IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATl THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 3779 OF 2005 Between: Minor Dileep, aged about 11 years, rep. by guardian & father, J.Chandraiah Naidu, S/o.Chengaiah Cultivation R/o.B.L.Kandriga Village, B.Palem Mandal, Chittoor District. ...Appellant AND Karnataka State Transport Corporation Ltd., Rep by its Managing Director Bangalore, State of Karnataka ...Respondent Appeal filed Section 173 of M.V.Act against the Order and Decree in M.V.O.P.No.137 of 2000 dated 23.09.2005 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District Judge (FTC), Chittoor. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the Suit and upon hearing the arguments of Sri S V Muni Reddy, for the Appellant. The Court doth Order and Decree as follows; 1. That the MAGMA be and is hereby allowed. 2. That the amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs.1,25,000/- to Rs.2,71,000/- (Rupees two lakhs seventy one thousand only) with interest as awarded by the Tribunal 3. That the Appellant shall pay the necessary court fee on Rs.71,000/- before the Tribunal. 4. That there be no costs in this MAGMA. Sd/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR il//^ //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum VIII Additional District Judge(FTC), Chittoor. 2. Three CD Copies vna \ Ik \ HIGH COURT DATED:24/04/2025 DECREE MACMA.No.3779 of 2005 ^ 3 0 JUL 2025 )!;' rrentS#ctioj>^'^'^ ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 3779 OF 2005 Appeal filed Section 173 of M.V.Act against the Judgment and Decree dated 23.09.2005 in M.V.O.P.No.137 of 2000 on the file of the Court of the Chairperson, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI II Additional District Judge (FTC),'Chittoor. Between: Minor Dileep, aged about 11 years, rep. by guardian & father J.Chandraiah Naidu, S/o.Chengaiah Cultivation R/o.B.L.Kandriga Village B.Palem Mandal, Chittoor District. ...Appellant AND Karnataka State Transport Corporation Ltd., Rep by its Managing Director Bangalore, State of Karnataka ...Respondent Counsel for the Appellant: SRI. S V MUNI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents The Court made the following Order: APHC010382942005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Thursday, the Twenty Fourth day of April Two Thousand and Twenty Five Present The Honourable Ms Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No: 3779 of 2005 Between: ...appellant Minor Dileep and ...respondent Karnataka State Transport Corporation Ltd. Counsel for the Appellant: 1 .S.V.Muni Reddy The Court made the following: 2 MACMA.No.3779 of 2005 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award and decree dated 23.09.2005 in M.V.O.P.No.137 of 2000 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - cum - VIII Additional District Judge (FTC), Chittoor, filed by the claimant under Section 166 (1) (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act r/w Sections 455 and 475 of A.P.M.V. Rules, seeking compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for sustaining injuries in a road accident. The case of the claimantis, briefly, as follows: 2. The claimant was a minor boy of 11 years old. On 01.10.1999, at about 1.30 P.M., while he was going on a cycle in front of Sekar Tea Stall, B.Palem Town, the driver of the K.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No.KA 09 F 1871 drove it in a rash and negligent manner coming in the opposite direction from Chittoor side and dashed against the claimant. As a result, the claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries, such as multiple friction burns over the right side of the cheek, forehead, chest and left lower limb. He was admitted in the Government Hospital, B.Palem. He took treatment in CMC Hospital, Vellore as in-patient from 01.10.1999 to 10.10.1999. He was put on tracheostomy due to diffused brain swelling. The claimant spent Rs.40,000/- for medical expenses, besides other incidental expenses. The police of B.Palem Police Station, registered a case in Crime No. 142 of 1999 and later filed charge sheet against the driver of the bus vide C.C.No.15 of 2000 on the file of the IV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, Chittoor. The claimant was a student of 6^*^ class studying in Royal Public School, B.Palem. He was quite hale and healthy before the accident. Due to the injuries suffered in the accident, he lost his bright future as he suffering :S - MACMA.No.3779 of 2005 from constant headache and still taking treatment. Thus, the claimant filed petition against the respondent before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. The respondent filed written statement and additional written statement opposing the claim as follows: 3. The occurrence of the accident, the date and time are admitted. It is admitted that the claimant was coming on a cycle in the opposite direction and sustained injuries, but there was no rashness or negligence on part of the driver of the bus. The accident occurred due to the rashness and negligence of the minor claimant who was coming on the cycle and lost control. Therefore, the respondent is not liable to pay compensation. The claimant is not entitled to any amount of compensation much less compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- or Rs.2,00,000/- which is sought by amendment. On behalf of the claimant, J.Chandraiah Naidu / father of the petitioner was examined as PW1, N.Chandraiah was examined as PW2 who is eye-witness of the accident. Dr.Biji.B was examined as PW3. No evidence was led by the respondent and no exhibits were marked. The following documents were marked on behalf of the claimant: 4. Certified copy of FIR in Crime No.142 of 1999 of B.Palem Police Station. Ex.AI Certified copy of charge sheet in C.C.No.15 of 2000 on the file of IV Additional M.M. Chittoor. Ex.A2 Discharge summary issued by CMC Hospital. Ex.A3 Certified copy of wound certificate EX.A4 Disability certificate issued by the Women’s Development Child Welfare and Labour Department. EX.A5 Vnw lu -M MACMA.No.3779 of 2005 On consideration of the evidence and the arguments, the Tribunal found that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. The Tribunal found that as per the evidence of PW3, there was brain swelling and contusion in the mid brain and the claimant was on ventilator and later tracheostomy was done to the claimant on the date of discharge. PW3 further deposed that there is damage to the brain stem and as a result, there is possibility of permanent disability occurring to the claimant and that no surgery can cure his disability. He denied the suggestion in the cross- examination that the claimant fully recovered from the injury. The claimant visited the hospital as an