APHC010375992006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 844/2006 Between: 1. B.PULLA REDDY, S/O.B.AKKI REDDY, HINDU WORKING AS COMMERCIAL TRAINEE, E&T LTD., BHOGA SAMUDRAM R/O.TADIPATRI TOWN, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 1. C L SREE HARINATH ANR, S/O.C.LAKSHMAIAH, OWNER OF THE MATADOR VAN BEARING NO.AP 02 T 2325 R/O.D.NO.15/451, KAMALANAGAR, ANANTAPUR. 2. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, REP BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., ANANTAPUR. Counsel for the Appellant: 1. INENI VENKATA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. RAMA MOHAN RAO KOTHA 2. . 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 844/2006 B.PULLA REDDY, S/O.B.AKKI REDDY, HINDU WORKING AS COMMERCIAL TRAINEE, E&T LTD., BHOGA SAMUDRAM R/O.TADIPATRI TOWN, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND C L SREE HARINATH ANR, S/O.C.LAKSHMAIAH, HINDU, MAJOR OWNER OF THE MATADOR VAN BEARING NO.AP 02 T 2325 R/O.D.NO.15/451, KAMALANAGAR, ANANTAPUR. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, REP BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., ANANTAPUR. ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: INENI VENKATA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): RAMA MOHAN RAO KOTHA IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3520] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 844/2006 B.PULLA REDDY, S/O.B.AKKI REDDY, HINDU WORKING AS COMMERCIAL TRAINEE, E&T LTD., BHOGA SAMUDRAM ...APPELLANT HINDU, MAJOR OWNER OF THE MATADOR VAN BEARING NO.AP 02 T 2325 NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, REP BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 3018/2012 Between: 1. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY REP., BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER,, ANANTHAPUR. ...APPELLANT AND 1. B PULLA REDDY, S/o.B.AKKI REDDY WORKING AS COMMERCIAL TRAINEE L & T LIMITED BHOGA SAMUDRAM, RESIDING AT TADIPATRI TOWN, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT. 2. C L SREE HARINATH, S/O. C. LAKSHMIAHA, MAJOR OWNER OF THE MATADOR VAN BEARING NO.AP-02-T-2325, RESIDING D.NO.15/451, KAMALANAGAR, ANANTHAPUR. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant: 1. RAMA MOHAN RAO KOTHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA M.A.C.M.A.Nos.844 of 2006 and MACMA No.3018 of 2012 COMMON JUDGMENT: Introduction:- 1. [i] The claimant in O.P.No.339 of 2000 on the file of Court of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- VI Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Ananthapur at Gooty [for short “MACT”], preferred the appeal in M.A.C.M.A.No.844 of 2006 and the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company in the said O.P., preferred the appeal in MACMA No.3018 of 2012. [ii] The 1st respondent before the learned MACT is the owner of the Matador Van bearing No.AP 02 T 2325 and remained ex parte. [iii] Both the appeals are arising out of the judgment dated 30.09.2005 in O.P.No.339 of 2000 and the case is arising out of an accident that occurred on 20.06.1999. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties will be herein after referred to as the claimant and the respondents, with reference to their status before the learned MACT. Case of the claimant :- 3. [i] On the fateful day i.e., on 20.06.1999, the petitioner was travelling in Matador Van bearing No.AP 02 T 2325 [for short ‘the offending vehicle’] from Hindupur to Anantapur, at about 7.30 p.m., while the offending vehicle was near Gollpalli in the process of overtaking R.T.C. bus, it dashed against the lorry bearing No.AP 10 T 9513 coming in opposite 4 direction, with the result, accident has occurred. The petitioner sustained grievous injuries. Got admitted in Government Head Quarters Hospital, Anantapur, and was subsequently shifted to St.John’s Hospital, Banglore and treated as in patient for a period of one month by spending huge amounts for medical and other incidental expenses. He has lost tooth and took treatment under the supervision of Dr.U.Prem Kumar Reddy, Dentist, Kurnool. Some others travelling in the offending vehicle died instantaneously, while some sustained injuries. [ii] Negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle is the cause for the accident. A case was registered against the driver vide Crime No.68 of 1999 under Sections 337, 338, 304-A IPC. [iii] The 1st respondent being the owner of the offending vehicle and the 2nd respondent being the insurer, are liable to pay just and reasonable compensation. [iv] Further the claimant/petitioner claimed that he was hale and healthy, aged about ‘29’ years, working as Commercial Trainee in L & T limited, Tadipatri and getting a sum of Rs.2700/- per month towards salary. He is the sole bread winner of the family and due to the accident, life of himself and his family became dark. Hence, entitled for just and reasonable compensation. 