APHC010403632016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3548] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos: 2300/2016 and 1698 of 2017 M.A.C.M.A.No.2300 of 2016: Between: 1. ADABALA VAMSI KRISHNA, VIZIANAGARAMM, S/O. VENKATESWARULU @ SRINIVAS, R/O. H.NO. LIG 198, BABAMETTA, VIZIANAGARAMM. ...APPELLANT AND 1. GEDDAM RAMANA VIZIANAGARAM DIST THREE OTHERS, S/O. DEMUDU, DRIVER OF LORRY BEARING NO. AP 31 TT 1157, R/O. SARIKAM VILLAGE, KASIMKOTA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 2. PENUMATSA GOPALA RAJU, S/O. VENKATAPATHI RAJU, OWNER OF LORRY BEARING NO. AP 31 TT 1157, R/O. CHINABABU COLONY, THUMPALA VILLAGE, ANAKAPALLI, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 3. K VENKATAPATHI RAJU, S/O. RAMAKRISHNA RAJU, OWNER OF LORRY BEARING NO. AP 31 TT 1157, R/O. 'C' BLOCK, R/O. GAJUWAKA, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 4. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REP., BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 GTK, J M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2300 of 2016 & 1698 of 2017 Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased toagainst the order and decree dated 06.04.2016 passed in M.V.O.P.No. 1020 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Vizianagaram IA NO: 2 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner to substitute the crtified copy vide CD.No.8246 of 2018 in MACMA.No.2300 of 2016 by obtaining original SSC and Intermediate Certificates which is already marked as Ex.A6 and Ex.7 and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. G SAI NARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. NAGUMANTRI NAGESWARA RAO 2. The Court made the following: 3 GTK, J M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2300 of 2016 & 1698 of 2017 COMMON JUDGMENT: Heard, Sri U. Nagendra Babu, learned counsel representing Sri G. Sai Narayana Rao, learned counsel appearing for the claimant and Sri M. Srinu Babu, learned counsel representing Sri N. Nageswara Rao, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company. The other respondents arrayed in the present appeals remained ex parte since not appeared. 1. Dissatisfied and aggrieved by the Order passed in M.V.O.P. No.1020 of 2010, dated 06.04.2016 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Visakhapatnam, the claimant preferred M.A.C.M.A.No.2300 of 2016 seeking enhancement of the compensation. M.A.C.M.A.No.1698 of 2017 is filed by the Insurance Company. 2. The parties are arrayed as they were before the Tribunal. 3. The facts germane in the present appeal are as follows: The petitioner on 08.04.2010 at about 08:30 p.m., suffered an accident while going to Vizianagaram from Visakhapatnam on motorcycle and particularly at Modavalasa Village, the lorry bearing No. AP 31 TT 1157 which is coming in the opposite direction driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner with high speed without following the traffic rules. He sustained grievous injuries and was immediately taken to Sukhibhava Critical Care, Vizianagaram and thereafter considering the grievous injuries found on his body, the petitioner was shifted to Seven Hills Hospital, Visakhapatnam. There he was given ventilator support and Oxygen tracheostomy and PEG (Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy) were done. The petitioner was aged about 20 years and was studying 3rd year B-Tech (E.E.E.) in M.V.G.R. Engineering College and Technology and due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the petitioner is unable to complete B-Tech course. Due to the sudden accident, his life has become marred due to the frontal injuries and he has sought compensation for Rs.6,00,000/- towards medicines, transportation 4 GTK, J M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2300 of 2016 & 1698 of 2017 charges and extra nourishment and Rs.1,00,000/- towards general damages and Rs.13,00,000/- towards loss of future income and permanent disability. 4. The 4th respondent-Insurance Company, in oppugnation, denied the contentions by stating that the driver is not having valid license and the petitioner is put to strict proof regarding the averment of rash and negligent driving by the 1st respondent and also towards the amount spent regarding the treatment and disability, if any, suffered by him on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident and that the owner and the insurer of the motorcycle are also necessary parties to the present proceedings and the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. 5. 5. The Tribunal has formulated the following issues: i. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of 1st respondent being the driver of Lorry bearing No.AP 31 TT 1157 and whether the petitioner received injuries in the said accident? ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation and if so, at what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents? iii. To what relief? 6. The Tribunal dwelled into the examination and evidences filed in support of the parties. Regarding the evidences, PWs 1 to 6 were examined and Exs.A1 to A14 were marked on behalf of the petitioner. Ex.B1 i.e., Insurance Policy was marked on behalf of the respondents. Considering the evidences and the pleadings in support of the same, the Tribunal answered in favour of the claimant. 