' -J IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT 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: 1662 OF 2006 Between: V. Anjaneyulu, S/o. Peddanna, Hindu, Aged about 41 yrs. Driver, H.No. 19/25-2, Old Town, Rani Ngar, Anantapur District. ...Appellant / Petitioner AND 1. S. Chand Basha, S/o. Fakruddin, Major, Business, Owner of the Lorry bearing No. AP-02/T 72-73, R/o. 26/149, Pamula Street, Old Town, Anantapur, Anantapur District. 2. United India Insurance Company Limited,by its Branch Manager AnantapurDistrict. ...RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, praying that the High Court may be pleased to enhance the award passed in OP.No. 81/99 on the file of the MACT (Additional District Court) Anantapur District, dated: 14.10.2004, as prayed by the appellant. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court and the material papers in the Suit and upon hearing the arguments of Sri. Seshadri Goalla, Advocate, on behalf of the Appellant and Sri. N Aswartha Narayana for Respondent. No.1 and Sri. N Parameswara Reddy for the respondent No.2. t;o\irt Doth Order and Decree as follows:- % That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and is hereby allowed. That the sum of compensation be and is hereby enhanced from Rs.2,96,010/- to Rs.5,45,000/-. That the rest of the award is intact. That the appellant be and is hereby directed to pay the court fee Rs.95,000/- before the Tribunal. That there will be no order as to costs. r 1. f 2. 3. 4. on 5. Sd/- G. HELA NAIDU //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ^ ' SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Motor Accidents Cum Tribunal (Additional District Court) Anantapur District. 2. Two CD Copies PR RAM HIGH COURT DATED:24/04/2025 DECREE IVIACWIA.No.1662 of 2006 ALLOWING THE APPEAL IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAV THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APR TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1662 OF 2006 Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, praying that the High Court may be pleased to enhance the award passed in OP.No. 81/99 on the file of the MACT (Additional District Court) Anantapur District, dated; 14.10.2004, as prayed by the appellant. Between: V. Anjaneyulu, S/o. Peddanna, Hindu, Aged about 41 yrs. Driver, H.No. 19/25-2, Old Town, Rani Nagar, Anantapur District. ...Appellant / Petitioner AND 1. S. Chand Basha, S/o. Fakruddin, Major, Business, Owner of the Lorry bearing No. AP-02/T 72-73, R/o. 26/149, Pamula Street, Old Town, Anantapur, Anantapur District. 2. United India Insurance Company Limited, by its Branch Manager, Anantapur District. ...Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: SRI SESHADRI GOALLA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI. N ASWARTHA NARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI. N PARAMESWARA REDDY The Court made the following: / y / APHC011549322012 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.1662 of 2006 ( Between: V. Anjaneyulu and ...Appellant S.Chand Basha and another ...Respondents Counsel for the appellant: I.Seshadri Golla Counsel for the respondents: I.N.Aswartha Narayana 2.N.Rannakrishna S.N.Parameswara Reddy The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 14.10.2004 in O.P.No.81/1999 op 2 BSB,J MACMA.No.1662 of 2006 the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Additional District Court) Ananthapur, granting compensation of Rs.2,96,010/- (as against Rs.4,50,000/- sought), directing both the respondents to pay the said amount with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the petition with joint and several liability. 02. The case of the claimant, is briefly, as follows : The claimant was working as lorry driver. He was aged about 35 years. On 08.10.1998 at about 5.a.m when the claimant was proceeding towards Hyderabad in the lorry bearing No.AP 02 T 8556, another lorry bearing No.AP 02 T 7273 coming in the opposite direction was driven rashly and negligently by its driver and hit the lorry of the petitioner due to which the petitioner suffered grievous injuries to his legs, shoulder, left ear and other parts of the body. He was admitted in Government Hospital, Kurnool. A case was registered by the police and charge sheet was laid against the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 02 T 7273. Since both legs were amputated below knee, the petitioner filed petition seeking compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- for the permanent disability. The 1®‘ respondent who is the son of the owner of lorry bearing No.AP 02 T 7273 remained exparte. The 2'^'^ respondent which is the insurer of that lorry filed counter opposing the petition and the averments made therein. It if further contended that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties who are the owner and insurer of the lorry bearing No.AP 02 T 8556. 03. 04. On behalf of the petitioner, he himself was examined as PW1 and Dr.K.Sreenivas and Dr.B.Jayachandra Reddy were examined as PWs 2 and 3. 3 BSB,J MACMA.No.1662 of 2006 The petitioner filed documentary evidence Exs.M to A6 and Ex.X1 and Ex.X2. No evidence was lead by the respondents. 05. Ex.A1: Certified copy of FIR. Ex.A2: Certified copy of wound certificate. Ex.AS; Certified copy of charge sheet. Ex.A4: Disability certificate. Ex.AS: Medical bills. Ex.AS: Disability certificate Ex.X1: Case sheet Ex.X2: 3 X-rays. After hearing both the parties, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 02 T 7273. The respondents have not challenged the said finding. 06. 07. The Tribunal awarded a total amount of compensation of Rs.2,96,010/-, after deducting Rs.25,000/- (amount withdrawn under ‘no fault liability’) out of Rs.3,21,010/- (future loss of income of Rs.3,11,010/- + Medical expenses of Rs.10,000/-). In so far as quantum is concerned though both the legs of the claimant who was driver of the lorry were amputated, the Tribunal assessed the disability @ 70%. Therefore, the appellant contended that the Tribunal ought to have treated the percentage of the disability @ 100%. 