1 APHC010444122014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3520] FRIDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 3363/2014 Between: 1. PANGA GURIVI REDDY, S/O BALA GURIVI REDDY, CONTRACTOR, BALAJAJUPALLI VILLAGE, NARASAPURAM POST, KASINAYANA MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1. P RAMAKRISHNA ANOTHER, S/O PP.RAMASUBBAIAH, HINDU, R/O 1/2088 PRAKASH NAGAR, KADAPA CITY, MANDAL & DISTRICT. OWNER OF AUTO BEARING NO. AP 04 V 5981 2. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, DOOR NO 19-16- 27/27 , II FLOOR , DR.MAHAL ROAD, TVS SHOW ROOM, TIRUPATHI-517501 REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL MANAGER ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased toagainst the Order and Decree dated 12.03.2014 made in M.V.O.P. No.298 of 2008 on the file of the MACT-cum-Principal District Judge, Kadapa Counsel for the Appellant: 1. L J VEERA REDDY 2 Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. HARINATH REDDY SOMA 2. The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA M.A.C.M.A.No.3363 of 2014 JUDGMENT: 1. Petitioner in M.V.O.P.No.298 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Kadapa (for short “the learned MACT”), dissatisfied with the order and decree dated 12.03.2014 passed therein awarding a compensation of Rs.4,23,600/- as against the claim made for Rs.20,00,000/- , filed the present appeal. 2. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the Auto bearing No.AP04 V 5981 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) and Respondent No.2 is the Insurance Company. 3. The respondents herein are the respondents before the learned MACT. 4. For the sake of convenience, parties will be referred to as the petitioner and the respondents as and how they are arrayed before the learned MACT. Case of the petitioner: 5(i). On 27.12.2007, when the petitioner along with his friend was proceeding on foot near State Guest House, Kadapa City, at about 02:00 P.M., the offending vehicle coming from Yerramukkapalli side came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner, whereby, he fell down and sustained a fracture to his left hip joint and thigh and injuries over his left knee, left elbow and left foot. 4 (ii). The petitioner was immediately shifted to the Ortho Hospital of Dr. G. Venkata Subbaiah, Kadapa for treatment and from there to Krishna Institute of Medical Sciences Limited (KIMS) hospital, Secunderabad, for better treatment. (iii). The petitioner has undergone an operation on the left hip and thigh and rods were inserted due to the fracture of left hip and thigh. He was unable to do any work and to walk without sticks. He has incurred expenditure of Rs.1,60,000/- towards medicines, operation charges, hospital expenses and extra-nourishment. He has incurred expenses towards transportation at Rs.40,000/-. (iv). A case in Crime No.2 of 2008 for the offences under Section 338 IPC was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle and he was subsequently charge sheeted. (v). Petitioner was a Class-III Civil Contractor earning 2,50,000/- per year and having 20 acres of land. He was income tax assessee. He suffered disability due to the accident. Negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle is the cause for the accident. The Vehicle was insured with respondent No.2 / insurer. Therefore, both the respondents are liable to pay compensation to the claimant. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte. Case of the Respondents.: 6. Respondent No.2 disputed the accident, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, age, occupation and income of the petitioner, medical 5 expenditure incurred, disability suffered, quantum of compensation claimed and put the petitioner to strict proof of all the allegations. Findings of the learned MACT: 7(i). The learned MACT, after referring to the evidence, found that the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle is the cause for the accident and held that the respondents are liable to pay compensation. Referring to the charge sheet and judgment copy etc., the learned MACT answered the objections as to delay and registration of FIR etc. against the Insurance Company. (ii). With regard to the quantum of compensation, by referring to the evidence of the claimant as well as the doctors who treated the petitioner and the medical evidence, the learned MACT quantified the entitlement of the claimant for compensation, learned MACT has taken by the income of the claimant at Rs.40,000 per annum and agricultural income of Rs.10,000/- per annum, totaling to Rs.50,000/- and accepted the disability at 25% as against 45% pleaded and quantified the entitlement at Rs.1,37,500/- towards permanent disability. (iii). Under the other heads, while awarding compensation, the learned MACT relied on medical bills to the tune of Rs.68,500/- and notionally awarded compensation for certain heads under non-pecuniary damages like pain and suffering, extra nourishment, loss of comforts etc. In total, the learned MACT has awarded a compensation of Rs.4,23,500/-. 6 Arguments in the appeal: For the claimant: 8(i). The learned MACT erred in limiting the disability to 25% as against the disability assessed by the member of the medical board at 45%. (ii). Taking income at Rs.50,000/- per annum is baseless and against the record as well as the evidence. (iii). The compensation awarded under the head of pain and suffering, medical bills, extra nourishment and loss of income during the period of treatment etc. are all very meager and against the record. (iv). Quantification of compensation under the head of permanent disability is very low when compared to the age, occupation and income of the injured petitioner who suffered 45% disability. For the Respondents / Insurance Company: 9. The compensation awarded by the learned MACT is just and reasonable and the same is based on the evidence. The reasons assigned for accepting the disability at the rate of 25% are acceptable and there are no grounds to interfere. Scope of Appeal: 10. Since the appeal by the claimant and as there is neither an appeal nor cross- objections filed by the respondent insurance company, the negligence, liability of the Insurance Company and entitlement of the claimant for compensation etc. are all out of dispute. The only point remains for 7 determination is the just and adequate nature of compensation awarded by the learned MACT. 11. Perused the record. Thoughtful consideration is given to the arguments advanced by the both sides. 12. The points that arise for determination in this appeal are: (1) Whether compensation of Rs.4,23,600/- awarded by the learned MACT under the impugned judgment is just and reasonable or requires any enhancement, if so, on what grounds and to what extent? (2) What is the result of the appeal? Point No.1: Precedential Guidance: 13. 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 12025 AIAR (Civil) 1 8 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 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 22020 (04) SCC 413 32010(10)SCC 341 4 2007 (14) SCC 61 5 1992(2) SCC 567 9 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, 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 6 2011 (1) SCC 343 10 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 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. 7 2023 (3) SCC 439 8 1995 (1) SCC 551 11 Analysis: Evidence of claimant as P.W.1 relating to the effect of injuries sustained in the accident: 14(i). The accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. As a result, he fell on the road and received the following grievous injuries: 1) Fracture of left hip Joint and thigh. 2) Injury over left knee. 3) Injury over left elbow. 4) Injury over left foot. (ii). He was shifted to Dr.G. Venkata Subbaiah, M.S. Ortho Hospital, Kadapa for treatment and from there for better treatment to KIMS hospital, Secunderabad, where he was admitted as inpatient from 28.12.2007. Thereafter, he continues as an outpatient. An operation / surgery done to his left hip joint and thigh and rods and screws were inserted. He claimed that he has spent Rs.1,60,000/- towards the medicines, treatment, operation charges, hospital expenditure and extra nourishment and paid vehicle hire charges of Rs.40,000/-. He is suffering from disability. Further claimed that he was earning Rs.2,50,000/- per annum from contract works and was getting Rs.3,00,000/- from agricultural lands. Due to the accident, he suffered shortening of left leg, pain, restricted movement of left leg, muscle weakness and deformity on both sides. He is unable to walk without help of a stick. He 12 cannot squat on the floor, attend calls of nature freely and unable to do contract works or any other works and stopped contract work. Therefore, he suffered loss and undergoing untold pain and mental agony. (iii). During cross-examination, nothing important is elicited except suggestion that his evidence is not correct and he could have taken treatment at kadapa itself and the injuries suffered by him are not relatable to the accident. Evidence of P.W.2: 15. Evidence of P.W.2 / Dr. C. Sanjeevaiah, Assistant Professor in RIMS, Kadapa is as follows: (i) I am working as Asst. Professor of Orthopedic in RIMS Hospital, Kadapa. I am one of the Member of District Medical board Kadapa, before the District Medical Board, Kadapa. I examined the Petitioner (Injured) on 26-03-2010 before the District Medical Board, Kadapa on the examination and found the following findings (1) Post Operative case of Hemi Ortho plasting cemented by polar prospectus (left) with gross rectified movements of left hip. (2) Unable to Squat and cross legs (3) Unable to stand on the affected limb. (4) Difficult in climbing stairs (5) Antalagaiah present (6) Foot drop present Based on the above finding. I assed the permanent disability of 45% (Forty five percent). The above disability assessed based on the Physical Examination, wound Certificate, discharge summary from KIMS Hospital, Hyderabad and X-ray Films. The Ex.A4 disability Certificate issued by me to the Petitioner (PW1). 13 Cross Examination: (ii). It is true that I have not given the treatment to PW1. It is true that Ex.A4 Disability Certificate, consist of my signature and Chairman Signature & there is no signature of other member. There is no necessity of the second member of the signature on Ex. A4. It is to that I have verified all the records of KIMS Hospital, Hyderabad. It is true that Ex:A4 does not reveal that I have verified the KIMS Hospital Records. It is true Ex: A4 issued for the purpose of this case. It is true that while issuing the disability potentiality of bones, nerves system, age and biological problems and status will be taken into consideration. It is not true to suggest that the disability assessed is highly excessive and there is no disability to PW1. it is true that the injuries caused due to R.T.A. It is true that this type of injuries can occurred due to slip in the bathroom. It is not true to suggest that I am deposing falsehood to favour of PW1. 