outpatient on 27.11.1999. The claimant filed Ex.A5 certificate of permanent disability given by the Chairman, District Medical Board. But, the issuing authority was not examined. After noting that medical bills were not filed, the Tribunal refused to grant compensation for medical expenses of Rs.75,000/- sought by the claimant, but awarded Rs.3,000/-. Nextiy, the Tribunal found that in view of the evidence of PW3, it cannot be said that there is permanent disability, however there was no evidence to show the exact percentage of the disability and therefore, the Tribunal evaluated 30% of permanent disability and nationally assessed the annual income of the claimant at Rs. 15,000/- and by applying multiplier 15, came to the finding that it would be Rs.3,00,000/-, out of which 30% is Rs.90,000/-. Therefore, the Tribunal awarded Rs.90,000/- towards loss of future earnings, besides awarding, Rs.20,000/- under the head permanent disability. That apart, Rs. 15,000/- was granted towards pain and suffering. In total, the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,25,000/- as compensation with interest and costs as aforesaid. 5. no 5 MACMA.No.3779 of 2005 6. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the claimant preferred the appeal contending that the Tribunal ought to have granted Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation by considering percentage of permanent disability at 60%, instead of 30% and could have granted high amount of compensation than Rs.3,000/- for medical expenses and further higher rate of interest ought to have been granted. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant argued as in the grounds of appeal. 8. In spite of service of notice, the respondent has not turned up. The guiding principles for grant of compensation on account of permanent disability are well described by the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar & another'’, wherein at para No. 19 it was held as follows: 9. ‘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). ^(2011) 1 see 343 rr""'- 6 / MACMA.No.3779 of 2005 (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 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.” As per the directions of this Court, the claimant appeared before the Secretary, DLSA, incharge, Chittoor District for his identification and appearance before this Court through video conference. His physical appearance shows that he had disability due to restricted movement of right wrist. He is unable to open his palm. Due to restricted movement of his right leg, he is limping, 10. As per the findings of the Tribunal, on consideration of the evidence of the doctor examined as P.W.3, there is no permanent disability on account of the head injury and also that there is no evidence to show the exact percentage of permanent disability. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal assessed the permanent disability @ 30%. As per Ex.A.5, the percentage of disability certified is 60%. But, it is regarding orthopedically assessed disability. Mere physical disability can be compensated by awarding a fixed amount of compensation, but, if such permanent disability leads to functional disability resulting in permanent loss of earning capacity, claimant is entitled to compensation by evaluating the percentage of such disability by using the multiplier 11. 7 MACMA.No.3779 of 2005 appropriate to the age of the claimant to meet the loss of future earnings. In the present case, the contention of the petitioner is that he was a minor boy of ‘11’ years at the time of accident and all his future was shattered due to the permanent disability and he lost all his future prospects and became a permanent dependant on his parents. Even the evidence of PW.3, the brain stem of PW.1 was damaged due 12. as per to the head injury and no operation can cure his disability. Therefore, such evidence clearly establishes permanent disability. In addition thereto, the physical appearance itself indicates that he cannot make his own earnings and became dependent on his parents or other guardian throughout his life. However, such disability may not result 100% as he can make some earnings, though not to the fullest extent he could otherwise make. As he was a boy of ‘11’ years at the time of accident, it was difficult to assess what could be future occupation as and there is no record placed about his academic excellence or any other skill, the Tribunal is left with no other option except to make The Tribunal has taken notional income at notional assessment. Rs.15,000/- per annum based on reasonable assessment taking into consideration Schedule-ll of the M.V.Act. Since the finding of the Court has not been challenged by the respondent and is just, adopting the figure, after deducting 20%, the annual loss would be Rs. 12,000/-. When the annual income is multiplied by the maximum multiplier 18, same the total loss of future earnings is Rs.2,16,000/-. In addition thereto, the Tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/- towards permanent disability and Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life. The same can be retained as it would meet the compensation towards pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life. 13. J 8 MACMA.No.3779 of 2005 Under these heads together an amount of Rs.35,000/- is just and reasonable. 14. That apart, as the Tribunal did not award any amount of expenses for transportation, the claimant is additionally entitled to Rs.10,000/- towards expenses for transportation. Further, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.3,000/- towards medical expenses which is inadequate as incidental charges have to be borne due to the kind of disability he suffered. As such, the petitioner is entitled to Rs.10,000/- for medical expenses. Thus, in all, he is entitled to Rs.2,71,000/- as compensation. The rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is appropriate and the same does not require any interference. 15. In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed by enhancing the amount of compensation from Rs.1,25,000/- to Rs.2,71,000/- (Rupees two lakhs seventy one thousand only) with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. The appellant shall pay the necessary court fee on Rs.71,000/- before the Tribunal. 16. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// / SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum VIII Additional District Judge(FTC), Chittoor. (with records if any) ' 2. One CC to Sri. S V Muni, Advocate [OPUC] 3. The Section Officer, V.R Section, High Court of Andhra 4. Three CD Copies Pradesh. vna ' 1 \ HIGH COURT DATED:24/04/2025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.3779 of 2005 ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS