APHC010007922006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Thursday, the First day of May, Two Thousand and Twenty Five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.2689 of 2006 & 142 of 2007 Between: Chadive Ramanaiah ...appellant and The A.P. State Road Transport Corporation ...respondent Counsel for the appellant: 1. K. Rathanga Pani Reddy Counsel for the respondent: 1. K. Viswanatham (S.C. for A.P.S.R.T.C.) The Court made the following: 2 M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2689 of 2006 & 142 of 2007 COMMON JUDGMENT: M.A.C.M.A.No.2689 of 2006 is filed by the claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award and decree dated 25.09.2006 in M.V.O.P.No.526 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- Principal District Judge, Kadapa granting compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit, with proportionate costs payable by the respondent. 2. M.A.C.M.A.No.142 of 2007 is filed by the respondent / A.P.S.R.T.C. under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the same award. 3. The case of the claimant, is briefly, as follows: On 29.06.2002, the claimant boarded R.T.C. bus bearing No.AP 10 Z 3437 at Rayachoti to go to Rajampet to do his cloth business. At about 1.30 P.M., when the bus reached Sanipai Ghat Road, the driver of the bus drove it rashly and negligently and dashed a boulder after hitting the protection wall. As a result, all the passengers, including the claimant, sustained grievous injuries. The claimant was admitted in Government Hospital, Rayachoti. His condition was very critical. On reference, he was shifted to S.V.R.R. Hospital, Tirupathi and later shifted to S.V.I.M.S. Hospital, Tirupathi. Still, as his condition was not good, he was shifted to C.M.C. Hospital, Vellore, where he was treated as in-patient for six months. The claimant spent more than Rs.1,30,000/- for his medicines, treatment, special diet and attendant and also incurred Rs.40,000/- for expenses of transportation. As on the date of the filing of the petition, he was unable to walk and completely bed ridden, unable even to sit. He used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month 3 M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2689 of 2006 & 142 of 2007 from his business. After the accident, he is deprived of his income. Hence this petition was filed seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. 2. The respondent filed written statement denying the claim and briefly stating as follows: The claimant has to prove the manner of the accident, the disability suffered, the treatment taken and the expenses incurred, besides his age, avocation, income and loss. The claim of the claimant is highly excessive. The respondent prayed to dismiss the petition. 3. On behalf of the claimant, he got himself examined as PW1. Viju Danial, medical doctor worked in C.M.C. Hospital, Vellore, was examined as PW2. Dr.B.Ramchandraiah, was examined as PW3. No evidence was led by the respondent. Following exhibits were marked on behalf of the claimant: Ex.A1 - Certified copy of F.I.R. in Crime No.56 of 2002 of Mannur Police Station. Ex.A2 - Certified copy of wound certificate. Ex.A3 - Certified copy of final report. Ex.A4 - Medical certificate issued by Medical Board. Ex.A5 - Business transactions – Swarna Silk Sarees, Madanapalli for Rs.1,81,500/-. Ex.A6 - Op. Ticket issued by S.V.I.M.S., Tirupathi. Ex.A7 - Case Summary and discharge record issued by C.M.C., Vellore. Ex.A8 - Transportation bills. Ex.A9 - Medical bills Ex.A10 - Boarding and lodging bills. Ex.A11 - Photo of the claimant with negative. Ex.A12 - X-ray. Ex.X1 - Case sheet. 4 M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2689 of 2006 & 142 of 2007 4. After hearing both parties and considering the evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. The Tribunal recorded that, as per the evidence, the claimant sustained (i) injury over right eye-brow and bleeding injury over right ear, (ii) fracture of right elbow, (iii) fracture of left wrist, (iv) fracture of upper end of ulna with distortion of elbow joint and fracture of spinal cord. As per the evidence of PW2, the Tribunal recorded that the claimant was treated in C.M.C. Hospital, Vellore from 03.07.2002 to 19.07.2002, but not for six months as claimed. Insofar as the injuries and the treatment taken are concerned, PW2 stated that the claimant was treated by posterior stabilization of L1 to L3 and K.wire fixation was done to distal ulna and that the claimant has weakness in right foot, but can attend his regular work with some difficulty. The expenses under Ex.A7 and Ex.A9 were supported by his evidence. PW3 was a Civil Assistant Surgeon in the R.I.M.S. Hospital, Kadapa who examined the claimant on 09.09.2005 and issued the disability certificate, Ex.A4. He deposed that the claimant is not in a position to walk due to post-traumatic sequel of vertebrae fractures causing paraplegia and this condition is permanent in nature and that the hands of the claimant are normal and that the claimant can move using tri-cycle or crutches, but any kind of surgery does not help him to improve the condition. Since PW3 deposed that some muscles in the lower limbs of the claimant were almost recovered and some muscles were not recovered, the