1 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA M.A.C.M.A.No.1757 of 2016 JUDGMENT: 1. Shaik Mastan (hereinafter referred to as “the claimant”) who is the petitioner before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Eluru, West Godavari District (for short “the MACT”) in O.P.No.124 of 2004 feeling aggrieved by the Award and Decree dated 13.12.2006 filed the present appeal questioning the quantification of compensation done at Rs.58,000/- as against the claim made for Rs.1,50,000/-. 2. Respondent No.1 is the driver. Respondent No.2 is the owner of the lorry bearing No.AP 16 U 6348 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”). Respondent No.3 is the insurance company. 3. Claim petition is filed contending that: (i) the claimant was aged „35‟ years. (ii) earning Rs.3,000/- per month by running mobile canteen at old Bus Stand, Eluru. (iii) Met with an accident that occurred on 27.02.2003 at about 05:15 A.M, near Lakshmi Rice Mill, Eluru, within the limits of Traffic Police Station, Eluru, due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. (iv) Claimant suffered three grievous injuries. (v) Expenditure of Rs.20,000/- incurred towards treatment / medicines and other incidental expenses and suffering disability. 2 (vi) Respondent No.2 being the owner and Respondent No.3 being the authorized insurer are liable to pay the compensation claimed. 4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 driver and owner of the offending vehicle remained ex parte. 5. Respondent No.3 insurance company contested the case putting the petitioner to strict proof of all the allegations including the occurrence of the accident, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, valid and effective driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle, age, occupation and income of the claimant and disability suffered, while attributing negligence to the claimant in crossing the road. 6. On the strength of pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial by the learned MACT: 1. Whether the accident, in which the petitioner sustained grievous injuries occurred on 27.02.2003 at about 05:15 A.M. near Lakshmi Rice Mill, Eluru only due to rash and negligence of the 1st Respondent in driving the lorry AP 16 U 6348 as claimed by the petitioner or whether the petitioner himself was responsible for the said accident as claimed by the 3rd Respondent Insurance Company.? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation from all the Respondents and if so, for how much amount? 3. To what relief? 3 7. During trial, the claimant was examined as PW.1. Doctor A.V.R. Mohan, who assessed the disability of the claimant was examined as P.W.2 and claimant has relied on copies of Ex.A1-FIR, Ex.A2-Wound Certificate and Ex.A3-charge sheet, Ex.A4-disability certificate, Ex.A5-medical bills worth for Rs.1,930.45 paisa. For the Respondent Insurance Company, no oral evidence is adduced, but, Ex.B1 insurance policy was marked on its behalf. 8. Learned MACT found that the accident and negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle are proved with the evidence of PW.1 having corroboration from Ex.A1-FIR, Ex.A3-charge sheet, particularly in the absence of rebuttal evidence from the Respondent Insurance Company. With regard to quantification of compensation observing that the claimant being injured and able to show the injuries with wound certificate, disability certificate and evidence of the doctor, learned MACT awarded a compensation of Rs.58,000/-. Details of compensation awarded by the learned MACT are as follows: Sl.No. Head Compensation 1. Permanent disability Rs.40,000/- 2. Pain and suffering Rs.10,000/- 3. Medical expenses Rs.2,000/- 4. loss of income Rs.6,000/- Total Rs.58,000/- 4 Arguments in the appeal: For claimant / appellant: 9. The learned MACT erred in properly appreciating the disability and applying the multiplier, taking income and adding future prospects. Awarding of compensation under all heads is not rational and the claimant is entitled for more compensation than what is claimed. Therefore, the award may be modified, granting just and reasonable compensation. The claimant (appellant) is unable to walk freely on account of disability. For Respondent-Insurance Company: 10. The accident has occurred during the year 2003. The negligence of the claimant is also the cause for the accident. Medical expenditure is less than Rs.2,000/- although claimed at Rs.20,000/-. Disability is not properly proved, the compensation already awarded itself is excessive. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere and the appeal is fit to be dismissed. Scope of the appeal: 11. The claimant before this Court is questioning the quantum. There is no any appeal or cross objections filed by the Respondent Insurance Company. Therefore accident, negligence, entitlement of claimant for compensation, 5 violation of conditions of policy, liability of insurance company are all out of dispute and beyond the scope of consideration in this appeal. Policy and coverage of risk of claimant is also out of dispute. 12. The only point that remains for determination is, what shall be the reasonable compensation that can be awarded to the claimant. 13. The points that arise for determination in this appeal are: 1) What shall be the just and reasonable compensation to which the claimant (appellant) is entitled and whether the compensation of Rs.58,000/- awarded by the learned MACT under the impugned award require any enhancement, if so, to what tune? 2) What is the result of the appeal? Point No.1: Precedential guidance as to quantum of compensation: 14(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 12025 AIAR (Civil) 1 6 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: 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 _________ 14(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. 14(iii) In Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another3 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 22020 (04) SCC 413 3 2011 (1) SCC 343 7 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…” 14(iv). In Sidram vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr4 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 4 2023 (3) SCC 439 8 under which compensation can be awarded to a victim of a motor vehicle accident. 14(v). In Sidram’s case, reference is made to a case in R.D. Hattangadi V. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd5. 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. 