APHC010036822005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) Friday, the Eighteenth Day of July Two Thousand and Twenty Five The Honourable Ms.Justice B.S.Bhanumathi M.A.C.M.A. No.2954 of 2005 Between: Vegiraju Suryanarayana Raju, S/o.Surapu Raju, Hindu, years, occupation : business, Godavari District. and 1.Bonthu Veera Venkata 26 years, occupation : Driver, R/o. D.No.6 Sarpavaram village, Kakinada Rural Mandal, East Godavari District. 2.Smt.N.Varalakshmi, Wo.Mallikarjuna Rao, Hindu, R/o D.No.34 temple street, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 3.M/s.The New India Assurance Company Limited, represented by its Divisional Manager, Kakinada, East Godavari District. Counsel for the appellant: 1. N.Siva Reddy Counsel for the respondent 1. N.V.S.Ramana Rao 2. Narasimha Rao Gudi Seva 3. A.Jayanthi IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Friday, the Eighteenth Day of July Two Thousand and Twenty Five Present The Honourable Ms.Justice B.S.Bhanumathi M.A.C.M.A. No.2954 of 2005 Vegiraju Suryanarayana Raju, S/o.Surapu Raju, Hindu, aged 39 years, occupation : business, R/o R.R.Roy Road, Kakinada,East …Appellant /Petitioner Bonthu Veera Venkata Satyanarayana, S/o.Veerraju, Hindu, age 26 years, occupation : Driver, R/o. D.No.6-130, near Siris Agro Limited, Sarpavaram village, Kakinada Rural Mandal, East Godavari District. 2.Smt.N.Varalakshmi, Wo.Mallikarjuna Rao, Hindu, R/o D.No.34 le street, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 3.M/s.The New India Assurance Company Limited, represented by its Divisional Manager, Kakinada, East Godavari District. …Respondents / Respondents ppellant: espondents N.V.S.Ramana Rao Narasimha Rao Gudi Seva [3311] Friday, the Eighteenth Day of July Two Thousand and Twenty Five aged 39 akinada,East …Appellant /Petitioner S/o.Veerraju, Hindu, age 130, near Siris Agro Limited, Sarpavaram village, Kakinada Rural Mandal, East Godavari District. 2.Smt.N.Varalakshmi, Wo.Mallikarjuna Rao, Hindu, R/o D.No.34-5-16, 3.M/s.The New India Assurance Company Limited, represented by its Respondents / Respondents. 2 BSB,J M.A.C.M.A.No.2954 of 2005 The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: This appeal was filed under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the claimant against the award and the decree dated 12.07.2005 in M.V.O.P.No.55 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV-Additional District Judge, East Godavari District, Kakinada. 2. The case of the claimant is briefly as follows: On 12.03.2000 at about 11.00 p.m while the petitioner, along with G.manikyam Papa Rao, was going on the motor cycle, their vehicle was hit in the opposite direction by the car of the 2nd respondent driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner and that the petitioner who was the pillion rider and the rider of the motor cycle sustained injuries. The petitioner claimed compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest @ 24% p.a., with costs. 3. The petition was opposed by all the three respondents by filing the counter of the respondent No.3 only, as the respondent No.1 and 2 were initially set exparte, but subsequently, the ex parte order against them was set aside, however, they did not file any counter. The 3rd respondent filed counter denying all the allegations in the petition and also the liability to pay compensation. 4. On behalf of the appellant, he got himself examined as PW1. Dr.C.Hanumantha Rao, Professor, Orthopaedics, Government General Hospital, Kakinada was examined as PW2 and Dr.Hari Sarma, Orthopaedic Surgeon, Appollo Emergency Hospital, Hyderabad examined as PW3. Tummala Anjaneyulu and G.Paparao was examined 3 BSB,J M.A.C.M.A.No.2954 of 2005 PWs4 and 5 respectively. On behalf of appellant, Exs.A1 to A17 were marked. 