1 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA M.A.C.M.A.No.1425 of 2018 JUDGMENT: First respondent in M.V.O.P.No.74 of 2015 on the file of learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Court, Guntur [for short “MACT”], filed the present appeal, feeling aggrieved by the Decree and Order dated 30.11.2016 passed therein, questioning the sustainability of the same. 2. The 1st respondent herein, Jasti Basava Punnamma, [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.7,00,000/- for the injuries suffered by her in the road traffic accident dated 29.11.2014 and the learned MACT granted compensation of Rs.5,14,000/- with interest @7.5% under the impugned award and decree. 3. 2nd respondent herein is the driver employed by the appellant- APSRTC and he was the 2nd respondent before the learned MACT. 4. Heard learned counsel for both sides. 5. For the sake of convenience, parties will be hereinafter referred to as ‘claimant’ and ‘respondents 1 and 2’ with reference to their status before the learned MACT. 2 Case of the claimant in brief, is that : 6. [i] On 29.11.2014, when the claimant was proceeding on foot at about 2.30 p.m., from the premises of RTC Depot, Tenali, one APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 28 Z 2395 [herein after referred as ‘the offending vehicle’] driven by its driver-the 2nd respondent, came in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the claimant and ran over her legs, whereby the claimant sustained severe crush injury. She was shifted to KIMS Hospital, Tenali for treatment. On complaint, a case in Crime No.148 of 2014 was registered in Tenali II Town Police Station and subsequently, the driver of the offending vehicle was charge sheeted. [ii] Further case of the claimant is that she was aged about 65 years, attending labour works, earning Rs.200/- per day, suffered loss of income during treatment and thereafter due to permanent disability. She has undergone three major operations: 1) Amputation of right leg below the knee 2) Left foot debridement 3) Sural flap cover left heal and skin grafting. She has taken treatment through Dr.S.Amarnath, M.S. Orthopaedic, at Amar Orthopedic Hospital, Guntur and spent Rs.2,50,000/- for medical expenditure. She is entitled for compensation of Rs.7,00,000/-. 3 Case of the Respondent No.1/Appellant-APSRTC: 7. Claimant shall prove the pleaded accident, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, age, occupation and income of the claimant, nature of the injuries and disability suffered. The claim is excessive and exorbitant. Case of the Respondent No.2 is that: 8. The claimant is put strict to proof of all the allegations and there was no negligence on his part. 9. On the strength of pleadings, learned MACT settled the following issues for trial: 1) Whether the petitioner Jasti Basava Punnamma received injuries in the accident on 29.11.2014 due to rash and negligent driving of driver of APSRTC bus bearing No. AP 28 Z 2395? 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and against whom? 3) To what relief? 10. 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.148 of 2014 of Tenali II Police Station - Nil - Ex.A2 Certified copy of Charge Sheet Ex.A3 Certified Copy of Wound Certificate Ex.A4 Consolidated bill for Rs.1,79,097/- dated 29.12.2014 along with cash bill for Rs.1,26,500/-. Ex.A5 Cash Receipt of Rs.17,450/- dated 09.03.2015. 4 Ex.A6 Cash receipt for Rs.2,500/- Ex.A7 Medical Bills (12 in No.) for Rs.1,894/- Ex.A8 Cash Receipt for Rs.4,500/- dated 29.11.2014 Ex.A9 Cash Bills (7 in No.) dated 29.11.2014 Ex.A10 Cash Receipts (8 in No.) for Rs.9,400/- Ex.A11 Medical Bills (51 in No.) for Rs.25,232/- issued by Amrtuha Pharmacy, Kothapet, Guntur. Ex.A12 Photographs (2) Ex.A13 C.D. Ex.X1 Case Sheet of the Petitioner Witnesses examined Witnesses examined PW.1 Jasti Basava Punnamma [Claimant / Petitioner] RW.1 Yarlagadda Manikya Rao [Driver of the Offending vehicle] PW.2 Dr.S.Amarnath [ Orthopaedic Doctor, Amar Orthopedic Hospital, Guntur] Findings of the learned MACT:- (A.) Accident and Negligence: 11. [i] The evidence of claimant as PW.1 as to the occurrence of the accident and Ex.A1-F.I.R., Ex.A2-Charge sheet and the medical record etc., vide Ex.A3 to Ex.A13 are sufficient to believe the occurrence of the accident and the injuries sustained by the claimant due to accident, even the negligence of the driver of the vehicle. [ii] The evidence of RW.1, driver of the offending vehicle indicating remanding him to judicial custody etc., therefore, negligence and 5 occurrence of accident stands proved and there is no contra evidence placed by the respondent -APSRTC. (B.) Quantification of compensation by the learned MACT:- 12. Claimant suffered amputation of right leg and debridement was done for left foot. Disability is spoken by PW.2 at 40 to 45% for amputation of right leg knee and 20% disability in respect of left heel. Income taken at 4,500/- per month, multiplier applicable is ‘7’. 