APHC010619772015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3520] SATURDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2382/2015 Between: 1. KOVVURI ESWARAMMA @ AMMULU, W/O.DASTHAGIRI, HINDU, OCC: COOLIE R/O.VEMPALLI ROAD, REYYAGUNTLA [V] & [M]. NOW R/O.3/81, AKKAYAPALLI, KADAPA. ...APPELLANT AND 1. GAJJALA RAGHU ANR, S/P.NOT KNOWN, AGED MAJOR, HINDU, OWNER OF LORRY BEARING NO.AP 24 V 5416 R/O.11-25-965, KOTHAWAD WARD NO.11, KOTHAWADA, WARANGAL. 2. SRI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, REP BY ITS MANAGER [LEGAL] O/O.10-3-56/4/1, 1ST FLOOR, EAST MAREDPALLI, SECUNDERABAD. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant: 1. D KODANDARAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. N RAMA KRISHNA 2. The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA M.A.C.M.A.No.2382 of 2015 JUDGMENT: 1. The claimant in M.V.O.P.No.181 of 2010 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Family Court-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa (for short “the learned MACT”), feeling aggrieved by the order and decree dated 11.01.2012, where under a compensation of Rs.66,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum was awarded as against the claim made for Rs.1,50,000/-, filed the present appeal questioning the just and adequate nature of the compensation awarded. 2. The claim arises out of an accident that taken place on 28.12.2009 at Thippaluru bridge, on Kadapa road due to the involvement of the lorry bearing No.AP 24 V 5416 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”), which dashed against the appellant/claimant, causing multiple injuries and a fracture of the 2nd metatarsal and on the left thigh and other parts of the body. 3. It is claimed that the claimant was shifted to the Government Hospital, Proddatur and from there to RIMS Hospital, Kadapa, where she was treated as an inpatient. She has further taken treatment under a private Orthopedic Surgeon at Kadapa for a period of four months and incurred huge expenditure towards transportation, attendant charges, suffered loss of income during the period of rest and suffered disability to the tune of 30%. 3 4. Respondent No.1, the owner of the lorry / the offending vehicle, remained ex parte. 5. The evidence placed before the learned MACT is, oral evidence of the claimant as P.W.1, Dr. J. Nagesh, Orthopedic Surgeon, who treated the claimant as PW.2 and documentary evidence vide Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 i.e., FIR, Wound Certificate, Charge Sheet and Ex.A4-Disability Certificate issued by the District Medical Board, Kadapa. 6. The claim was resisted by the Insurance Company, contending that the claimant shall strictly prove all the allegations like negligence, disability suffered, entitlement for compensation, and compliance of conditions of policy etc. 7. The Learned MACT, after referring to the evidence of the claimant as PW.1, being the injured and an eye witness, and also to the police record- FIR, Charge sheet etc., believed the negligence. Referring to the injuries mentioned in Wound Certificate, the evidence of the doctor, Disability Certificate etc. although did not believe 30% disability, awarded Rs.30,000/- towards permanent disability. The compensation awarded by the learned MACT under various heads is as follows: Pain and suffering Rs.20,000/- Transportation Rs.3,000/- Medical expenses Rs.10,000/- Extra-nourishment Rs.3,000/- 4 Permanent disability Rs.30,000/- Total Rs.66,000/- Arguments in the Appeal: 8. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the compensation awarded by the learned MACT is very low. The learned MACT failed to consider the Disability Certificate vide Ex.A4, issued by the competent District Medical Board, which assessed the disability at 30%. The claimant, aged about 29 years by the date of claim petition and accident, working as labourer, suffered disability and incurred huge expenditure for treatment etc. In any event, the compensation awarded and the interest thereon are not in tune with the settled law and practice. Hence require enhancement. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company would submit that the injuries are healed. There is only one grievous injury i.e., a crush injury to the foot and 2nd metatarsal fracture. 10. Since there is neither an appeal nor cross objections by the respondents, the accident, negligence and violation of conditions of the Insurance Policy, etc., are all out of dispute. 11. The points that arise for determination in this appeal are: 1) Whether the compensation of Rs.66,000/- awarded by the learned MACT is just and adequate in the facts and circumstances of the case, and 5 whether the same requires any interference by way of enhancement? If so, to what extent and on what grounds? 2) What is the result of the appeal? Point No.1: Precedential Guidance: 12. 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. 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 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.2, referred to various heads under which, compensation can be awarded, in injuries cases vide paragraph No.52, the heads are as follows:- 12025 AIAR (Civil) 1 22020 (04) SCC 413 6 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 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 32010(10)SCC 341 4 2007 (14) SCC 61 5 1992(2) SCC 567 7 there cannot be any rigid or mathematical precision in the matter of determination of compensation.” (iii). In Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another6, 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. principles summarized vide para No.19 are as follows: 19. We may now summarise the principles discussed above: (i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity. (ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that the percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as the percentage of permanent disability). (iii) The doctor who treated an injured claimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard to the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety. (iv) The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the 6 2011 (1) SCC 343 8 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 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. 13. The Doctor, P.W.2, who spoke about the disability, did not treat the petitioner/claimant and the Doctor, who treated the claimant/appellant, is not examined. The disability is 30% and the competent Medical Board has issued 7 2023 (3) SCC 439 8 1995 (1) SCC 551 9 the same. P.W.2 is a member of the medical board. Therefore, there are no grounds to completely ignore the disability as spoken by the doctor. 14. The age of the claimant and her status as a coolie are not in dispute. The evidence of Dr.P.W.2 is as follows: “I am working as Associate Professor of Orthopedic Department, RIMS Kadapa. I am one of the members of District Medical Board, Kadapa. I issued the Disability Certificate, Ex.A4 in District Medical Board as one of the medical Board member on 15.04.2011. The injured had crush injury left foot due to RTA on 28.12.2009. The injured is having disability 30% permanent due to fracture mal united 2nd metatarsal bone with soft tissue injury to the foot. The injured having difficulty in the ankle and foot movement painful on walking and squatting. I issued the Disability Certificate Ex.A4 after clinical examination, X-rays and with wound certificate Ex.A2. 15. During cross-examination of Doctor P.W.2 stated that there is one grievous injury and he is denied the suggestion that Ex.A4 disability certificate is issued on false grounds with a higher percentage of disability. 16. The accident occurred in the year 2009. Upon considering the socio- economic circumstances of the year 2009, price index and minimum wages etc., in terms of the National Floor Level Minimum Wage revised with effect from 01.09.2007, the all-India average daily wage for unskilled labour was around Rs.60/- to Rs.70/-. 10 17. Considering the age of the claimant and also the unorganized nature of work in which the claimant is involved, 30% income can be added towards future prospects, whereby his income can be taken at Rs.80 per day, which comes to Rs.2,400/- per month. 30% of the same comes to Rs.720/- per month, whereby it comes to Rs.8,640/- per annum. The Multiplier applicable to the age of „29‟ is „17‟. Then the loss of income due to permanent disability comes to Rs.1,46,880/- (Rs.8,640/- x 17). 18. In view of the reasons and evidence referred above, the entitlement of the claimant for reasonable compensation in comparison to the compensation awarded by the learned MACT is found as follows: Sl. No. Head Granted by the learned MACT Fixed by this Appellate Court 1. Pain and suffering Rs.20,000/- Rs.25,000/- 2. Transportation Rs.3,000/- Rs.5,000/- 3. Extra nourishment Rs.3,000/- Rs.5,000/- 4. Loss of income during the period of treatment etc. -Nil- Rs.10,000/- 5. Medical expenditure Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/- 6. Loss of income due to Permanent disability Rs.30,000/- Rs.1,46,880/- 7. Attendant charges -Nil- Rs.5,000/- 8. Loss of amenities -Nil- Rs.5,000/- Total: Rs.66,000/- Rs. 2,11,880/- 11 19. For the reasons aforesaid and in view of the discussion made above, the point framed is answered in favour of the claimant concluding that the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,11,880/- and the order and decree dated 11.01.2012 passed by the learned MACT in M.V.O.P.No.181 of 2010 require modification accordingly. Granting of more compensation than what claimed, if the claimant is otherwise entitled:- 20. 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 Others9, 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 Vs. Jagadish Chand and Ors.10 at para 33 of the judgment, as follows:- 9 (2003) 2 SCC 274 102020 (04) SCC 413 12 “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.” (3) Ramla and Others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Others11 at para 5 of the judgment, as follows:- “5. Though the claimants had claimed a total compensation of Rs 25,00,000 in their claim petition filed before the Tribunal, we feel that the compensation which the claimants are entitled to is higher than the same as mentioned supra. There is no restriction that the Court cannot award compensation exceeding the claimed amount, since the function of the Tribunal or Court under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is to award “just compensation”. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation. A “just compensation” is one which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record. It cannot be said to have become time-barred. Further, there is no need for a new cause of action to claim an enhanced amount. The courts are duty-bound to award just compensation.” Point No.2: 21. In the result, the appeal is allowed as follows: (i) The compensation awarded by the learned MACT at Rs.66,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum is modified and enhanced to Rs.2,11,880/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 11 (2019) 2 SCC 192 13 (ii) The claimant is liable to pay the Court fee for the enhanced part of the compensation, before the learned MACT. (iii) The claimant is entitled to withdraw the amount at once on deposit. (iv) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are liable to pay the compensation. (v) Time for depositing the balance compensation amount is two months. (vi) There shall be no order as to costs, in this appeal. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeal shall stand closed. ____________________________ A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J Date.30.08.2025 Knr 14 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA M.A.C.M.A No.2382 of 2015 30th August, 2025 Knr