1 APHC010671182012 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: 89/2012 Between: 1. NERELLA DHANALAKSHMI, W/O. VENKATARAO R/O. AYYANNAPETA VILLAGE, VIZIANAGARAM MANDAL AND DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1. SEERA SIVARAM, S/O. CHINNAVADU DRIVER OF TIPPER LORRY NO. AP 30 V 3673 R/O. GUDEM VILLAGE, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. SRIKAKULAMMUNICIPALITY, REP., BY ITS MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER SRIKAKULAM 3. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REP., BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased to Counsel for the Appellant: 1. G SAI NARAYANA RAO 2 Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. N RAMA KRISHNA 2. . The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA M.A.C.M.A.No.89 of 2012 JUDGMENT: 1. Petitioner in M.V.O.P.No.176 of 2010 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Court, Vizianagaram (for short “the learned MACT”), feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2011 passed therein awarding a compensation of Rs.5,07,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit along with proportioned costs as against the claim made for Rs.15,00,000/-, filed the present appeal questioning the adequacy of the compensation awarded. 2. Respondent No.1 and 2 before the learned MACT are the driver and the owner of the tipper lorry bearing No.AP 30 V 3673 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”), who remained ex parte. Respondent No.3 is the Insurance Company with whom it was insured. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as the petitioner and the respondents. Case of the petitioner: 4(i). On the fateful day 10.04.2009, while the petitioner along with her family members, while proceeding in a car, near Munasabupeta Village, the offending vehicle driven by Respondent No.1, came in a rash and negligent manner in 4 the opposite direction and dashed the car in which the family of the petitioner was travelling, whereby the accident occurred. The petitioner sustained multiple fractures. She was taken District Headquarters Hospital, Srikakulam and from there to Surya Hospital, Visakhapatnam and thereafter she took treatment in Rama Hospital, Visakhapatnam. She suffered disability. (ii). By the date of accident, the petitioner was aged about „35‟ years, hale and healthy, doing tailoring work, earning Rs.200/- per day, but due to the accident, she become disabled and engaged a maid servant. (iii). A case in Crime No.85 of 2009 was registered under Sections 337 and 338 IPC against the driver of the offending vehicle as he was responsible for the accident and he was subsequently charge sheeted. Since Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle, Respondent No.3 being the insurer, all are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Case of Respondent No.3: 5. The petitioner is put to strict proof of all allegations, coverage of the Insurance Policy for the offending vehicle, negligence of its driver of the offending vehicle and absence of negligence on the part of the driver of the car shall be proved and in any event, the compensation claimed is excessive and Respondent No.3 is not liable to pay any compensation. 5 Findings of the learned MACT: 6. The learned MACT adverting to the oral evidence of P.W.1 / the claimant, P.W.2, the doctor who treated the petitioner and Ex.A1-FIR, Ex.A2- Wound Certificate, Ex.A3-M.V.I report, Ex.A4-charge sheet, Ex.A5-bunch of medical bills, Ex.A6-Discharge Summary issued by Rama Hospital, Visakhapatnam, Ex.A7-Medical Certificate issued by P.W.2, Ex.A8-latest X.ray, Ex.A9-Disability Certificate issued by P.W.2, Ex.A10-latest photographs with CD and Ex.X1-Case sheet, found that the negligence is proved and accepted disability at 40% as against the evidence of doctor at 60% and in all, awarded a compensation of Rs.5,07,000/-. Argument in the appeal: 7. For the appellant / claimant: (i) Compensation awarded is meager (ii) Evidence placed is not properly appreciated. (iii) Medical expenditure and expenses for engagement of servant maid to help the appellant are not considered. (iv) Accepting disability at 40% as against the disability certificate at 60%, ignoring the evidence of doctor as to disability, is not correct. (v) The compensation awarded under the head of disability is very low. 8. For the Respondents: (i) Compensation already awarded is on the higher side. (ii) Income of the claimant is not proved. 6 (iii) There are no grounds to interfere. Scope of appeal: 9. Appeal is filed by the claimant. There is no appeal by the Insurance Company who contested the case. Therefore, the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, entitlement of the claimant for compensation and liability of the respondents to pay the compensation are all out of dispute. 10. Perused the record. Thoughtful consideration is given to the arguments advanced by the both sides. 11. The points that arise for determination in this appeal are: (1) Whether the compensation of Rs.5,07,000/- awarded by the learned MACT is just and reasonable or required any enhancement, and if so, to what extent? (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. 7 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:- 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 12025 AIAR (Civil) 1 22020 (04) SCC 413 32010(10)SCC 341 4 2007 (14) SCC 61 5 1992(2) SCC 567 8 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 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 6 2011 (1) SCC 343 9 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 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 7 2023 (3) SCC 439 8 1995 (1) SCC 551 10 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. Analysis: Evidence of the clamant as P.W.1 relating to her age, occupation, income and the effect of the accident, including injuries and disability: 13(i). She was aged about 35 years. She sustained injuries to both hands- fracture on the right hand forearm, fracture of the shaft of the right humerus, comminuted fracture of the shaft of the right ulna with bone loss of the right elbow and left-hand both bones fracture along with some other injuries all over the body. (ii). She was shifted to Surya Hospital, Visakhapatnam, later to Rama Hospital, Visakhapatnam, where operations were conducted on both hands and implants were fixed. She has spent Rs.7,00,000/- towards medical, Transport and extra nourishment expenses. She used to earn Rs.200/- per day by attending daily work. She lost her earnings due to the injuries caused and she could not even attend household duties and had to appoint a servant maid, by paying Rs.600/- per month as salary. She needs removal of implants and elbow replacement, which will cost about Rs.2,50,000/- 14. During cross examination nothing important is elicited except suggesting that she used to do tailoring work at her home and she was not earning 11 Rs.200/- per day as claimed and that there is no financial loss. Ex.A5 medical bills were suggested to be fabricated. 