14(vi). The purpose of any system of justice is to provide remedies to the victims and to restore the parties involved in litigation to their original positions to the extent possible. Therefore, the concerns of all stakeholders connected to the process of redressal and reparation should focus on providing adequate compensation. The development and culture of any society will be seen from how it treats its criminals and victims. The evolution of legal system from retribution to restoration is clear in this century. If the aim of the law is to restore what is lost and to undo the wrong, then providing compensation to victims should be considered as important as punishing or reforming the wrongdoer. 5 1995 (1) SCC 551 9 With this philosophy of law in mind, the claims made for compensation by victims of any crime or tort require careful consideration and appreciation. 15. Depending on the context of the case, the quantum and the heads under which compensation can be awarded may vary. But, broadly, the heads under which the compensation is awarded for personal injuries are : A) Pecuniary damages (Special Damages) : (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising: (a) Loss of earnings during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. (B)Non-pecuniary damages (General damages) : (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequences of the injuries. (v) Loss of amenities. (vi) Loss of expectation of life. Analysis of evidence: 16. Relevant recitals in the wound certificate are as follows: The injured person was first seen by the undersigned at 10:40 A.M. on 27.02.2003 and the examination was commenced at on the 27.02.2003 when the following injuries were found: GC good B P 170/70 Injuries: Laceration 3x ½ on (L) Dorsum foot Fresh;+ 10 2) Laceration on (L) Ankle 2x1/2 fresh bleeding+ X ray Rt ankle with foot AP / Lat showed fracture 4th Metal # terminal palanu of great toes(104/01.03.2003). I am of opinion that second injury is grievous in : and first is simple in nature 6 hours to examination due to cause. 17. Charge sheet was laid under Section 338 of IPC. Wound certificate Ex.A2 and Charge sheet Ex.A3 and the disability certificate Ex.A4 are sufficient to believe that the claimant suffered grievous injuries. Disability Certificate is indicating that the claimant suffered 30% disability. The bunch of medical bills covered by Ex.A5 are standing for Rs.1,930.45 ps. 18. Clamant as PW.1 stated that he took treatment spending Rs.20,000/- towards medicines etc. and that he is unable to move and attend natural works without any assistance etc. and he has undergone treatment for right leg. Claimant was running mobile tea stall and earned income at Rs.3,000/- per month. During cross examination except suggesting that he is not suffering any disability and did not incur any expenditure, nothing important is elicited. 19. Doctor PW.2 stated that he is the member of the Medical Board and he has examined the claimant on 01.01.2005. It is relevant to note that date of accident is 27.02.2003. The disability assessed is at 30% and the Ex.A4- Disability Certificate is issued by the Medical Board. PW.2 signed in it as member of the Medical Board. Further PW.2 added that claimant cannot walk freely and 11 difficulty in squatting on the floor. However, PW.2 has stated during cross examination that claimant can attend routine duties while denying that disability assessed is excess in nature. 20. From the evidence the following points are clear: 1) The claimant suffered grievous injuries in the accident. 2) The claimant suffered 30% disability. 3) The claimant was running a mobile canteen, since the injuries to leg and disability is at 30%, it will certainly affects his employment. Therefore, the disability can be taken at same rate in contributing for loss of income. 4) Income of Rs.3,000/- claimed by the claimant. For want of proof etc. even if the same can be notionally taken as excessive but taking aid of the same notional calculation, the claimant income can be accepted at Rs.3,000/- inclusive of future prospects. Therefore, the income of the claimant is taken at Rs.3,000/- inclusive of future prospects. 30% of the same will come to Rs.900/- per month and Rs.10,800/- per year. 5) The age of the claimant is 35 years. Multiplier applicable for the age of 35 years is „16‟. If the same is applied, the entitlement for claimant for compensation under the head of loss of income due to disability comes at Rs.1,72,800/-. 12 6) The entitlement of claimant for compensation under the head of pain and suffering is accepted at Rs.10,000/-, loss of income during the period of hospitalization / bed rest period is accepted at Rs.6,000/-. Under the head of extra nourishment an amount of Rs.5,000/- for Medical expenditure at Rs.5,000/- and Attendant charges at Rs.5,000/- can be awarded to claimant as compensation. 21. 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: S.No. Head Granted by the MACT Fixed by this Appellate Court 1. Pain and suffering Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/- 2. Loss of income due to permanent disability Rs.40,000/- Rs.1,72,800/- 3. Medical & incidental Expenditure Rs.2,000/- Rs.5,000/- 4. a)Extra Nourishment -Nil- Rs.5,000/- b)Attendant Charges -Nil- Rs.5,000/- c)Transportation charges and special diet -Nil- -Nil- 5. Loss of income during the period of hospitalization / bed rest Rs.6,000/- Rs.6,000/- Total: Rs.58,000/- Rs.2,03,800/- 13 22. In the light of the legal position stated and the evidence on record, the entitlement of claimant for compensation is found at Rs.2,03,800/- and point framed is answered accordingly in favour of appellant, while adding that he is liable to pay balance Court fee for the enhancement part of the compensation. Granting of more compensation than what claimed, if the claimant is otherwise entitled:- 23. 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 Others6, 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.7 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 6 (2003) 2 SCC 274 72020 (04) SCC 413 14 more than the amount claimed, that must be awarded especially where the claimant is a minor.” Point No.2: 24. For the aforesaid reasons and in view of the findings of point No.1, Point No.2 is answered as follows: In the result, the appeal is allowed. (i) The Compensation awarded by the learned MACT at Rs.58,000/- is enhanced to Rs.2,03,800/- with interest at 7.5%. (ii) Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. (iii) The Claimant is entitled to withdraw the compensation amount at once on deposit. (iii) Claimant is liable to pay Court fee for enhanced part of compensation. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeal shall stand closed. ____________________________ A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J Date:28.03.2025 Knr 15 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA M.A.C.M.A No.1757 of 2016 28th March, 2025 Knr