APHC010139582005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) Friday, the Twenty Sixth day of December Two Thousand and Twenty Five The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Motor Accident Civil Between: Yerramasu Srinivasa Rao M/s. Oxygen Equipment Engg. P. limited and another Counsel for the appellant: 1. V.Padmanabha Rao Counsel for the respondents: 1. K.S.N.Murthy 2. Penumaka Venkata Rao Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No: 1913 of 2006 Between: M/s.United India Insurance Co. Ltd Yarramasu Srinivasa Rao and another Counsel for the appellant: 1. Penumaka Venkata Rao Counsel for the respondents: 1. V.Padmanabha Rao The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Friday, the Twenty Sixth day of December Two Thousand and Twenty Five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No: 2204 of 2005 Yerramasu Srinivasa Rao ...Appellant and M/s. Oxygen Equipment Engg. P. limited and another ...Respondents Counsel for the appellant: V.Padmanabha Rao Counsel for the respondents: Penumaka Venkata Rao AND Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No: 1913 of 2006 nited India Insurance Co. Ltd ...Appellant and Yarramasu Srinivasa Rao and another ...Respondents Counsel for the appellant: Penumaka Venkata Rao Counsel for the respondents: V.Padmanabha Rao The Court made the following: [3311] Miscellaneous Appeal No: 2204 of 2005 ...Appellant ...Respondents Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No: 1913 of 2006 ...Appellant ...Respondents 2 M.A.C.M.A.No.2204 of 2005 & 1913 of 2006 Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos: 2204 of 2005 & 1913 of 2006 COMMON JUDGMENT: M.A.C.M.A.No.2204 of 2005 was filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the claimant against the award and the decree dated 17.05.2005 in M.V.O.P.No.749 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Vijayawada. 2. M.A.C.M.A.No.1913 of 2006 was filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the respondent No.2 in the claim petition against the same award and the decree. 3. Since both the appeals arise out of the same award and the decree, they were heard and are disposed together by this common judgment. 4. The claimant filed petition initially seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- and later got enhanced, by amendment, to Rs.26,38,000/- with interest payable @12% p.a. and costs for the injuries and the consequent disability suffered by the claimant in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 10.07.1997. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.9,21,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of realization with proportionate costs payable by the respondents Nos.1 and 2 with joint and several liability. 5. The case of the claimant, is briefly, as follows: a. On 10.07.1997, at about 10 A.M., while the claimant was going on his Yamaha motor cycle bearing No.AP 16 K 3578, along with Koya Srinivas who was a pillion rider, at Ketanakonda 7 K.M. near Ibrahimpatnam Police Station, a lorry bearing No.AAT 9258 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner coming in the opposite direction, while overtaking another lorry ahead of it, hit the motor cycle resulting in 3 M.A.C.M.A.No.2204 of 2005 & 1913 of 2006 the accident. The claimant and the pillion rider fell down and sustained serious and grievous injuries. K.Narasimha Sarma and others witnessed the accident. The driver stopped the lorry and fled away. K.Narasimha Sarma, with the help of others, shifted the claimant and K.Srinivas to Pinnamaneni Poly Clinic, Vijayawada. Later, K.Srinivas succumbed to the injuries. The police registered a case in Crime No.245 of 1997. The claimant sustained the following injuries in the accident: i. Fracture shaft of humurus right with Radial Nerve Paralysis. ii. Fracture shaft of left humurus. iii. Fracture shaft of both bones (left) fore-arm and Radial Nerve Paralysis. iv. Fracture of shaft of femur (right) v. Fracture of shaft of femur (left) vi. Fracture of ribs and scapula vii. Abdominal injury trauma and surgery conducted. viii. Injuries on lips and both upper and lower teeth. b. The claimant was treated for a long period in Pinnamaneni Poly Clinic, Vijayawada, the Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad, Apollo Hospital, Chennai and incurred expenses of Rs.12,50,000/-. The employer of the claimant reimbursed Rs.11,50,000/- on production of bills etc. Balance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was not reimbursed. The claimant was aged about 30 years and drawing gross salary of Rs.15,000/- per month with perks etc., working as Junior Chargeman (Tech.), Indian Oil Corporation, Kondapalli, Krishna District, A.P. The claimant lost his income from salary due to the prolonged treatment. Further, he lost his promotional opportunities in the