APHC011153432004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Thursday, the Seventh Day of August Two Thousand and Twenty Five Present The Honourable Ms.Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No: 1387 of 2004 Between: D.Govinda Reddy (died) per Lrs & 3 others ...Appellants and V.Gurava Reddy and 3 others ...Respondents Counsel for the appellants: 1. T.S.Rayalu Counsel for the respondents: 1. N.Rama Krishna 2. Amancharla Satish Babu 3. N.J.Sunil Kumar The Court made the following: 2 BSB, J C.M.A.No.1387 of 2004 Judgment: 1. This civil miscellaneous appeal is preferred under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award and the decree dated 20.11.2003 in M.V.O.P.No.825 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal, Guntur. 2. The appellants No.2 to 4 are the legal representatives of the deceased / sole claimant who filed petition seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injuries suffered by him in the motor accident. Whereas, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.66,415/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization and with proportionate costs. The respondent No.2 was directed to pay compensation to the claimant and recover the same from the respondent No.1. 3. The case of the claimant briefly is as follows: On 18.05.1999, at about 7.30 p.m. while he was travelling in a jeep bearing No. AP 16 H 1865 from Gurazala towards Rentala village and reached near petrol pump at Gurazala, a lorry bearing No.AP 7 V 3359 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, coming in the opposite direction, hit the jeep as a result of which the claimant who sat on the back side of the jeep on the second seat, received three fracture injuries to his right leg and simple injuries on his right leg and all over the head, besides multiple injuries on other parts of the body. He was admitted in the Government Hospital, Gurazala. The police of the Tanuku Police Station registered a case in crime No.70 of 1999 under Section 337 I.P.C. The claimant was aged 29 years. He used to earn Rs.2,000/- per month doing cultivation. After the accident, he is unable to move without assistance of others. Therefore, the respondents No.1 to 4 who are the owners and insurers of both the vehicles are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. 3 BSB, J C.M.A.No.1387 of 2004 4. The respondents No.1 and 3, the owners of the lorry and the jeep respectively, remained ex parte. 5. The respondent No.2 filed written statement denying the liability and also the averments of the claimant. The respondent No.2 filed additional written statement contending that the driver of the insured vehicle did not possess driving licence. 6. The respondent No.4 filed written statement denying the liability and also the averments of the claimant and further contending that the driver of the insured vehicle had no valid and effective driving licence and the amount of compensation claimed is excessive. 7. On behalf of the petitioner P.Ws 1 and 2 were examined (i.e., P.W1, D.Govinda Reddy and P.W2, Dr.Y.Laxmanaswamy) and Exs.A1 to A16 were marked (i.e.,Ex.A1, certified copy of F.I.R. No.70 of 1999 of Gurazala Police Station; Ex.A2, certified copy of charge sheet in F.I.R. No.70 of 1999 of Gurazala Police Station; Ex.A3, certified copy of wound certificate of the petitioner; Ex.A4, X-ray films numbering 17; Ex.A5, medical certificate issued by P.W2 Doctor; Ex.A6, receipt of Rs.10,400/- issued by P.W2 doctor; Ex.A7, receipt of Rs.10,600/- issued by P.W2 doctor; Ex.A8, receipt of Rs.3,200/- issued by P.W2 doctor; Ex.A9, bunch of medical bills for Rs.13,214/-; Ex.A10, medical certificate with receipt for Rs.8,200/- Rs.1,500/- and Rs.3,000/-; Ex.A11, bunch of receipts and transporting charges; Ex.A12, receipt for Rs.928/- issued by Pja X-ray and laboratory; Ex.A13, case sheet relating to the petitioner maintained by G.G.H, Guntur; Ex.A14, chest X-ray of petitioner; Ex.A15, bunch of prescriptions; Ex.A16, photos) . On behalf of the respondents R.W.1, R.Adiseshu was examined and Exs.B.1 to B.4 were marked (i.e., Ex.B1, copy of the insurance policy; Ex.B2, claim form; Ex.B3, letter addressed by investigator of R-2 company to R.T.O. Nalgonda; Ex.B4, endorsement on the reverse of Ex.B3). 4 BSB, J C.M.A.No.1387 of 2004 8. The Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry alone and thus exonerated the respondents No.3 and 4 from the liability. 