50% disability is accepted. entitlement of claimant under loss of earning due to permanent disability comes to Rs.1,89,000/-. The Claimant claimed Rs.2,50,00/- as medical expenditure etc., which gets support from Ex.A5 to A11, therefore, the same can be granted. Under the heads of loss of pain and suffering Rs.25,000/-, loss of amenities Rs.50,000/- are fit to be granted. In all claimant is entitled for Rs.5,14,000/-. Arguments in the Appeal: (A.) For the Appellant-respondent No.1-APSRTC:- 13. [i] Negligence of the Claimant is not taken into consideration. [ii] Age of the claimant is ‘65’ [iii] Income taken @4,500/- is excessive. [iv] Taking disability@50% is not correct. [v] Medical expenditure etc., is not properly proved. 6 (B) For the Claimant: 14. The disability of right leg is 50%, left leg is 20% and there is total loss of income to the claimant. Thus taking of only 50% of the loss of income is not correct. Compensation claimed itself is low and the learned MACT ought to have granted more compensation than what claimed. There was negligence on the part of the driver of the RTC bus and learned MACT has appreciated the evidence properly. The impugned judgment does not require any interference except for enhancement of the compensation already granted and there is no bar for awarding more compensation than what claimed, even if neither appeal nor cross-objections are filed by the claimants. Scope of Appeal : 15. The 1st respondent before the learned MACT, who is the owner of the offending vehicle/APSRTC is disputing both quantum and liability. Therefore, this Court being last Court of fact, has to examine both liability and quantum of compensation. 16. Perused the evidence on record. 17. Thoughtful consideration given to the arguments advanced by the both sides. 18. Now the points that arise for determination in this appeal are that - 1) Whether the pleaded accident dated 29.11.2014 has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus? 7 2) Whether the claimant-Jasti Basava Punnamma is entitled for compensation, if so, to what quantum and what is the liability of the respondent No.1/Appellant-APSRTC? 3) Whether the compensation of Rs.5,14,000/- awarded by the learned MACT is just and reasonable in the context of the case? Or require any interference? If so, to what extent and what shall be the just and reasonable compensation to which she is entitled? 4) What is the result of the appeal? Point No.1: 19. The driver of the RTC bus as RW.1 admitted about the registration of the case and remanding him to judicial custody. Claimant as PW.1 stated about the negligence. Ex.A1 is the F.I.R., Ex.A2 is the Charge Sheet filed against the driver of the offending vehicle. When the evidence of PW.1 is seen in corroboration with Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 and in the absence of any contra evidence like at least the result of the Criminal Case, negligence of driver of the RTC bus found fit to be accepted and the finding of the learned MACT in this regard are found proper, hence, accepted and concurred. Points 2 and 3: 20. Since point Nos.2 and 3 are inter-linked, they are being discussed and answered together. Precedential Guidance: 21. A reference to parameters, for quantifying the compensation under various heads, addressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court is found necessary, to 8 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. 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 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.,3 vide para No.10, by referring to Sunil Kumar Vs. Ram Singh Gaud4,as to application 12025 AIAR (Civil) 1 22020 (04) SCC 413 32010(10)SCC 341 4 2007 (14) SCC 61 9 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.” (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 : 5 1992(2) SCC 567 6 2011 (1) SCC 343 10 (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…” (iv) 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. (v) In Sidram’s case, reference is made to a case in R.D. Hattangadi V. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd.8. 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 7 2023 (3) SCC 439 8 1995 (1) SCC 551 11 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: 22. [i] As per the evidence of claimant, as PW.1:- 1) Her age is ‘65’ years. 2) She sustained – a) crush injury to right leg below the knee. b) Crush injury of left foot 3) She was in-patient from 29.11.2014 to 29.12.2014 4) She has undergone 3 major operations i.e., 1) Amputation of right leg below the knee 2) Debridement to her left foot 3) Sural flap cover left heel and skin grafting done. 5) She has incurred Rs.2,50,000/- for her treatment. 6) She used to earn Rs.200/- per day by attending coolie work. 7) She is unable to sit and squat properly due to the disability suffered on account of accident. 