5. No witness was examined on behalf of the respondents but a copy of the policy of Insurance of the car was marked as Ex.B1. Ex.A1/13.03.2000: Attested xerox copy of F.I.R in Cr.No.33 of 2000 of II-Town PS, Kakinada. Ex.A2: Attested Xerox copy of wound certificate issued by Care Emergency Hospital, Kakinada. Ex.A3: Attested Xerox copy of M.V.I report. Ex.A4: Bunch of medical bills for Rs.1,59,112-05 ps. Ex.A5: Attested Xerox copy of charge sheet. Ex.A6: Attested Xerox copy of discharge summary issued by Appollo Hospital. Ex.A7: Attested Xerox copy of disability certificate. Ex.A8/18.08.2004:Attested Xerox copy of statement of total income for the assessment year 2003-04 the petitioner. Ex.A9/14.9.1993 : Attested Xerox copy of registration certificate of establishment shop for the Hotel Abhiruchi. Ex.A10/1.03.1996:Attested xeroz copy of challan for Rs.800/- into Kakinada Municipality. Ex.A11: Three bills issued by Appollo Emergency hospital, Hyderabad. Ex.A12/: Attested copy of case sheet of Apollo hospital. Ex.A13: Case sheet of Care Emergency hospital, Kakinada. Ex.A14: Title deed issued in the name of petitioner. Ex.A15: Sale notice. Ex.A16: Receipt for clearing the loan covered under Ex.A13. 4 BSB,J M.A.C.M.A.No.2954 of 2005 Ex.A17: Attested Xerox copy of title deed issued in the name of G.Paparao by Mandal Revenue Office, I.Polavaram Ex.B1: Policy copy. 6. But, the Tribunal found that the petitioner suffered injuries in the accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car and granted compensation of Rs.2,51,305/- with interest @ 6% per annum on such amount from the date of petition till the date of realization and proportionate costs with joint and several liability of the respondents No.1 to 3. 7. Aggrieved by the amount of compensation as low, the claimant preferred the appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal awarded less amount of compensation under each head and also failed to adopt the percentage of disability as certified at the rate of 30% and awarded meager amount of Rs.30,000/- for the physical disability. He further submitted that compensation under the other heads was not granted and therefore the appeal may be allowed by enhancing the amount of compensation to Rs.10,00,000/- as claimed. 8. The learned counsel for petitioner respondent No.2 opposed the appeal submitting that the quantum of compensation awarded is adequate. 9. The petitioner contended that he suffered as many as 14 fractures and rods and blades were inserted and bone transplantation was also done due to which his left leg was shortened by a few inches and resultantly he is unable to walk properly. As per the evidence of PW3, the petitioner sustained bone fractures and he was operated on 5 BSB,J M.A.C.M.A.No.2954 of 2005 15.03.2000 by internal fixation of left hip fracture and on 24.03.2000, he was operated by internal fixation of the injuries No.2,3 and 4 and the patient was discharged on 07.04.2000 with the advice to take bed rest and follow up treatment. The witness further stated that on 03.08.2000, the left hip fracture of the petitioner was found not united and therefore, he had been re-admitted and operated on 04.08.2000 by removal of the previous implant and insertion of a new implant and bone gratifying and that he had been discharged on 07.08.2000. As per the evidence of this witness, the petitioner regularly took follow up treatment and physiotherapy and the left leg was short by one inch due to which the petitioner limps and has difficulty in squatting on the ground and also has restriction of movements of right knee. This witness stated that the petitioner suffers permanent partial physical disability of 30%. It was also deposed that the petitioner needs another surgery for removal of the Implants and the estimated cost is Rs.30,000/-. This witness confirmed the expenditure of Rs.1,59,000/- under Ex.A4 and the medical record under Exs.A12, Ex.A13 and Ex.A14. Basing on such evidence, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,59,000/- for medical treatment. 10. The petitioner claimed compensation to meet the expenditure of attendants on him. According to him, Palakurthi Narayana Rao and PW4 used to attend on him during the period of treatment at Hyderabad and he paid them Rs.3,000/- per month each and Rs.30,000/- towards their transport charges for two years. Since the evidence of PW3 has shown that the petitioner took treatment in Apollo hospital, Hyderabad only for 18 days as in-patient, the Tribunal found that there is no need to take their assistance for two years. The Tribunal further observed that since the other attendant, Palakurthy Narayana Rao, was examined nor 6 BSB,J M.A.C.M.A.No.2954 of 2005 was any voucher filed to show any expenditure incurred to pay amount to him, the evidence in that regard was not considered. The Tribunal assessed that Rs.100/- is payable to PW4 for 18 days. Therefore, the Tribunal granted Rs.1800/- as compensation to him the expenditure of attendant. 