5 Case of the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company:- 4. [i] Claimant/petitioner shall prove the pleaded accident, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, age, occupation, income, injuries suffered as well as nature and effect of injuries, valid and effective driving licence for the driver of the offending vehicle and compliance of the Insurance Policy conditions. [ii] The petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. 5. On the strength of pleadings, learned MACT settled the following issues for trial: 1) Whether the accident occurred on 20.06.1999 due to rash and negligent driving of the van bearing No. AP 02 T 2325 by its driver, dashed against the lorry bearing No.AP 10 T 9513 and caused injuries to the petitioner? 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from which respondent? 3) To what relief? Evidence before the learned MACT: 6(i). Documentary evidence:- Sl.No. Marked as Description Remarks 1 Ex.A1 Certified copy of the F.I.R. in Cr.No.68 of 1999 For the Claimant/ petitioner 2 Ex.A2 Wound Certificate of the petitioner issued by the Government Hospital. 3. Ex.A3 Wound Certificate of the petitioner issued by St.John’s Medical College Hospital, Bangalore. 4. Ex.A4 Certificate issued by Dr.Premakuma Reddy, Dentist. 5. Ex.A5 Copy of the Final report issued by Inspector of 6 Police, Raptadu Police Station. 6. Ex.A6 Salary Certificate of the claimant/petitioner 7. Ex.A7 Bunch of Medical Bills. (41 in No.) 8 Ex.X1 Case Sheet 9. Ex.X2 X-ray reports, four X-rays 10. Ex.X3 C.T. Scan (ii) ORAL EVIDENCE: The claimant was examined as PW.1 and one C.Rajagopal Reddy, Doctor, who treated the claimant, is examined as PW.2. [iii] No oral or documentary evidence is adduced for the respondents. Findings of the learned MACT:- 7. [i] The petitioner is an eye witness examined as PW.1, stated about his travel, occurrence of accident, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, injuries suffered. [ii] In view of the evidence of PW.1 and crime record, the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle is believed, wound certificate is reflecting injuries, and Doctor opined that the injuries are grievous in nature. 40% disability to brain, 30% disability to chest, total disability at 25% to whole body was stated by the Doctor. However, no disability certificate is issued. Ex.A4 is the certificate is issued by the Dentist, but the same is not proved. In the light of the evidence, the claimant is entitled for Rs.12,000/- towards grievous injuries. Rs.10,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenditure and in all the 7 claimant is entitled for Rs.44,000/- with interest @9% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit or realization. [iii] Aggrieved by the quantification of compensation done at only Rs.44,000/-, the claimant has filed the appeal vide MACMA No.844 of 2006 and the Insurance Company/2nd respondent has preferred the appeal vide MACMA No.3018 of 2012 questioning the liability and quantification of compensation. Arguments/Grounds urged in the appeal:- For the Claimant/petitioner:- 8. [i] The compensation ought to have been awarded under all heads. [ii] Disability should have been considered. [iii] Evidence of PW.2 ought to have given weight in accepting the disability. [iv] The compensation awarded is very low and the learned MACT ought to have awarded more compensation than what claimed. [v] Medical expenditure claimed and record placed has been erroneously ignored. For the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company:- 9. [i] Non-Joinder necessary parties, viz., owner, driver and the Insurance Company of the lorry, is ignored erroneously. 8 [ii] It is the case of the composite negligence but the same has been ignored erroneously. [iii] Liability ought to have fastened at 50% on the respondents and 50% on the driver of the lorry, who was coming in opposite direction, who is not made as a party. 10. Heard both sides extensively. 11. Perused the record carefully and thoughtful consideration given to the arguments advanced by the both sides. 12. Now, the points that arise for determination in these appeals are - 1) Whether the claim petition is bad for non-joinder? And whether the negligence ought to have apportioned between the offending vehicle and the lorry which was coming in opposite direction? 2) Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation? If so, compensation of Rs.44,000/- awarded by the learned MACT is just and reasonable or require any modification? By way of enhancement or reduction? If so, at what tune? 3) What is the result of the appeal in MACMA No.844 of 2006? 