8) Ex.A4 is the consolidated Bill for Rs.1,79,097/-. Ex.A5 is the bill for Rs.17,450/-. Ex.A6 to A11 are also medical bills, for the respective amounts stated therein. 9) Except suggesting that the medical bills i.e., A1 to A11 are fabricated and that the claim is excessive nothing more is elicited during the cross-examination of PW.1. 12 [ii] As per the evidence of PW.2-Dr.S.Amarnath: 1) He is an Orthopedic Doctor, running Amar Orthopaedic Hospital, Guntur. 2) He treated the claimant on 29.11.2014. 3) Claimant suffered one crush injury for right foot. 4) One crush injury for left foot. 5) Fracture for both pubic rami. 6) Surgery was performed to claimant, amputation of below knee on right lower limb was done on 01.11.2014. 7) Debridement of left foot was done on 10.12.2014. 8) Sural flap cover to the left heel and skin grafting was done on 15.12.2014. 9) Claimant was discharged on 29.12.2014. 10) Injuries are grievous in nature. 11) Claimant suffered disability 40 to 45% in knee amputation on right leg. 12) Disability to left heel is approximately 20%. 13) No disability for fracture of pubic rami. 14) Disabilities are partial and permanent in nature. 15) Claimant can walk wearing a prosthesis but daily activities are limited because of the injury. [iii] Documentary Evidence: Ex.A3 is the Wound Certificate reflecting four (04) injuries indicating them as grievous in nature. Ex.A4 is Consolidated bill for Rs.1,79,097/-. Ex.A5 is the Cash Receipt for Rs.17,450/- dated 09.03.2015, issued by 13 Chaitanya Artificial Limb Center. Ex.A6 is Cash receipt for Rs.2,500/- issued by Tulasi Surgicals, Guntur. Ex. A7 -Medical Bills for Rs.1,894/- issued by Krushna Kishore Medical Stores appears to be part of Ex.A4. Ex.A8 is Cash Receipt of KIMS Hospital, Tenali for Rs.4,500/-. Ex.A9 is the Cash Bills issued by Harsha Diagnostic Center and Ex.A10 is Cash Receipts for Rs.9,400/- issued by Needs Blood Bank, Guntur. Ex.A11 is the Bills for Rs.25,232/- issued by the Amritha Pharmacy, Guntur, appears to be separate. Ex.A12 -copy of photographs are indicating amputation. Ex.X1 is the Case sheet maintained at Amar Orthopaedic Hospital. 23. Towards medicines and treatment, the amounts awarded by the learned MACT @ Rs.2,50,000/- found as proper and acceptable. The disability taken @50% by the learned MACT is also reasonable, although the same is said at partial but when in respect of two limbs separately stated, altogether disability can be taken @50%, the learned MACT has taken income at Rs.4,500/- per month, which the appellant –APSRTC is disputing on high side, in view of the age of the claimant being ‘65’. The contention for the claimant is that future prospects are not added. For the age group of 65, adding of future prospects does not arise as per the observations of Pranay Sethi’s case. However, income taken at Rs.4500/- per month does not require any reduction when the socio-economic conditions of the year 2014 are notionally taken into consideration, whereby the loss of income for the age group of claimant ‘65’ with the application of 14 multiplier ‘7’ comes at Rs.1,89,000/-. Upon considering the disability at 50%, the compensation awarded by the learned MACT is found acceptable even under this head. 24. Compensation awarded under the head of pain and suffering at Rs.25,000/- is acceptable when number of injuries are considered. Towards loss of amenities, the compensation awarded at Rs.50,000/- require reduction to Rs.25,000/-. However, for Conveyance and Transportation Rs.10,000/-, extra nourishment /special diet Rs.10,000/- and attendant charges at Rs.5000/- are fit to be granted to the claimant. 25. The entitlement of the claimant for compensation, in the light of the discussion made, in comparison to the compensation awarded by the learned MACT is as follows: Sl. No Head Granted by MACT Fixed as just by this Appellate Court 1. Pain and suffering Rs.25,000/- Rs.25,000/- 2 Medical Expenditure [including future treatment] Rs.2,50,000/- Rs.2,50,000/- 3 Loss of amenities Rs.50,000/- Rs.25,000/- 4. Loss of earning due to permanent disability Rs.1,89,000/- Rs.1,89,000/- 5.. Conveyance /Transportation charges -Nil- Rs.10,000/- 6. Attendant Charges Rs.5,000/- 7. Extra Nourishment Rs.10,000/- 8. Total: Rs .5,14,000/- Rs .5,14,000/- 15 26. In view of the discussions made above and the conclusions drawn, this Court finds that an amount of Rs.5,14,000/- is just and adequate compensation that can be awarded to the claimant and the learned MACT has rightly awarded the same and that there are no grounds to interfere. Point Nos.2 and 3 are answered accordingly, against the appellant and in favour of the claimants. Point No.4: 27. In the result, for the reasons stated above and the conclusions drawn under Points 1 to 3 above, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed. ____________________________ A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J Date: 04.04.2025 Pnr 16 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA M.A.C.M.A.No.1425 of 2018 Dt. 04 .04.2025 Pnr