15(i). Evidence of P.W.2 / Doctor, who treated the petitioner, shows that he was working as Consultant Surgeon (Ortho) in Ram Hospital, Visakhapatnam. On 11.12.2009, the petitioner was admitted with the following injuries: 1) Fracture of both bones, left forearm. 2) Fracture shaft of right humerus with supracondylar fracture of humerus. 3) Comminuted fracture shaft of right ulna. 4) Degloving injury of right upper limb with loss of bone from the elbow. (ii). After the admission, X-rays of both hands were taken and it reveals that the fracture of both bones of left forearm, fracture shaft of the right humerus and fracture of right ulna. On wound inspection, there was a degloving injury of the right upper limb over from the middle 1/3rd of the right upper arm. On 11.04.2009, debridement was done to the wound. Again, on 13.04.2009, plating of fracture of both bones of the left forearm was done. On 24.04.09 Interlocking Nailing was done to right humerus. Again on 28.04.2009, square nailing and S.S. Wire Fixation was done for the right ulna. On 14.05.2009, skin grafting was done. During treatment, blood transfusions were given and multiple dressing were done for the open wound. She was discharged on 25.05.2009. At the time of discharge, graft uptake over right upper limb upto 80%, the wound on left forearm had healed and she was advised to take further 12 treatment as outpatient. Due to the injuries, she cannot lift weights or perform normal and daily routine duties. Due to the degloving injury, she has cosmetic disfigurement. The patient needs another surgery for removal of implants of the right ulna and elbow replacement of left upper limb and for both the surgeries, it is estimated cost of Rs 2,50,000/-. Ex.A5 is the bunch of medical bills, which are in the name of Rama Hospital are collected for room rent and operation charges and the medical bills are as per his prescriptions. Ex. A8 is the latest X-rays (4 innumber). Ex.A9 is the disability certificate issued by him. Ex.A10 is the latest photographs with C.D. Ex.A6 is the discharge summary issued by Rama Hospital, Visakhapatnam. Ex.A7 is the estimated bill for re-operation issued by him. Ex.X1 is the case sheet maintained at Rama Hospital, Visakhapatnam. The patient is now suffering with 60% disability, which is partial and permanent in nature. 16. During cross examination of P.W.2, nothing worthy is elicited except suggesting that the bills are issued to help the claimant and the evidence is aimed to help the claimant to get higher compensation. 17. Ex.A5 bunch of medical bills are standing for Rs.1,15,636.20 ps/-. The medicines etc. are supporting by prescriptions as per the evidence of Dr.P.W.2. Discharge summary Ex.A6 is indicating admission on 11.04.2009 and discharge on 25.05.2009, Ex.A7, the certificate issued by P.W.2 / doctor, shows that future surgeries will cost about Rs.2,50,000/-. Ex.A9, the disability certificate, assessing the disability at 60% and the same is permanent. Cross 13 examination done on P.W.2 does not dilute his evidence on the point of disability. Competency of P.W.2 would give disability certificate and rationality in assessing the disability etc. are not disputed. 18. P.W.2 confirmed that the disability certificate Ex.A9 was issued by him. There is no serious challenge to the said document, so it is fit to be accepted. 19. The learned MACT has accepted the disability at 40% but did not consider estimation of the compensation with reference to the disability and awarded lump sum of compensation of Rs.40,000/-. There is no basis to accept the disability at 40% as against the 60% stated by pw.2 with reference to Ex.A9 document. It is not as if there is any contradictory documentary evidence placed by the respondent Insurance Company nor is there anything elicited during the cross examination of P.W.2. Therefore, disability at 60% is fit to be accepted. 20. The income of the petitioner can be at least accepted at Rs.100/- per day, then it comes to Rs.3,000/- per month. If at least 1/3rd of the same is added towards future prospects, it will come to Rs.4000. 60% of the same comes to Rs.2,400 per month, which comes to 28,800/- per annum. The multiplier applicable to the age of „35‟ is 16. Whereby, the entitlement for compensation comes to Rs.4,60,800/-(Rs.28,800/- x 16). Medical expenditure shown at Rs.1,15,636.20ps/-. Therefore, the entitlement can be at Rs.1,20,000/- altogether under the head of Medical Expenditure. 14 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: 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.9,90,800/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization and the judgment and decree Sl. No. Head Granted by the learned MACT Fixed by this Appellate Court 1. Transport expenses Rs.3,000/- Rs.10,000/- 2. Medicines, extra nourishment and attendant charges Rs.1,10,000/- Rs.1,20,000/- 3. Pain and suffering, shock and for receipt of four grievous injuries Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.1,00,000/- 4. Loss of services for a period of six months Rs.3,600/- Rs.10,000/- 5. Loss of future prospects, loss of amenities and for physical and social disability Rs.40,000/- Rs.40,000/- 6. Future surgery i.e. for removal of implants and elbow replacement Rs.2,00,000/- Rs.2,00,000/- 7. Loss of earning capacity due to permanent disability -Nil- Rs.4,60,800/- 8. Disfiguration of right hand Rs.50,000/- Rs.50,000/- Total: Rs.5,06,600/- Rounded to (Rs.5,07,000/-) Rs.9,90,800/- 15 dated 30.08.2011 passed by the learned MACT in M.V.O.P.No.176 of 2010 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.5,07,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum is modified and enhanced to Rs.9,90,800/- 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.3 is liable to pay the compensation in view of the Insurance Policy. (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