4) What is the result of the appeal in MACMA No.3018 of 2012? Point No.1 :- A. Statutory Guidance:- 13. Section 176 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides that for the purpose of implementation of provisions of Section 165 to 174 of the Act, the State 9 Government may make Rules, on various aspects, provided thereunder. For better appreciation, Section 176 of the M.V. Act, reads as under:- “176. Power of State Government to make rules. - A State Government may make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of sections 165 to 174, and in particular, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely: (a) the form of application for claims for compensation and the particulars it may contain, and the fees, if any, to be paid in respect of such applications; (b) the procedure to be followed by a Claims Tribunal in holding an inquiry under this Chapter; (c) the powers vested in a Civil Court which may be exercised by a Claims Tribunal; (d) the form and the manner in which and the fees (if any) on payment of which an appeal may be preferred against an award of a Claims Tribunal; and(e)any other matter which is to be, or may be, prescribed. 14. In terms of provisions of Section 176 of M.V. Act, the A.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 are framed. Chapter XI of the Rules deals with the claims Tribunal and the examination, consideration and disposal of the claim applications, covered under Rule 455 to 476-A. Sub-rule (7) of Rule 476, provides that the claims Tribunal shall proceed to award the claims on the basis of material contemplated under the said provisions. Rule 476 sub-Rule(7) reads as under :- “476. (7) Basis to award the claim :- The Claims Tribunal shall proceed to award the claim on the basis of;- 10 (i) Registration Certificate of the Motor Vehicle involved in the accident; (ii) Insurance Certificate or Policy relating to the insurance of the Motor Vehicle against the Third party risk; (iii) Copy of First Information Report; (iv) Post-mortem certificate or certificate of inquiry from the Medical Officer; and (v) The nature of the treatment given by the Medical Officer who has examined the victim. B. Precedential Guidance:- 15. It is relevant to note that in view of the summary nature and mode of enquiry contemplated under Motor Vehicles Act and social welfare nature of legislation, the Tribunal shall have holistic view with reference to facts and circumstances of each case. It is sufficient if there is probability. The principle of standard of proof, beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied while considering a claim seeking compensation for the death or the injury on account of road accident. The touch stone of the case, the claimant shall have to establish is preponderance of probability only. The legal position to this extent is settled and consistent. 16. This Court finds it relevant to note the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court made in Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation1, which reads as under: “15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular 1 2009 (13) SCC 530 11 manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied. For the said purpose, the High Court should have taken into consideration the respective stories set forth by both the parties..” 17. In a case between New India Assurance Company Ltd., Vs. Kethavarapu Sathyavathi and Ors.2, the Hon’ble Division Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh has referred to Section 168, 169 of M.V. Act and Rule 476(7) of A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules and also catena of decisions. The point for consideration before the Hon’ble Division Bench was that in holding an inquiry in terms of Motor Vehicles Act, what is the procedure to be followed and whether the F.I.R. can be basis for considering the claim. Observations in para 5 to 7 are as follows: “5. Point: Under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the Act"), the Claims Tribunal shall give the parties an opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry into the claim and make an award determining just compensation, etc. In holding any such inquiry, Section 169 of the Act mandates the Tribunal to follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit subject to rules. The Tribunal was conferred with the powers of a civil Court for the specified purposes and under Rule 476 of the Rules, the Claims Tribunal was directed to follow the procedure of summary trial as contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Tribunal was cautioned not to reject any application on the ground of any technical flaw and was also obligated to obtain whatever information necessary from the police, medical and other authorities. It is true that sub-rule (7) of Rule 476 of the Rules states that the Claims 2 2009 Supreme (AP) 136=2010(2) ALD 403=2009(3) ALT 260 12 Tribunal shall proceed to award the claim on the basis of registration certificate of the motor vehicle, insurance certificate or Policy, copy of first information report, post-mortem certificate or certificate of inquiry from the medical officer and the nature of treatment given by the medical Officer. 