16. Evidence of P.W.3 / Dr.A.V. Guruva Reddy, Orthopedic Surgeon in KIMS Hospital, Hyderabad is as follows: (i) I am practicing as Orthopedic Surgeon in KIMS Hyderabad, for last 11 years, on 28-12-2007 Mr. Gurivireddy was admitted in my care in KIMS Hospital at 8:46 A.M. with fracture neck of the femur left side. According to his hit by an Auto on 27-12-2007 at 2.15 P.M. at Kadapa. On the same day operation was done and a cemented by Polar Heme hip replacement was done. He was discharged on 02-01-2008 in satisfactory condition. Later I followed him of as on outpatient. The records is available i.e. Ex.A6. Mr Gurvi Redddy is not walking well without any help. He got routine weakness of tender and hence he will not be able to walk for prolonged period. Stair 14 claiming repeatedly may also be creating pain. Likewise scatting on the floor and running was difficulty, apart from this he cannot carry on his daily activities without any help and cannot run I endorse Ex.- A5, A6, A7 and A8 as genuine and issued by the Hospital. Cross Examination: (ii). It not true say that this facture is not because of the Accident. It is true to say that he was hit by Auto in our records. It is true say that the place of Accident was not mentioned. It is true to say that this fracture can also be affected a follows in the bathroom. It true say that the documentary evidence was based only history given by the patient. It is true to say that I was not advice to lodge a complaint to the Police. It is true to say that only after paying the bill the patient discharged. Ex:A7 that the date of discharged date is 01-01-2008. As Ex: A8 the billing date 02-01-2008. This instructions were given by me to facilitated to the patient to get one more day of Physiotherapy. Hence the billing date 02-01-2008. It is not true to say that the bill was given on the request of the patient. It is true to say that I have not issued the bill, but the instructions given by me. It is true to say that the patient was a discharged on my advice. It is true to say that he was stable enough for discharge, but still needed Medical support. Ex.A5 was given to the patient for Medical legal purpose. It is not true to say that Medicine in the bill are not tally in the case sheet. It is true to say that there was no referral letter about his treatment at kadapa. it is not true say that I am giving false declaration in order to help the patient. 15 Documentary Evidence: 17. Ex.A4 indicating the disability at 45%. Ex.A5 is the medical certificate issued by the KIMS Hospital, Secunderabad, Ex.A7 is the discharge summary indicating the date of admission as 28.12.2007 and date of discharge as 01.01.2008. Ex.A8 is the bunch of medical bills for a sum of Rs.68,428/- Ex.A11 and Ex.A12-are income tax returns. 18. In the light of the evidence referred above, the income of the petitioner / injured can be safely accepted at Rs.1,60,000/- taking note of the income tax returns and the agricultural income with reference to the property held by him which can be considered as inclusive of future prospects. [ 19. The disability assessed at 45% need not be doubted. Then the loss of income will come to Rs.72,000/- per annum and the same can be considered as loss of income. The injured is aged about „50‟ years. The multiplier applicable to the age of 50 is 13. Upon application of the same, the loss of income due to permanent disability comes to Rs.9,36,000/-( Rs.72,000/- x 13). 20. The petitioner suffered four grievous injuries. He has undergone operation and taken treatment, suffering disability. Therefore, under the head of pain and suffering he deserves reasonable compensation. Towards medical expenses, he has claimed that he has incurred an expenditure of Rs.1,60,000/-, but he is able to place medical bills for around Rs.68,000/-. Considering the nature and longevity of treatment, etc., it is found proper to 16 award an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the petitioner under the head of medical expenditure etc. Further, for transportation from Kadapa to Hyderabad for treatment periodically, reasonable expenditure the petitioner said to have incurred. Therefore, towards transportation, he is entitled for just and reasonable compensation. Likewise, the income accepted by the learned MACT is Rs.50,000/- per annum. This Court accepting income at Rs.1,60,000/- with reference to his income tax returns, etc. Therefore, loss of earnings during the period of treatment awarded at Rs.12,600/- requires modification. The expenditure for engaging a person to attend the claimant is not fortified with any evidence. 21. 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.50,000/- Rs.80,000/- 2. Medical expenses Rs.68,500/- Rs.1,00,000/- 3. Loss of earnings during the period of treatment Rs.12,600/- Rs.45,000/- 4. Permanent disability Rs.1,37,500/- Rs.9,36,000/- 5. a)Extra-nourishment Rs.35,000/- Rs.35,000/- b)Transportation Rs.40,000/- 6. Physiotherapy expenses Rs.20,000/- Rs.20,000/- 17 22. For the reasons aforesaid and in view of the discussion made above, the point framed is answered concluding that the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.13,06,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization and the order and decree dated 12.03.2014 passed by the learned MACT in M.V.O.P.No.298 of 2008 require modification accordingly. Point No.2: 23. In the result, the appeal is allowed-in-part as follows: (i) The compensation awarded by the learned MACT at Rs.4,23,600/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum is modified and enhanced to Rs.13,06,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. (ii) The claimant is entitled to withdraw the amount at once on deposit. (iii) Respondents before the learned MACT are jointly and severally liable. However, Respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation in view of the Insurance Policy. 7. Expenditure for engaging a person to attend on claimant Rs.50,000/- -Nil- 8. Loss of comforts in the life Rs.50,000/- Rs.50,000/- Total: Rs.4,23,600/- Rs.13,06,000/- 18 (iv) Time for depositing the balance compensation amount is two months. (v) 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.17.10.2025 Knr