employment. The claimant suffered permanent physical disablement due to the injuries suffered in the accident and consequently lost his earning capacity and bright future. The claimant sought compensation as follows: 4 M.A.C.M.A.No.2204 of 2005 & 1913 of 2006 Rs.4,50,000/- -- loss of earnings for 30 months Rs.8,000/- -- damage to clothing. Rs.1,00,000/- -- extra nourishment. Rs.1,50,000/- -- medical expenses. Rs.4,00,000/- -- pain and suffering. Rs.2,00,000/- -- mental shock and agony. Rs.6,00,000/- -- permanent disability. Rs.2,80,000/- -- services rendered by family members. Rs.6,60,000/- -- loss of earning capacity / loss of life. Rs.1,00,000/- -- future medical expenses. c. The crime vehicle was owned by the respondent No.1 and insured by the respondent No.2 vide policy No.50504/31/CH/16/000/031291/1997 valid from 25.06.1997 to 24.06.1998. Therefore, the respondents are liable to pay compensation of Rs.26,38,000/- to the claimant. 6. The respondent No.1 remained ex parte. The respondent No.2 filed written statement denying the averments in the petition and pleaded contributory negligence of the claimant and placed burden on the claimant to prove that the driver of the lorry had a valid and effective driving licence on the date of the accident. The amount sought by the claimant is stated to be excessive. This respondent prayed to dismiss the petition with costs. 7. On behalf of the claimant, he got himself examined as P.W.1 and further examined Dr. Ranganathan from Apollo Hospital, Chennai as P.W.2, M.S. Venkata Ramana from Indian Oil Corporation as P.W.3 and Rachapalli Edukondalu as P.W.4 as an eye-witness to the accident. On his behalf, he filed Ex.A1 to A10 and got Ex.X1 to X3 marked. On behalf of the respondent No.2, M.Srinivasacharyulu was examined as R.W.1. No documentary evidence was adduced by the respondents. 5 M.A.C.M.A.No.2204 of 2005 & 1913 of 2006 8. After hearing both the parties and on considering the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 4, and documentary evidence under Ex.A1, A2, A4, A6 and A7, the Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry by rejecting the plea of contributory negligence. The Tribunal observed that except making a suggestion that the claimant did not follow the traffic rules while driving the motor cycle, nothing was elicited in his cross-examination to discredit his testimony. Similarly, the evidence of P.W.4 regarding the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry was also accepted. Besides the oral evidence, reliance was placed on the charge sheet under Ex.A7 by which the investigating officer laid charge against the driver of the lorry. The Tribunal considered the fact that the driver of the lorry stopped the vehicle and fled away and also the report of M.V. Inspector that the accident was not on account of any mechanical failure of the lorry and therefore, the Tribunal decided the issue of negligence against the driver of the lorry. 9. The Tribunal considered the evidence of the claimant regarding the treatment taken in Pinnamaneni Poly Clinic, Vijayawada, Apollo Hospitals at Hyderabad and Chennai, which goes to show that he had taken treatment for 695 actual days in the hospitals and treatment till the year 2001 and that as per the evidence, the claimant underwent 29 surgeries as he suffered almost all the bones in his body fractured. 10. The Tribunal further recorded the fact that the claimant applied for mutual divorce along with his wife in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda (on account of his disability). 11. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.9,21,000/- with interest payable @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition i.e. 24.09.1999 till the date of realisation with proportionate costs. The different heads under which the amounts granted are as follows: 6 M.A.C.M.A.No.2204 of 2005 & 1913 of 2006 Loss of earnings : Rs.4,00,000/- Transport to hospital and damage to clothing and articles: 8,000/- Extra nourishment: Rs.50,000/- Medical expenses: Rs.22,398/- Pain and suffering: Rs.2,50,000/- Permanent disability and loss of amenities: Rs.1,00,000/- Loss of marital bliss, loss of affection: Rs.40,000/- Services rendered by family members: Rs.50,000/- 12. The appellant / claimant contends that the Tribunal ought to have granted Rs.1,00,000/- for extra nourishment, instead of Rs.50,000/-; Rs.4,00,000/- for pain and suffering; Rs.6,00,000/- for permanent disability, instead of Rs.1,00,000/-; Rs.4,00,000/- for loss of marital bliss as he got divorced; Rs.2,00,000/- for conveyance, food, clothing and miscellaneous expenses, instead of Rs.50,000/-; Rs.1,50,000/- towards medical expenses which were not reimbursed; Rs.1,00,000/- for future medical expenses and Rs.3,50,000/- for future loss of earnings, instead of declining it. 13. On the other hand, the appellant / insurance company contended that the Tribunal awarded huge amount of compensation by considering his salary as Rs.15,000/- per month without filing any salary certificate and also under different other heads. He further contended that the claimant did not produce any evidence that he was absent from the date for a period of 52 months and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have observed that there is no loss of income. With regard to permanent disability, future loss of earnings etc., the appellant / insurance company contended that the doctor gave evidence that the claimant can attend his job work in the usual course and moreover, there is no evidence of demotion or reducing the rank of the petitioner or his salary. It is also contended that the employer paid the claimant Rs.26,00,000/- towards 7 M.A.C.M.A.No.2204 of 2005 & 1913 of 2006 medical and hospitalisation expenses and that without following due process of law, erroneously granted Rs.2,50,000/- for pain and suffering. Similarly, it is claimed that the Tribunal ought to have rejected claim for marital bliss and service rendered by the family members and that the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/3rd of the salary for his personal expenses. He further contended that the insurance company which insured the vehicle of the claimant ought to have been impleaded and so the claim is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of proper and necessary party and that the Tribunal failed to fix contributory negligence of the claimant. With regard to the rate of interest, the appellant / insurance company contended that the Tribunal ought to have followed RBI guidelines. 14. Since it is a case of permanent disability, the method of calculation of compensation is guided by the decision in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another1, wherein the Supreme Court summarized the following principles at paragraph No.13: “13. 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 1 Neutral Citation: 2010 INSC 703 8 M.A.C.M.A.No.2204 of 2005 & 1913 of 2006 capacity is the same as 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 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.” 15. Therefore, for every case of permanent disability, the multiplier method cannot be adopted to evaluate the compensation payable. It is only if the disability results in reduction of future earnings, depending on the percentage of the future loss of income, the amount of compensation shall be calculated. 16. As the claimant is an employee drawing fixed amount of salary and is continuing in a different job under the same employer, he can be compensated for loss of income to the extent of reduction, if any. As the loss of future income is also dependant on several factors, it cannot be accurately calculated. In the case on hand, the post of claimant was changed from field to the desk work and thereby, there was reduction in the amount of income to a certain extent. Due to non-performance of his job for the period under which he was under treatment, there can be monetary loss due to postponement of increments, permissions etc. But, for all these aspects, unless there is definite income with particulars relevant to assess the specified amount, it is all reasonable guess work basing on the available evidence. It is not just enough to consider that 9 M.A.C.M.A.No.2204 of 2005 & 1913 of 2006 the claimant suffered financial loss on account of his absence from duty for long period affecting his career both in terms of change of post, the promotional chances and consequent reduction in income on several criteria as discussed above. Therefore, the Tribunal, evaluated all these aspects and awarded lumpsum amount which is just and reasonable. 17. Merely because the claimant suffered several injuries and multiple fractures, when he recovered from all such injuries and is able to perform his job, the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under various heads noted above are not on low side. Certain amounts were granted on notional basis considering the facts and circumstances in this case, even in the absence of any proof of actual loss. If at all the appellant / claimant has incurred any additional medical expenses beyond the amount granted by the Tribunal, he ought to have adduced additional evidence in the appeal to substantiate his contention that he needed more amount towards future medical expenses. In the absence of any evidence of actual loss to be established, merely on ground of mercy or sympathy, the claimant cannot claim more amount. 18. The rate of interest granted by the Tribunal, being just and reasonable, cannot be interfered either at the instance of the claimant or the insurance company. 19. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ B. S. BHANUMATHI, J Dt.26.12.2025 PNV