6. The said sub-rule obviously refers to the relevant dependable criteria for assessment of the compensation, which is patently illustrative and can never be considered to be exhaustive. This Sub-rule stating the basis to award the claim, is obviously subject to the prohibition against depending on any technical flaw and the procedure for summary trial to be followed by the Tribunal. The said sub-rule cannot travel beyond the statutory obligation imposed on the Tribunal to determine the just compensation after an inquiry, in which an opportunity of being heard is given to the parties. The judicial determination of the questions in controversy before the Tribunal in terms of Sections 168 and 169 of the Act cannot be confined to consideration of the five documents referred to in sub-rule (7) of Rule 476 of the Rules alone and exclude any other oral or documentary evidence. The procedure of summary trial under the Code of Criminal Procedure which the Tribunal shall follow under Rule 476 of the Rules itself mandates taking all such evidence as may be produced by both sides in support of their respective versions, apart from the evidence which the Court, of its own motion, causes to be produced as per Section 262 read with Sections 254 and 255 of the said Code. Sub-rule (7) to be understood in the light of the object and scheme of the Act, is a directory provision referring to some of the documents which can offer guidance to the Tribunal in discharge of its statutory duty and the word "shall" used in the said: subrule has to be necessarily understood as "may". 7. That apart, to say that the, first information report alone should be the conclusive basis for determining the manner of the accident, even in spite of the availability of other dependable evidence on record on that aspect, will be offending the plain language of the statute and if that were the purport of sub- rule (7), it cannot be considered valid, as any such delegated legislation cannot travel beyond the legislation itself.” 13 Evidence and Analysis:- 18. The claimant as PW.1, who is none other than the eye witness stated about the occurrence of accident and negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, registration of crime by the Police against the driver etc.. No evidence is placed on the respondent side. During the cross-examination of PW.1, nothing is elicited to show that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle except suggestion that there was no negligence. What happened to criminal case, why the evidence of any other eye witnesses is placed on record is not even whispered by the respondent-Insurance Company. Ex.A5, a copy of final report shows that the case was dropped as abated, in view of the death of the driver of the offending vehicle. 19. Even according to the grounds of the appeal filed by the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company vide MACMA No.3018 of 2012, the allegation is that it is a case of composite negligence. Claimant is a third party. In a case of composite negligence, every tort feaser is liable jointly and severally for the whole claim. Therefore, the defence pressed into service is not fortified either on facts or under law. Accordingly, it is found that the defence is not tenable and findings of as to the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle arrived by the learned MACT are fit to be concurred and confirmed. 14 20. For the aforesaid reasons, point framed is answered against the Insurance Company and in favour of the claimant concluding the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle is the cause for the accident. There is no material to accept the negligence on the part of the lorry etc., and to accept the contention that the petition is not maintainable on the ground of non-joinder of the necessary parties. Point No.2:- 21. [i] Claimant suffered injuries in the accident. [ii] Negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle is the cause for the accident. [iii] The 1st respondent, owner of the offending vehicle, remained ex parte. [iv] Admittedly, the 2nd respondent is authorized insurer, with whom the vehicle was insured. [v] Violation of conditions of the Insurance Policy is not proved. [vi] No evidence is adduced on behalf of the respondent-Insurance Company. Therefore, the entitlement of the claimant for compensation and liability of the respondents to pay are clear. Therefore, the only point remains for determination is, what is the just and reasonable compensation to which the claimant/petitioner is entitled? 