claimant can maintain position when he is made to stand, he can walk with the help of crutches; the Tribunal found that his evidence is self-contradictory with his other part of the evidence that the claimant is unable to stand on his legs. The Tribunal believed the evidence of PW2 that the claimant can attend his regular work as usual by wearing belt, but can stand and walk with some difficulty. In the 5 M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2689 of 2006 & 142 of 2007 light of such appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.15,000/- each for fractures of right elbow and left wrist, a total of Rs.30,000/-; Rs.50,000/- for pain, suffering and mandatorily to wear belt always; Rs.2,000/- for simple injury over the right eye-brow. Rs.31,555/- for medical expenses while undergoing treatment in C.M.C. Hospital, Vellore; Rs.20,785/- for expenses of transportation; Rs.10,000/- as incidental charges; Rs.10,000/- for loss of pleasure of life; Rs.25,000/- to compensate adverse effect on the business. Thus, in all, the total amount arrived at is Rs.1,79,340/- which was rounded off to Rs.1,80,000/-. The Tribunal awarded interest @7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. 5. Aggrieved by the award, this appeal was filed by the claimant contending that the Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the permanent disability suffered by the claimant which was assessed by the medical board @ 90% certified under Ex.A4 and also the Tribunal erred in appreciating the evidence of PW1 and PW3 regarding his disability which made him to become a burden to himself and as such the amount awarded is too meagre and contrary to the established principles governing the quantum of compensation to be awarded. 6. The respondent filed the appeal challenging the quantum of compensation for granting expenses of transportation without examining any person to prove the receipts under Ex.A8 and also for awarding compensation for medical expenses without prescriptions relating to Ex.A9 and also for granting compensation of Rs.50,000/- for pain and suffering and further contending that compensation for loss of income due to effect of business was granted without deducting 1/3rd of the income for his personal expenses, as the claimant was 36 years old and 6 M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2689 of 2006 & 142 of 2007 married, in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2005 (1) Decisions Today (SC) 395. 7. The learned counsel for the claimant / appellant submitted as in the grounds of appeal and the learned counsel for the respondent / A.P.S.R.T.C. supported the award with regard to the aspects which are not challenged in the appeal filed by the respondent, but opposed the compensation on the grounds raised in the appeal filed by the respondent. 8. Since the appeals filed by both parties are challenging the quantum of compensation, it is not necessary to go into the other aspects. 9. First of all, it is necessary to examine whether the claimant suffered permanent disability due to the injuries suffered in accident and whether such disability affected his ability to earn from the business he was conducting before the accident and whether he can make or is making any other income after the accident. 10. The principles with regard to compensation payable on account of permanent disability are well settled and summarised in the decision of the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar1, which reads 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. 1 (2011) 1 SCC 343 7 M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2689 of 2006 & 142 of 2007 (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 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.” 11. Therefore, the nature of the disability and its impact on the earning capacity shall be ascertained from the evidence. Though PW2 stated that the claimant can attend his regular work with some difficulty, he did not rule out the permanent disability suffered by the claimant on account of the fracture injuries. Moreover, he did not examine the claimant to ascertain the disability of the claimant to give evidence on that aspect. He just treated the claimant in the hospital during the course of the treatment, whereas, it is PW3 who issued the disability certificate of the claimant after examination. The evidence stated by him 8 M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2689 of 2006 & 142 of 2007 must be understood contextually. What he stated is that if the claimant is made to stand, he can stand in the position maintaining the balance, however he also stated that he is unable to stand and needs the help of crutches and that he needs a belt to support him. Evidence as a whole shall be read and understood. Moreover, the Tribunal has an opportunity to personally watch the condition of the claimant who attended before the Tribunal. Though certain conditions cannot be visually assessed, no doubt, in certain forms of disability, one can easily understand. It is time and again said that a trial Court has an opportunity of observing the demeanour of the witnesses and the same would help for proper appreciation of evidence. Therefore, like an appellate Court, a trial Court does not appreciate the evidence merely based on the record and it has the advantage of appreciating the evidence in the light of its observations during the course of the trial. Therefore, the Tribunal is not barred from considering its observations which of course can be recorded, so that the observations of the Tribunal would also render assistance to an appellate Court to properly appreciate the matter and also to understand the reasoning of the trial Court. As such, the Tribunal, without taking into consideration the physical condition of the claimant which is very much evident to a naked eye, limited itself to the statements in evidence which are not properly appreciated reading as a whole. 