7. While considering the issue Nos.1 and 2, the evidences were closely scrutinized and especially PW6 i.e., Dr.K.Venkateswarlu, a Neuro Physician, who was examined to testify that the petitioner attended his clinic with history of head injury on 09.04.2010 and assessed the disability as 70%. He certified that minimum degree of cerebral volume loss is noticed. Ex.A14 is the disability certificate issued by him fortifying as 70% disability. The Tribunal, 5 GTK, J M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2300 of 2016 & 1698 of 2017 while considering the judgment, has observed that in the cross examination of PW3, who is a doctor, who treated the petitioner, nothing was elicited to show that the evidence was false. While awarding the compensation towards injuries and pain and suffering, an amount of Rs.75,000/- and Rs.25,000/- was fixed. It is also a part of record before the Tribunal that the Accounts Manager of Seven Hills Hospital, Visakhapatnam, who testified that the bunch of medical bills issued by their hospital and there is no dispute regarding the admission into the hospital by either side. Taking note of all the aspects, the Tribunal has held that the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.3,67,000/- towards medical expenses. 8. The main issue which fell for consideration before the Tribunal would actually be that the percentage of disability to be taken? 9. Admittedly, Neuro Physician, who was examined as PW6 has opined that the petitioner was suffering 70% disability which was not strongly rebutted to, in the cross-examination. But an observation was made in the award that the petitioner himself stated that the Visakhapatnam Medical Board constituted by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, having three members and they are competent to issue disability certificates. 10. The question will firmly surface as to why having aware that the certificate issued by the Medical Board will only be considered and having said so the same was not placed before the Court? 11. This aspect was strongly agitated by the learned counsel for the respondent and firmly made his contentions that in the absence of Medical Board Certificate, the percentage taken by the Tribunal is justified and cannot be interfered with and further stated that the compensation so awarded is also justified and is according to the evidences adduced. 12. There is no reason as to why the Tribunal has restricted the disability percentage as 40% and no cogent reasons mentioned in the Award to that effect. Significantly, the Neuro Physician, who was examined as PW5, 6 GTK, J M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2300 of 2016 & 1698 of 2017 categorically stated that the disability is 70% and in the absence of any other rebuttal by the Insurance Company, the same cannot be brushed aside and the Tribunal ought to have visualized in a liberal view. 13. To a question by the Court to the appellant‟s counsel as to whether the claimant is now employed or not, the answer was he is unemployed. Indubitable, the Tribunal, in the opinion of this Court, went erroneous in taking the disability percentage at 40%. 14. Learned counsel for the respondent relied on the judgment in the case of Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and Another1, wherein the Hon‟ble Supreme Court while considering “just compensation”, at paragraph no.16 held as follows: “11. The Tribunal should not be a silent spectator when medical evidence is tendered in regard to the injuries and their effect, in particular the extent of permanent disability. Sections 168 and 169 of the Act make it evident that the Tribunal does not function as a neutral umpire as in a civil suit, but as an 12 active explorer and seeker of truth who is required to `hold an enquiry into the claim' for determining the `just compensation'. The Tribunal should therefore take an active role to ascertain the true and correct position so that it can assess the `just compensation'.” 15. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar‟s case (supra), at paragraph No.18 held as follows: “….if it proposed to accept the expert evidence of doctors who did not treat the injured but who give `ready to use' disability certificates, without proper medical assessment. There are several instances of unscrupulous doctors who without treating the injured, readily giving liberal disability certificates to help the claimants. But where the disability certificates are given by duly constituted Medical Boards, they may be accepted subject to evidence regarding the genuineness of such certificates.” 16. In the present case, the doctor who issued the certificate was examined and the genuineness of the evidence is not countenanced. 17. In view of the aforesaid proposition laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, this Court firmly believes the evidence adduced by the Neuro Physician as PW6 as 70% disability. 1 (2011) 1 SCC 343 7 GTK, J M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2300 of 2016 & 1698 of 2017 18. Now, coming to the income factor, the Tribunal at paragraph No.17 while taking note of the judgment passed by this Court in B.Ramulamma and Others vs. M/s.Venkatesh Bus Union, represented by A.M. Velu Mudaliyar, Bangalore and Another2, wherein the income was notionally fixed for a B-Tech Engineering Graduate at Rs.12,000/- per annum in the year 2009, has also considered the escalation of prices and keeping that into consideration, the income of a person with engineering graduation was fixed at Rs.15,000/- per month. The observation made by this Court is by way of ratio and not a simple observation. So, keeping in view of the said decision of this Court, the income of the Engineering Graduate, studying 3rd year of B-Tech, cannot be treated with a different “yardstick” and Rs.15,000/- is taken as fixed in the above judgment is proper and considered to be legitimate. 