11. In so far as the physical disability of 30%, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.30,000/-. Since as per the evidence of PWs 2 and 3, the petitioner suffered four fractures, took treatment, an amount of Rs.20,000/- was granted @ Rs.5,000/- for each fracture and Rs.3,000/- @ Rs.1,000/- each for three simple injuries. 12. The petitioner claimed Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of earnings stating that he used to earn Rs.30,000/- to 35,000/- per month from the hotel business run with the help of some assistant, besides prawn culture business out of which he used to earn Rs.2,00,000/- per annum and also he has Ac.4 ½ of land by cultivation of which he obtained loan of Rs.3,00,000/- and could not repay the same due to the accident and therefore, he borrowed Rs.5,00,000/- from G.Satya Apparao by mortgaging the properties to clear the debts. To prove the lease of land, he examined PW5 who deposed that he had received Rs.90,000/- per annum rent for the year 1998-1999 in respect of which Ex.A17 / photostat copy of a title deed was marked. But, the petitioner did not file any record to show that he had taken the land of PW5 on lease or that he was doing prawn culture business and earning any amount. With regard to the hotel business, Exs.A9 and A10 were filed. Ex.A8 is the certified copy of the income tax return for the assessment 2003-2004 as per which the total income of the petitioner was Rs.20,201/- during the entire year. Therefore, the Tribunal took his annual income as 7 BSB,J M.A.C.M.A.No.2954 of 2005 Rs.26,200/-. Under these circumstances, an amount of Rs.2,185/- was granted towards loss of income from the hotel business. 13. The petitioner claimed Rs.4,00,000/- for transportation to hospital and medical expenses. The medical bills filed by the petitioner is only for Rs.320/- and therefore the same amount was granted towards medical expenses. Though the petitioner claimed Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and Rs.50,000/- for pain and suffering, the Tribunal awarded Rs.8,000/- under these heads. As against the claim of Rs.20,000/- for extra nourishment, the Tribunal granted Rs.2,000/-. Since the petitioner claimed compensation for future medical expenses for removal of implants etc., Rs.25,000/- was granted by the Tribunal. Though, the Tribunal stated that compensation was awarded for transportation charges and lodging charges, no such amount was found in the award. Sl. No. Different heads of compensation granted by the Tribunal Rs. 1. Medical expenses Rs.1,59,000/- 2. Attendant expenses Rs.1,800/- 3. Physical disability Rs.30,000/- 4. Fractures Rs.20,000/- 5. Simple injuries Rs.3,000/- - 6. Loss of income Rs.2,185/- 7. Pain and suffering & Mental agony Rs.8,000/- 8. Extra nourishment Rs.2,000/- /- 9. Future medical expenses Rs.25,000/- Total 2,51,305/- 14. Aggrieved by the amount of compensation so granted, the appellant contended that the amount is a pittance. The learned counsel for petitioner / appellant contended that the Tribunal committed serious 8 BSB,J M.A.C.M.A.No.2954 of 2005 error in excluding the percentage of the disability certified and deposed by the witness before the Tribunal and that the other amounts are also very meager. 15. A perusal of the above details shows that adequate amount of compensation was granted for expenses for medical treatment, grievous and simple injuries and future medical expenses. But, the amount of compensation granted under the heads of attendant charges, loss of income, extra nourishment and pain and suffering are inadequate. When the petitioner was treated for prolonged period, it cannot be stated that he does not require assistance, that too, as he suffered multiple fractures and had undertaken several surgeries requiring bed rest, be at the hospital or home. Therefore, granting compensation of Rs.1,800/- is meager. The same can be enhanced to Rs.20,000/- as there is no proof of exact expenditure. 16. As the petitioner cannot personally attend the work of business, merely based on income tax return, the loss cannot be assessed at Rs.2,185/-. Any business would involve expenditure of items purchased and also personnel employed. The income shown in the income tax returns is only profit earned out of the business. When the petitioner was bed ridden, the expenditure does not cease. The value of the services contributed by him to run the business can be reasonably assessed at a minimum level on par with a labour in the absence of any other exact measure to be adopted. Therefore, the petitioner can be granted Rs.20,000/- towards loss of past income. In so far as the compensation of Rs.8,000/- for pain and suffering and mental agony is concerned, as separate amount of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.3,000/- was granted by the Tribunal for each injury, both grievous and simple, an 9 BSB,J M.A.C.M.A.No.2954 of 2005 additional amount of Rs.10,000/- only can be granted in view of the prolonged sufferings and treatment. 17. The amount of compensation granted towards extra nourishment is Rs.2,000/- and the same can be enhanced to Rs.10,000/- by taking into consideration the period of treatment. 18. Coming to the main grievance of the petitioner that the Tribunal failed to take into consideration 30 % of the disability to award compensation, it is pertinent to mention that for granting compensation in the case of physical disability resulting in injuries suffered in the accident, the principles laid down in the past were re-iterated and consolidated by the Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another1 wherein the principles governing the permanent disability have been laid down at paragraph No.13 as follows: “13. We may now summarize 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 1 AIR ONLINE 2010 SC 125 2.(2011) 1 SCC 343 10 BSB,J M.A.C.M.A.No.2954 of 2005 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.” 19. Therefore, in each case, the Tribunal has to examine whether the resultant disability is permanent or not and total or partial. The Tribunal has to further examine whether such disability resulted in loss of future earning capacity and earnings. If the future earnings or future earning capacity is not affected, the claimant can be compensated under other heads, such as, loss of amenities of life, disfigurement assistance, crutches, loss of prospects of marriage. The amount of compensation calculated by adopting multiplier for future loss of earnings can be granted only in case there is a finding that the disability resulted loss of future earning capacity / earnings. Thus, physical disability may not always resultant in future earnings or earning capacity. In the present case since the petitioner suffered permanent disability of limping due to shortening of leg and is unable to squat on the ground it results in physical discomfort, and such kind of disability is not shown to have resulted in his future earning capacity or earnings. It is not established that the petitioner needs assistant / attendant for the rest of his life. Therefore, he is entitled to compensation for loss of amenities of life, the discomfort and disfigurement. In this regard, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal by Rs.30,000/- is adequate by considering its value as in the year 2000. 11 BSB,J M.A.C.M.A.No.2954 of 2005 Sl. No. Different heads Compensation granted by Tribunal Rs. Enhanced compensation Rs. 1. Medical expenses Rs.1,59,000/- +320/- Rs.1,59,000/- + Rs.320/- 2. Attendant expenses Rs.1,800/- Rs.20,000/- 3. Physical disability Rs.30,000/- Rs.30,000/- 4. Fractures and Simple injuries Rs.20,000/-+ Rs.3,000/- Rs.33,000 5. Loss of income Rs.2,185/- Rs.20,000/- 6. Pain and suffering & Mental agony Rs.8,000/- Rs.8,000/- 7 Extra nourishment Rs.2,000/- Rs.10,000/- 8. Future medical expenses Rs.25,000/- Rs.25,000/- Total 2,51,305/- Rs.3,05,320/- 20. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed by enhancing the amount of compensation from Rs.2,51,305/- (Rupees two lakhs fifty one thousand three hundred and five only) to Rs.3,05,320/- (Rupees three lakhs five thousand three hundred and twenty only) with proportionate costs. The rate of interest is as awarded by the Tribunal. The rest of the claim is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed. _______________________ JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI Date: 18.07.2025 GRL 12 BSB,J M.A.C.M.A.No.2954 of 2005 257 HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI M.A.C.M.A No.2954 of 2005 13 BSB,J M.A.C.M.A.No.2954 of 2005 Date: 18.07.2025 GRL