Poduru Mandal, West Godavari District, is suffering from permanent disability of the following category:- Physical(Locomotor / Orthopaedic) Disability. The disability is in relation to his: Bilateral Lower Limb. Sub-type of disability: Post Traumatic Sequel-Limbs. Cause of Disability: Accident TRAUMATIC PARAPLEGIA  Re-assessment of this case is not recommended.  Percentage of disability in his case is 77% (Seventy Seven percent)  He meets the following physical requirements for discharge of his duties. KC-can perform work by kneeling and crouching, S-can perform work by sitting, RW-can perform work by sitting, RW-can perform work by reading and writing.  Identification Marks of Person with Disability:- 18 a) A Mole on the Right Hand. b) A Mole on the Right Leg. 25. Disability is spoken at 77% by the doctor and disability certificate is indicating the disability. The learned MACT taking the disability at 30% is found illogical. It is settled practice and procedure that whenever either a party or Court wants to take a different view than expert, there might be sound basis and reference of the issue to another expert. Hon‟ble Supreme Court in a case between Prakash Chand Sharma vs. Rambabu Saini and another9, observed in para No.9 as follows: 9. The Tribunal questioned the competence of the Medical Board to assess the permanent disability of the claimant-appellant, terming the certificate of the Medical Board as not completely reliable. If the Tribunal had reason to doubt the medical certificate, the option available before it was to have the disability re-assessed but it could not have gone into the details of the determination of disability. Since that course of action has not been adopted, the opinion of the Medical Board, being an opinion of the experts is to be treated as such. That apart, the comatose state of the claimant-appellant is not in dispute. 26. In a case between K.S. Muralidhar vs. R. Subbulakshi and another arising out of SLP(C) No.18337 of 2021, the Hon‟ble Apex Court vide judgment dated 22.11.2024, after referring to plethora of judgments in the context of a case where injuries sustained by the claimant contributed for 90% of the permanent disability where Cervical Spine dislocation of C-6 over C-7, acceptance of functional disability at 100% was questioned. The observations in para Nos.11 9 2025 ACJ 395 19 and 12 of the judgment are found relevant in the process of acceptance the disability. They are as follows: 11. Let us now consider the claimant-appellant‟s prayer for enhancement of compensation under the head „pain and suffering‟. It cannot be disputed that the injuries sustained by the claimant-appellant are serious, and their effects on his life are long-lasting; one may even say lifelong. The examination of the doctor, namely, Dr. N.C. Prakash, forming part of record as Annexure P-5, dated 6th October 2010 reads as under: “5. I further state that recently I examined the patient on 30-9-2010 for assessment of disability. He complains of the following: a. No sensation to below the C-7 Dermatome. b. Lost sensation of bowel and urinary system. c. No control below the neck. d. Needs assistance for every activity. 6. On examination I found the following: At present he is in wheel chair bound with no movements (Grade 0/5) in both lower limbs, minimal movements in bilateral upper limb proximally with wrist being very weak (1/5 power) and grip is not possible. He has no urinary control, has no sensation of bowels and is on urinary catheter. He needs help for all his day to day activities. He was an Assistant Team Leader in LM Glass Fibers India Pvt. Ltd. and now can‟t do any work. He has almost no chance of further improvement and impairment is likely to be permanent. All put together he has a disability of about 85% to the whole body.” 12. It is to be noted that both the Tribunal and the High Court have taken the disability suffered by the claimant-appellant to be at 100%. We find no ground to take a different view. Taking aid of the said observation, in the present case also the disability is taken at 100%. 20 27. Pleaded income of the claimant is Rs.3,000/- per month his occupation as a labourer is not disputed. Injured is aged about „40‟ years. Adding of 25% towards future prospects is permissible. Therefore, the income of the injured / claimant can be taken at Rs.3,750/- per month which comes to Rs.45,000/- per annum. The disability is considered as 100% in view of paralyzing of total body and tissues relating to bowl and bladder basing on the evidence on record. Loss of income to the claimant can be taken at Rs.45,000/- per annum. For the age group of 40-45 years, the multiplier applicable is „15‟. Whereby the entitlement of claimant under the head of loss of income due to permanent disability comes at Rs.6,75,000/-. The claimant is entitled for the same under the head of permanent disability. Towards medical expenditure in view of the claimant taking treatment in several hospitals he incurring reasonable medical expenditure can be accepted. The compensation awarded by the learned MACT towards medical expenditure at Rs.18,000/- found not reasonable. The claim is fit to be accepted at Rs.68,000/- as claimed by the claimant including future needs. 28. Upon considering the nature of injuries etc., under the head of pain and suffering the entitlement of claimant is found at Rs.1,00,000/-. Towards attendant charges and transportation, the claimant is entitled for Rs.50,000/-. Towards loss of amenities etc, the claimant is entitled for Rs.50,000/-. Towards extra nourishment, the claimant is entitled for Rs.15,000/-. Towards loss of 21 income during the period of hospitalization i.e. for a period of at least eight months, the claimant is entitled for Rs.25,000/-. 29. In the light of precedential guidance and in view of the reasons and evidence referred above, the entitlement of the claimant for reasonable compensation in comparison to compensation awarded by the learned MACT is as follows: 30. In view of the discussion made above, the entitlement of claimant for compensation is found at Rs.9,83,000/- and the point framed is answered accordingly in favour of the claimant appellant and against the Insurance Company. S.No. Head Granted by the MACT Fixed by this Appellate Court 1. Loss of earnings / income due to permanent disability Rs.1,62,000/- Rs.6,75,000/- 2. Medical expenses Rs.18,000/- Rs.68,000/- 3. Pain and suffering Rs.10,000/- Rs.1,00,000/- 4. Loss of amenities Rs.50,000/- 5. a)Extra Nourishment -Nil- Rs.15,000/- b)Attendant Charges -Nil- Rs.50,000/- c)Transportation Rs.10,000/- 6. Loss of income during the period of hospitalization / bed rest -Nil- Rs.25,000/- Total: Rs.2,50,000/- Rs.9,83,000 /- 22 Granting of more compensation than what claimed, if the claimant is otherwise entitled:- 31. The legal position with regard to awarding more compensation than what claimed has been considered and settled by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court holding that there is no bar for awarding more compensation than what is claimed. For the said preposition of law, this Court finds it proper to refer the following observations of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court made in (1) Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and Others10, at para 21 of the judgment, that – “..there is no restriction that the Tribunal/Court cannot award compensation amount exceeding the claimed amount. The function of the Tribunal/Court is to award “just” compensation, which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record.” (2) Kajal V. Jagadish Chand and Ors.11 at para 33, as follows:- “33. We are aware that the amount awarded by us is more than the amount claimed. However, it is well settled law that in the motor accident claim petitions, the Court must award the just compensation and, in case, the just compensation is more than the amount claimed, that must be awarded especially where the claimant is a minor.” 10 (2003) 2 SCC 274 112020 (04) SCC 413 23 Point No.2: 32. For the aforesaid reasons and in view of the findings of point No.1, Point No.2 is answered as follows: In the result appeal is allowed. (i) The compensation awarded by the learned MACT at Rs.2,50,000/- is enhanced to Rs.9,83,000/- with interest at 9% per annum. (ii) Claimant / appellant shall pay Court fee for the enhanced part of compensation, within a period of six weeks before the learned MACT. (iii) The Respondents shall deposit the enhanced amount of compensation within a period of six weeks. (iv) The claimant is entitled to withdraw the enhanced compensation 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:25.04.2025 Knr 24 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA M.A.C.M.A No.2643 of 2016 25th April, 2025 Knr