APHC011546172012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS Between: Kunapureddy Sree Ramulu Praveen Kumar and Others Counsel for the Appellant: 1. P L RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. N MOHAN KRISHNA 2. SREEMANNARAYANA VATTIKUTI 3. The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 49/2025 Kunapureddy Sree Ramulu ...APPELLANT AND Praveen Kumar and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: Counsel for the Respondent(S): N MOHAN KRISHNA SREEMANNARAYANA VATTIKUTI the following: [3311] APPEAL NO: 49/2025 ...APPELLANT ...RESPONDENT(S) 2 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.49 of 2025 JUDGMENT: This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is filed by the appellant/claimant against the order, dated 20.09.2011, passed in M.V.O.P.No.206 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District Court (Fast Track Court), Rajahmundry, for enhancement of compensation amount. 2. The facts, in brief, are as follows: On 13.06.2008, while the claimant was walking near Devi Center, Kadiyam, the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 13 X 5858 drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant resulting in grievous injuries to the left leg near hip bone besides other injuries. Immediately, the claimant was shifted to the Government General Hospital, Rajahmundry, where he was treated as an inpatient from 13.06.2008 to 17.06.2008 and later, shifted to Kakinada Government Hospital. The claimant spent an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards medical expenses besides other expenses. Again, he was treated in the Government General Hospital, Kakinada, for treatment in the month of November, 2008 and another operation was conducted to his left leg. However, the fracture injury to the left leg was not united and thereby, the claimant suffers from permanent disability. The claimant was a coolie and unable to lift weights after the accident due to the disability. 3. The claim against the 1st respondent was dismissed. a. The 2nd respondent remained ex parte. b. The 3rd respondent filed written statement opposing the claim and contending that the 1st respondent driver of the vehicle has no valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident and knowing the said 3 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.49 of 2025 fact, the 2nd respondent willfully and knowingly handed over the vehicle to the 1st respondent and this respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. The claim for compensation is excessive and exorbitant. The petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. On behalf of the claimant, he got himself examined as PW1 and the doctor who treated him was examined as PW2 and exhibits A1 to A8 and X1 and X2 were filed. No evidence was led by the 3rd respondent. 5. After hearing both parties, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,57,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till 29.09.2010, i.e., the date of dismissal of the petition and from 07.04.2011, i.e., date of restoration of the petition till the date of realization against respondents 2 & 3 with joint and several liability. 6. Aggrieved by the decree and award, this appeal was filed by the claimant alleging that the amount of compensation awarded is inadequate and that the Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record and the permanent disability suffered by the claimant resulting in loss of future earning capacity. 7. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent contended that the order impugned does not require any interference. 8. As per the evidence of PW2, Dr. M. Panduranga Vital, Assistant Professor of Orthopedic, Government General Hospital, Kakinada, the petitioner suffered the following injuries: (1) Patient was unconscious at presentation and his general condition was critical; 4 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.49 of 2025 (2) Left thigh swelling with deformity and left foot swelling with deformity present; (3) Right ankle swelling with fourth toe above size 1 X ½ cm; (4) Patient was referred to Government General Hospital, Kakinada for further expert management; (5) Radiologist opinion: Fractures left femur, left calcaneum and right calcaneum foot present (grievous); PW2 further stated that on 17.07.2008, surgery was performed for interlocking nailing left femur bone and fracture of calcaneum on both sides was conservatively treated and the claimant was discharged on 26.07.2008. He further confirmed physical permanent disability of the claimant at 40% and deposed that he is a member of the Medical Board which is competent to evaluate the permanent disability. He did not speak about the subsequent treatment in the month of November, 2006. As can be seen from the details of the award noted above, the petitioner was granted compensation for permanent disability as well. 9. On Assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent disability, the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and Ors.1 held in para Nos.6 to 9 as follows: “6. Disability refers to any restriction or lack of ability to perform an activity in the manner considered normal for a human-being. Permanent disability refers to the residuary incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body, found existing at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation, after achieving the maximum bodily improvement or recovery, which is likely to remain for the 1 Neutral Citation: 2010 INSC 703 5 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.49 of 2025 remainder life of the injured. Temporary disability refers to the incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body on account of the injury, which will cease to exist at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation. Permanent disability can be either partial or total. Partial permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform all the duties and bodily functions that he could perform before the accident, though he is able to perform some of them and is still able to engage in some gainful activity. Total permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform any avocation or employment related activities as a result of the accident. The permanent disabilities that may arise from motor accidents injuries, are of a much wider range when compared to the physical disabilities which are enumerated in the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 ('Disabilities Act' for short). But,` if any of the disabilities enumerated in Section 2(i) of the Disabilities Act are the result of injuries sustained in a motor accident, they can be permanent disabilities for the purpose of claiming compensation. 7. The percentage of permanent disability is expressed by the Doctors with reference to the whole body, or more often than not, with reference to a particular limb. When a disability certificate states that the injured has suffered permanent disability to an extent of 45% of the left lower limb, it is not the same as 45% permanent disability with reference to the whole body. The extent of disability of a limb (or part of the body) expressed in terms of a percentage of the total functions of that limb, obviously cannot be assumed to be the 6 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.49 of 2025 extent of disability of the whole body. If there is 60% permanent disability of the right hand and 80% permanent disability of left leg, it does not mean that the extent of permanent disability with reference to the whole body is 140% (that is 80% plus 60%). If different parts of the body have suffered different percentages of disabilities, the sum total thereof expressed in terms of the permanent disability with reference to the whole body, cannot obviously exceed 100%. 8. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings, would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is, percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be different from the percentage of permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanently disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after 7 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.49 of 2025 assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terns of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find that percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of the permanent disability, is approximately the same as the percentage of permanent disability in which case, of course, the Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination of compensation (see for example, the decisions of this Court in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [2010(10) SCALE 298] and Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. [2010 (8) SCALE 567]. 9. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether there is any permanent disability and if so the extent of such permanent disability. This means that the tribunal should consider and decide with reference to the evidence: (i) whether the disablement is permanent or temporary; (ii) if the disablement is permanent, whether it is permanent total disablement or permanent partial disablement, (iii) if the disablement percentage is expressed with reference to any specific limb, then the effect of such disablement of the limb on the functioning of the entire body, that is the permanent disability suffered by the person. If the Tribunal concludes that there is no permanent disability then there is no question of proceeding further and determining the loss of future earning capacity. But if the Tribunal concludes that there is permanent disability then it will proceed to ascertain its 8 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.49 of 2025 extent. After the Tribunal ascertains the actual extent of permanent disability of the claimant based on the medical evidence, it has to determine whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect his earning capacity.” 10. Thus, as per the decision in Raj Kumar (1 supra), unless permanent disability resulted in future loss of earning capacity and earnings, compensation in a lumpsum amount in conventional method is sufficient to meet the loss. 11. The compensation granted by the Tribunal under various heads is as follows: Sl. No. Head Amount (in Rs.) 1 Disability (@ 40%) 1,02,000 2 Shock, pain, suffering and loss of amenities of life 20,000 3 Grievous injuries 30,000 4 Medical and incidental expenses 5,000 Total Rs.1,57,000 12. In the present case, there is no evidence that the permanent disability resulted in loss of future earning capacity. Therefore, mere physical disability is not sufficient. However, the amount of compensation granted under the head of disability at Rs.1,02,000/- is sufficient towards the disability suffered by the claimant. The amount of compensation awarded under different heads is also just and sufficient viewing from the value of money at the relevant point of time. Therefore, this Court does not see any reasons to interfere with the award. 9 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.49 of 2025 13. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ B.S.BHANUMATHI, J 06-03-2025 RAR