08. 4 BSBJ MACMA.No.1662 of 2006 09. The learned counsel for petitioner relied on the decision of Supreme Court in Ra] Kumar Vs Ajay Kumar & another^ in which reads as follows: “19. 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 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.” 1 AIR ONLINE 2010 SC 125 5 BSB,J IVlACMA.No.1662 of 2006 He further submitted that it is the functional disability, but not the physical disability as assessed by the doctor, which shall be taken into consideration as stated by the Supreme Court in the above case. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 2'''’ respondent submitted that the Tribunal rightly placed reliance on the percentage of disability assessed by the doctor. He further submitted that, if not as a driver of the lorry, the petitioner can make earnings by other means and therefore the disability need not be 100 %. 10. Though a person is physically disabled due to amputation of legs, one may be able to make some earnings. But, whether the claimant himself really is able to make earnings is a fact to be examined in each case. Since the petitioner in the present case, having lost both his legs, cannot work as a driver. There is no controversy over such finding. But, there is no evidence that he was making earnings after the accident. The evidence does not even show he is able to make earnings after the accident. Since, it is the functional disability which is the criteria to award compensation, the Tribunal ought to have considered percentage of disability @ 100 % due to loss of both legs for a driver of heavy vehicle like lorry. Just by imagination that he can make other earnings by other means, functional disability cannot be reduced in the present case. Therefore, assessing the functional disability at 100 % is equitable in the present case. 11. The Tribunal assessed the earnings of the claimant at Rs.2,500/- per month. The learned counsel for appellant submitted that, for a driver of heavy motor vehicle, evaluating income at Rs.2,500/- per month is inadequate. This Court is of the opinion that during the year 1998, the 12. 6 BSB,J MACMA.No.1662 of 2006 monthly income of driver of a lorry could not be more than what was assessed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal multiplied Rs.2,500/- by 12 months to arrive at the annual income of Rs.30,000/-. Then, 70% of the annual income i.e., Rs.21,000/- was multiplied by the factor 14.81 which comes to Rs.3,11,010/-. Further, the Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- towards medical bills. In the calculation, instead of mentioning 70% of Rs.2,500/- X 12 X 14.81, it was mentioned as Rs.2,500 x 12 x 14.81, (which is equal to Rs.4,44,300/-), but the correct total figure Rs.3,11,010/- was mentioned. Therefore, though calculation appears to be incorrect, but it is only an error due to omission to note 70% of Rs.2,500/-.’ 13. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the Tribunal had taken multiplier of 14.81, instead of a higher multiplier 16. He submitted that as per the decision of Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Ors vs. Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr^, the appropriate multiplier for the age group of appellant is 16. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, the appropriate multiplier for the petitioner is 16. Therefore, the loss of future earnings comes to Rs.2500 x 12 x 16 = Rs.4,80,000/-. 14. The Tribunal granted Rs.10,000/- for medical expenses. There is no ground to enhance the same. The Tribunal did not grant compensation under any other head. But, in case of injury resulting in permanent disability also, the claimant is entitled to compensation under other heads, such as, pain and suffering, expenses for transportation. 15. ^ AIR 2009 SC 3104 7 BSBJ MACMA.No.1662 of 2006 expenses for extra nourishment, expenses for artificial limbs and expenses for assistance. Since the Tribunal failed to award compensation under any of these heads, it is necessary to grant some amount appropriate under these heads as per the values in the year of the accident i.e., 1998. Thus, Rs.10,000/- is granted under the head pain and suffering; Rs.5,000/- for transportation expenses; Rs.5,000/- for extra nourishment; Rs.25,000/- for assistance; Rs.25,000/- for artificial limbs / wheel chair necessary throughout his life; Rs.5,000/- for loss of amenities of life; and Rs.5,000/- for disfigurement. Then, the total amount of compensation payable is Rs.5,70,000/-. The learned counsel for appellant submitted that the percentage of the interest granted by the Tribunal is to be raised 12% from 9%. The rate of interest @ 9% granted is appropriate because Tribunal has to be guided by the rates of interest prevailing in the nationalized banks as directed by the RBI at the relevant period. Therefore, rate of interest need not be increased. 16. Thus, in total, the appellant is entitled to Rs.5,70,000/- towards compensation. Out of the same, Rs.25,000/- already paid under ‘no fault liability’ shall be deducted. So, it comes to Rs.5,45,000/-. 17. Accordingly, appeal is allowed and the sum of compensation is enhanced from Rs.2,96,010/- to Rs.5,45,000/-. The rest of the award is intact. 18. The appellant shall pay the court fee on Rs.95,000/- before the Tribunal. 8 BSBJ MACMA.No.1662 of 2006 As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed. Sd/- G. HELA NAIDU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ' SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Motor Accidents Cum Tribunal (Additional District Court) Anantapur District (with records) One CC to Sri. Seshadri Goalla, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri. N Aswartha Narayana, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri. N Parameswara Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] The Section Officer, V R Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. Two CD Copies 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. PR RAM HIGH COURT DATED:24/04/2025 JUDGMENT + DECREE MACMA.No.1662 of 2006 ALLOWING THE APPEAL