19. In that view of the matter, the age of the petitioner as on the date of accident was 20 and if taking into account the case in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi 3 , the constitutional Bench has formulated the multiplier method to be considered in cases of the deceased, injured and the compensation to be awarded as „just compensation‟ under several heads as indicated therein. In respect of the other headings, this Court is not inclined to interfere since the Tribunal has properly considered taking note of the pleadings before the Court. 20. It is desirable to look into the pronouncement of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Navjot Singh vs. Harpreet Singh and Others4, wherein at paragraph Nos.12 and 13, it was held as follows: “12. Admittedly, the appellant was 21 years of age at the time of the accident and he was pursuing a Degree course in Food Technology from Sant Longowal Institute of Engineering and Technology. Though the Tribunal did not believe the claim made by the appellant that he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month even as a student by taking tuitions, and though the High Court also did not go 2 2009 (6) ALT 784 (D.B.) 3 2017 (16) SCC 680 4 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1562 8 GTK, J M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2300 of 2016 & 1698 of 2017 by the said claim, the High Court arrived at the notional income of the appellant at Rs.5,000/- per month, on the ground that the minimum wages admissible to an unskilled worker was Rs.5,000/- per month. 13. But we do not think that the notional income of a student undergoing a Degree course in Engineering from a premier institute should be taken to be equivalent to the minimum wages admissible to an unskilled worker. Students recruited through campus interviews are atleast offered a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. Even if we do not go on the said basis, the High Court could have fixed the notional income atleast at Rs.10,000/- per month.” 21. Following the judgment in Navjot Singh‟s case (supra), the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Singh alias Deepak Chauhan vs. Mukesh Kumar and Others5 followed the same principle while awarding compensation. 22. Yet again, in another recent judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Atul Tiwari vs. Regional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited 6 , while considering a case of similar nature, the compensation was derived at Rs.15,000/- per month for a 3rd year Computer Science student and thereafter at paragraph Nos.26 and 27, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held as follows: “26. This court in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum vs Susamma Thomas and Ors [(1994) 2 SCC 176] had laid down the factors to be considered by a court in ascertaining the compensation for motor accidents. The court also laid emphasis on use of the multiplier method for ensuring a „just‟ compensation. The relevant paragraphs are enumerated below for perusal: “9. The assessment of damages to compensate the dependants is beset with difficulties because from the nature of things, it has to take into account many imponderables, e.g., the life expectancy of the deceased and the dependants, the amount that the deceased would have earned during the remainder of his life, the amount that he would have contributed to the dependants during that period, the chances that the deceased may not have lived or the dependants may not live up to the estimated remaining period of their life expectancy, the chances that the deceased might have got better employment or income or might have lost his employment or income altogether. 5 2025 INSC 179 6 2025 INSC 29 9 GTK, J M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2300 of 2016 & 1698 of 2017 16. It is necessary to reiterate that the multiplier method is logically sound and legally well-established. There are some cases which have proceeded to determine the compensation on the basis of aggregating the entire future earnings for over the period the life expectancy was lost, deducted a percentage there from towards uncertainties of future life and award the resulting sum as compensation. This is clearly unscientific. For instance, if the deceased was, say 25 years of age at the time of death and the life expectancy is 70 years, this method would multiply the loss of dependency for 45 years virtually adoptinga multiplier of 45 and even if one-third or one-fourth is deducted therefrom towards the uncertainties of future life and for immediate lump sum payment, the effective multiplier would be between 30 and 34. This is wholly impermissible. We are, aware that some decisions of the High Courts and of this Court as well have arrived at compensation on some such basis. These decisions cannot be said to have laid down a settled principle. They are merely instances of particular awards in individual cases. The proper method of computation is the