APHC010234942005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Thursday, the twenty third day of October two thousand and twenty five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S Bhanumathi Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No: 370 of 2005 Between: Sri B.Narendra Babu ...Appellant / Petitioner and Sri B.Jakir Hussain and another ...Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: 1. Sri K.Rathangapani Reddy Counsel for the respondents: 1. Sri T.V.P.Sai Vihari The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 03.12.2003 in M.V.O.P.No.256 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Kurnool, at Nandyal. 02. The appellant is the claimant. The respondents are the respondents in the claim petition. 03. The case of the claimants, is briefly, as follows : The claimant sustained serious injuries in a road accident occurred on 14.03.2002 at 6.00 p.m near the outskirts of Santhinagar village on N.H.18 2 BSB, J MACMA.No.370 of 2005 road while he was proceeding on his cycle to attend tuition and he was hit by lorry bearing No.AP 21 U 0799 in a rash and negligent manner. The petitioner claimed compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- against the owner and the insurer of the lorry. The owner / 1st respondent remained exparte. 04. The insurer / 2nd respondent filed counter opposing the petition and further pleaded that the lorry had no valid permit and was not in road worthy condition. It is further contended that the amount of compensation claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the petition with costs. 05. On behalf of the claimant, he was examined as PW1 and two more witnesses were examined and Exs.A1 to A10 were marked. Ex.A1 : Certified copy of F.I.R. Ex.A2 : Certified copy of charge sheet. Ex.A3 : Certified copy of wound certificate. Ex.A4 : Discharge card. Ex.A5 : Prescription and testing card. Ex.A6 : S.S.C marks memo. Ex.A7 : S.S.C hall ticket. Ex.A8 : Bunch of medical bills. Ex.A9 : C.T.Scan (by commissioner). Ex.A10 : Medical prescriptions (by commissioner). 06. On behalf of 2nd respondent, the driver of lorry was examined as RW1 and copy of the insurance policy was marked as Ex.B1. 07. After hearing both the parties, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of the petition till the date of payment and costs, with joint and several liability of the respondents. 3 BSB, J MACMA.No.370 of 2005 08. Aggrieved by the award and decree, this appeal was filed to raise the amount of compensation stating that he suffered injuries to vital parts of his body at young age and lost bright future and amenities of life, but the Tribunal failed to award appropriate amount of compensation. 09. The Tribunal, basing on the evidence of PW3, Neurosurgeon who treated the claimant in the Government General Hospital, Kurnool, held the opinion that the claimant suffered permanent partial disability @ 35%. The evidence of PW1 is that C.T.Scan revealed depressed fracture right fronto parietal bone with underlying brain contusion with pnemocalous and further noted that as per the certificate issued by the Gowri Gopal Hospital, the claimant sustained two grievous injuries. As per the evidence of PW3, the claimant suffered permanent disability of 35% to 40%. It is pertinent to mention that no disability certificate was filed by the claimant as per his evidence. As per the evidence of PW3, the claimant underwent wound debridement, elevation of depressed fragments, removal of loose fragments, evacuation of contusion, and duroplastic. The claimant contended that due to the injuries suffered by him in the accident, he could not attend the examinations of 10th class, except Telugu Paper-I and he had taken prolonged medical treatment, yet could not regain normal health even after neurosurgical operations to his head and that he lost vision in both his eyes. 10. Basing on the evidence of PW3, the Tribunal concluded that the claimant suffered permanent disability at 35%. Basing on the decision in the case of Singana Subbarayudu & another Vs. K.Raja & another1 where in the notional income of an unmarried deceased minor boy about 16 years studying 9th class was assessed at Rs.1500/- per month, the notional income of the claimant was taken at the same rate. Thus, multiplying the annual income by the multiplier ‘15’ applicable to a person aged 15 years (as the 1 2002 (5) ALT page 621 4 BSB, J MACMA.No.370 of 2005 claimant was born on 02.07.1987 and the accident occurred on 14.03.2002), the Tribunal awarded Rs.94,500/-, which is equal to 35% of Rs.2,70,000/-, towards loss of income due to disability. 11. Further, the Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs.40,000/- towards medical expenses, as against bills worth Rs.47,054/- as some of the bills did not contain signatures; Rs.5,000/- towards transport expenses; Rs.3,500/- towards loss of future prosperity. Thus, in all a total sum of Rs.1,50,000/- was awarded. 12. Aggrieved by the decree and award, this appeal was preferred on the following grounds: 1. The award of the Court below is contrary to law and weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. 2. The Court below grossly erred in granting meagre compensation under the head of future loss of income without appreciating fact that the appellant herein at his young age suffered the severe injury to his brain, which is a vital part of the body, due to that injury he totally lost bright future and lost the future amenities of life. 3. The Court below erred in granting meagre compensation under the head of pain and suffering without appreciating fact that the appellant at his young age suffered a lot due to grievous injury suffered by him to vital part of the body and further erred in not granting any compensation under the head of loss of future amenities of life. 4. The Court below erred in granting meagre compensation under the medical expenses without appreciating the Ex.A3 to Ex.A10 which clearly establish that the appellant incurred huge expenditure for the treatment. 5 BSB, J MACMA.No.370 of 2005 13. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal erred in granting the amount of compensation as stated in the grounds of appeal. There is no representation for the respondents. Perused the record. 14. Insofar as the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, it was granted under different heads as noted above. A large portion of the amount of compensation granted is towards loss of future income due to permanent disability. The claimant stated that he suffered permanent disability due to the head injury leading to loss of eye sight and also loss of academic year as he could not attend 10th class examinations, except Telugu paper-I. Insofar as the loss of academic year is concerned the document marked as Ex.A7 shows the different dates of examinations for 10th class during the relevant year and Ex.A6 shows that the claimant was absent in all the tests, except one subject i.e., Telugu language. But, insofar as the physical disability is concerned, it is only the evidence of P.W.3 and there is no documentary evidence of certificate of permanent disability. Had there been permanent disability of partial or total nature, the claimant ought to have produced a disability certificate issued after examination of his body by a competent doctor or a medical board constituted in this regard. However, P.W.3 deposed that he had examined the claimant and continued to treat him for long time i.e., from 15.03.2002 to 25.03.2002. He did not say anything about loss of eye sight. He merely stated that the claimant may be subjected to seizures in future. His statement is baseless. Depending on the nature of the injuries suffered and the treatment given, considering his evidence that the claimant suffered permanent partial disability of 35% or 40%, the Tribunal awarded compensation by notionally evaluating monthly and annual income of the injured and multiplying the same with the factor 15 and assessing 35% of it as loss of future income. As there is no appeal or cross objection against such evaluation of loss, this Court does not examine the correctness of such assessment. From the side of the claimant as an appellant in this appeal, this 6 BSB, J MACMA.No.370 of 2005 Court is of the view that no further amount of compensation shall be granted on any head, including compensation for loss of future earning capacity or earnings. As the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is justified, no interference is required in the Decree and Award passed by the Tribunal impugned in this appeal. 15. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed. ___________________ ___ JUSTICE B.S. BHANUMATHI Dated :23.10.2025 sj 7 BSB, J MACMA.No.370 of 2005 39 The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S Bhanumathi MACMA NO: 370 of 2005 Date: 23.10.2025 sj