12. The claimant / appellant physically appeared before this Court. He is able to walk only with the help of a crutches and the gait is not normal. Therefore, it is evident that the evidence of PW3 that the claimant permanently suffered and cannot walk without the help of crutches etc., is all trust worthy and does not suffer from any lapses to disbelieve it. Just because the claimant can make a little moves, it 9 M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2689 of 2006 & 142 of 2007 cannot be said that he can independently make earnings doing the kind of business which he used to do before the accident. May be he can do business in cloth or any other kind of business sitting at home or the same kind, but not certainly the same kind as was before the accident. There is no evidence that he is in fact doing any business, however, he is not completely disabled to do any other kind of work to make his earnings, though the quantum may be less or difficulty may be involved, it is certain that he is entitled to compensation for loss of future earnings, though the percentage may not be 100%. 13. Then the question is how much percentage of loss is adequate to meet the loss suffered by him. The physical disability certified at 90% in the disability certificate cannot be the criteria to assess compensation for loss of future earnings. In the light of the above discussion, at least 60% of his disability can be taken for the purpose of loss of future earnings. 14. The claimant contended that he used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month, but there is no such evidence. A business may run in profit or loss. But, it is only a guess work to notionally evaluate his monthly earnings. Irrespective of the nature of business or work, Rs.3,000/- per month can be taken in the present case since the accident occurred in the year 2002. Therefore, 60% of such income is Rs.1,800/- per month. Therefore, as per the age of the claimant, at the time of the accident i.e., 36 years, the relevant multiplier is 15. As a result, the loss of compensation due to permanent disability is (Rs.1,800/- x 12 x 15) = Rs.3,24,000/-. 15. In addition thereto, the claimant is entitled to compensation towards pain and suffering which is conventionally granted in lump sum. 10 M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2689 of 2006 & 142 of 2007 As the claimant suffered multiple fractures and injuries and is treated for a prolonged period, Rs.40,000/- would adequately compensate in this regard. 16. That apart, the claimant is entitled to expenses for transportation and medical treatment which are duly proved by filing the reliable evidence under Ex.A8 and Ex.A9 and the expenses for boarding and lodging under Ex.A10. The respondent contended that without examination of witnesses concerned, documents under Exs.A8 to A10 cannot be easily believed. Since, the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation, the evidence is not put to test as in a criminal case to prove a fact beyond reasonable doubt. Keeping in view the nature of the injuries, the treatment taken, which are duly proved through other evidence, the genuineness of the claim under Exs.A8 to A10 can be reasonably evaluated. As such, there is no error in awarding compensation basing on these documents. In fact, certain expenses cannot be always proved through documents. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs.32,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.21,000/- towards transportation expenses and Rs.5,000/- for lodging and boarding. 17. In addition to it all, the claimant is entitled to compensation for attendant and loss of amenities of life throughout as he cannot travel alone. Therefore, he is entitled to Rs.10,000/- each under these heads. 18. Though the Tribunal awarded amount under different heads which are overlapping, in view of the above discussion, in total the claimant is entitled to Rs.4,42,000/- (four lakh forty two thousand rupees only). 11 M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2689 of 2006 & 142 of 2007 19. As the rate of interest is fluctuating from then till now, considering the same, this Court is not inclined to intervene in the rate of interest granted. 20. Accordingly, appeal in M.A.C.M.A.No.2689 of 2006 is allowed and appeal in M.A.C.M.A.No.142 of 2007 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI Date: 01.05.2025 NSM 12 M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2689 of 2006 & 142 of 2007 10 HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.2689 of 2006 & 142 of 2007 Date: 01.05.2025 NSM