multiplier- method. Any departure, except in exceptional and extraordinary cases, would introduce inconsistency of principle, lack of uniformity and an element of unpredictability for the assessment of compensation. Some judgments of the High Courts have justified a departure from the multiplier method on the ground that Section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 insofar as it envisages the compensation to be 'just', the statutory determination of a 'just' compensation would unshackle the exercise from any rigid formula. It must be borne in mind that the multiplier method is the accepted method of ensuring a 'just' compensation which will make for uniformity and certainty of the awards. We disapprove these decisions of the High Courts which have taken a contrary view. We indicate that the multiplier method is the appropriate method, a departure from which can only be justified in rare and extraordinary circumstances and very exceptional cases.” 27. Keeping in view the lack of uniformity and consistency in awarding compensation and variations in adoption of multiplier by courts, this court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. vs Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr [(2009) 6 SCC 121] has well settled the rule for adoption of multiplier very lucidly and has also formulated the principles for assessment of compensation. The relevant paragraphs are enumerated below for perusal: “18. Basically only three facts need to be established by claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death: (a) Age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased; and (c) the number of dependents. The issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are: (i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income; (ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and (iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased. If these determinants are standardized, there will be uniformity and consistency in the decisions. There will be lesser need for detailed evidence. It will 10 GTK, J M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2300 of 2016 & 1698 of 2017 also be easier for the insurance companies to settle the accident claims without delay. 19. To have uniformity and consistency, Tribunals should determine compensation in case of death, by the following well settled steps: Step 1 (Ascertaining the multiplicand): The income of the deceased per annum should be determined. Out of the said income a deduction should be made in regard to the amount which the deceased would have spent on himself by way of personal and living expenses. The balance, which is considered to be the contribution to the dependent family, constitutes the multiplicand. Step 2 (Ascertaining the multiplier): Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This does not mean ascertaining the number of years he would have lived or worked but for the accident. Having regard to several imponderables in life and economic factors a Table of multipliers with reference to the age has been identified by this court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said Table with reference to the age of the deceased. Step 3 (Actual Calculation): The annual contribution to the family (multiplicand) when multiplied by such multiplier gives the “loss of dependency” to the family. 42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.” 23. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Atul Tiwari‟s case (supra) at paragraph No.31 observed as follows: “31. After perusing the judgment of High Court, it can be seen that the High Court has rightly adopted the settled position of law in assessing the notional income and subsequently enhancing the Loss of Income of the petitioner after considering his 60% disability. However, the High Court has utterly failed in delving into the aspect of correctness of compensation granted under other heads by MACT,” 24. In view of the above considerations and taking into the fact of 70% disability and the multiplier method, and income of the petitioner as Rs.15,000/- per month, the income derived would be Rs.1,80,000/- per annum. Thus, the loss of future income on account of the disability of the 11 GTK, J M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2300 of 2016 & 1698 of 2017 claimant can be assessed at Rs.1,80,000/- x 18 x 70/100 = Rs.22,68,000/-. Therefore, the total compensation would come to Rs.27,45,000/- (75,000 + 25,000 + 3,67,000 + 5,000 + 5,000 + 22,68,000). 25. In fine, the Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2300 of 2016 is allowed, enhancing the compensation from Rs.13,41,000/- to Rs.27,45,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum. The respondents are directed to deposit the aforesaid enhanced amount of compensation before the Tribunal, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after deducting the amount, if any, deposited earlier. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the same. The claimant shall pay the deficit court fee on the compensation amount awarded over and above the amount claimed in the Claim Petition. 26. In view of allowing the appeal filed by the claimant, the Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1698 of 2017 filed by the Insurance Company shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 27. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA, J Date : 28-11-2025 BMS