9. After considering evidence, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.24,200/- towards expenses incurred for treatment established under Exs.A1 to A16, while declining claim for Rs.13,214/- shown under Ex.A9 medical bills and Rs.9,600/- shown under Ex.A11 receipts for transportation charges. The Tribunal awarded Rs.1,000/- towards X-ray charges. In addition thereto, the Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering. As the petitioner suffered permanent partial disability assessed by the Tribunal at 15%, taking his annual income at Rs.15,000/- as per Schedule-II (15% of 15,000 = 2,250/-), using the multiplier 13 applicable to the age of the petitioner of 30 years, Rs.29,250/- (2,250 x 13) was granted towards loss of future income. Thus, in total, an amount of Rs.66,450/- was awarded as compensation. 10. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation granted, the legal representatives of the sole claimant filed the appeal as the claimant died before filing the appeal. 11. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal ought to have taken 100% of loss of earnings since the sole claimant was a driver and sustained multiple fracture injuries to his right leg which disabled him to drive any vehicle. He further submitted that the Tribunal erroneously declined the claims under Exs.A9 and A11 and granted small amount of compensation for pain and suffering inspite of multiple fractures suffered and surgeries performed on several occasions. 12. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 contended that loss of future earnings at 100% is too high and that the Tribunal has rightly assessed. He submitted that since the evidence under 5 BSB, J C.M.A.No.1387 of 2004 Ex.A9 and A11 was not duly established, the Tribunal rightly declined the claim under them and that the compensation awarded is just and reasonable. 13. Insofar as the receipts under Exs.A9 and A11 are concerned, keeping in view the nature of the injuries and the treatment taken as deposed by the doctor, the Tribunal ought not to have dismissed the whole claim under them as they don’t seem to be fake or created. Therefore, the claimant was entitled to Rs.13,214/- and Rs.9,600/- (total Rs.22,814/-). 14. Insofar as compensation for pain and suffering is concerned, in the light of several fractures and injuries suffered and mal-union of the limb accompanied by shortening of leg by more than 1 inch, the amount of compensation can be raised from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.25,000/-. 15. Regarding future loss of income due to partial permanent disability, the doctor deposed that the claimant suffered about 25% physical disability. In case of loss of future earnings due to permanent physical disability, either partial or complete, the guidelines for assessment of compensation are provided by the Supreme Court while reiterating them in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Anr1 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). 1 (2011) 1 SCC 343 6 BSB, J C.M.A.No.1387 of 2004 (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 nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors.” 16. Therefore, the Tribunal has to evaluate the actual loss of future earnings due to the disability by considering the facts and circumstances in the light of the evidence in each case. In the present case, the claimant was a driver and disability to his right leg due to fractures coupled with shortening of leg may impact his earning capacity. It is not connected to the percentage of the physical disability assessed by the doctor. 17. The evidence of doctor regarding the capacity to work in future is taken on the basis of assumption that the claimant was a labourer. The doctor further stated that the claimant was walking with some aid. As such, the claimant may not be able to earn as much as before the accident. But, the incapacity to earn cannot be taken as 100%. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence, this Court is of the view that 50% of future loss of income can be taken. The multiplier applicable to persons of age 30 years is 17 as per the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and Ors vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr2. Therefore, instead of Rs.2,250/-, Rs.7,500/- shall be multiplied by 17 which is Rs.1,27,500/-. 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 7 BSB, J C.M.A.No.1387 of 2004 18. Thus, in total, the amount of compensation payable is Rs.2,02,514/- (Rs.1,27,500/- + Rs.27,200/- + Rs.22,814/- + Rs.25,000/-). Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI Date : 07.08.2025 RSD 8 BSB, J C.M.A.No.1387 of 2004 47 The Honourable Ms Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No: 1387 of 2004 Date: 07.08.2025 RSD