15 Precedential Guidance:- 22. A reference to parameters, for quantifying the compensation under various heads, addressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court is found necessary, to have standard base in the process of quantifying the compensation, to which the claimant is entitled. (i) With regard to awarding just and reasonable quantum of compensation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Baby Sakshi Greola vs. Manzoor Ahmad Simon and Anr.3, arising out of SLP(c).No.10996 of 2018 on 11.12.2024, considered the scope and powers of the Tribunal in awarding just and compensation within the meaning of Act, after marshaling entire case law, more particularly with reference to the earlier observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court made in Kajal V. Jagadish Chand and Ors.4, referred to various heads under which, compensation can be awarded, in injuries cases vide paragraph No.52, the heads are as follows:- S. No. Head Amount (In ₹) 1. Medicines and Medical Treatment xxxxx 2. Loss of Earning Capacity due to Disability xxxxx 3. Pain and Suffering xxxxx 4. Future Treatment xxxxx 5. Attendant Charges xxxxx 6. Loss of Amenities of Life xxxxx 7. Loss of Future Prospect xxxxx 8. Special Education Expenditure xxxxx 9. Conveyance and Special Diet xxxxx 10. Loss of Marriage Prospects xxxxxx _________ Total Rs. …xxxxxx _________ 32025 AIAR (Civil) 1 42020 (04) SCC 413 16 (ii). Hon’ble Apex Court in Yadava Kumar Vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited and Anr.,5 vide para No.10, by referring to Sunil Kumar Vs. Ram Singh Gaud6,as to application of multiplier method in case of injuries while calculating loss of future earnings, in para 16 referring to Hardeo Kaur Vs. Rajasthan State Transport Corporation7, as to fixing of quantum of compensation with liberal approach, valuing the life and limb of individual in generous scale, in para 17 observed that :- “The High Court and the Tribunal must realize that there is a distinction between compensation and damage. The expression compensation may include a claim for damage but compensation is more comprehensive. Normally damages are given for an injury which is suffered, whereas compensation stands on a slightly higher footing. It is given for the atonement of injury caused and the intention behind grant of compensation is to put back the injured party as far as possible in the same position, as if the injury has not taken place, by way of grant of pecuniary relief. Thus, in the matter of computation of compensation, the approach will be slightly more broad based than what is done in the matter of assessment of damages. At the same time it is true that there cannot be any rigid or mathematical precision in the matter of determination of compensation.” (iii). In Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another8 vide para No.19, the Hon’ble Apex Court summarized principles to be followed in the process of quantifying the compensation after referring to socio economic and practical aspects from which, the claimants come and the practical difficulties, the parties may face in the process of getting disability assessed 52010(10)SCC 341 6 2007 (14) SCC 61 7 1992(2) SCC 567 8 2011 (1) SCC 343 17 and getting all certificates from either the Doctors, who treated, or from the medical boards etc., it is observed that :- “…We may now summarise 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). (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…” (iv) In Sidram vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr.9 vide para No.40, the Hon’ble Apex Court referred to the general principles relating to compensation in injury cases and assessment of future loss of earning due to permanent disability by referring to Rajkumar’s case, and also various heads under which compensation can be awarded to a victim of a motor vehicle accident. (v) In Sidram’s case, reference is made to a case in R.D. Hattangadi V. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd.10. From the observations 9 2023 (3) SCC 439 10 1995 (1) SCC 551 18 made therein, it can be understood that while fixing amount of compensation in cases of accident, it involves some guess work, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of the disability caused. But, all these elements have to be viewed with objective standards. In assessing damages, the Court must exclude all considerations of matter which rest in awarding speculation or fancy, though conjecture to some extent is inevitable. Analysis of Evidence:- 23. Claimant as PW.1 deposed that he suffered accident and was shifted to Government Headquarters Hospital, Anantapur, from there to St.John’s Medical College, Hospital, Bangalore and he undergone operation at Bangalore. Thereafter, took treatment Dr.U.Prem Kumar Reddy, Dentist, Kurnool spent Rs.80,000/- towards medical and other expenses suffered disability. He was in hospital for (11) days and thereafter treated as out- patient. Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 are the wound certificates and Ex.A4 is the certificate issued by Dr.Prem Kumar Reddy, Dentist, Kurnool. Ex.A6 is the Salary Certificate and the Ex.A7 is the bunch of Medical Bills(Nos.41) standing for Rs.24,031/-. 24. PW.2- Doctor, who treated the petitioner, deposed that he is working as senior Causality Medical Officer, St.Johm Medical College Hospital, Bangalore; he examined the claimant/petitioner and found the following injuries: 19 1. Lacerated wound on left frontal region, sutured at Anantapur Hospital. Head injury. C.T. Scan was done with showed frontal lobe contusion fracture of the orbit and zygoma bone. 2. Pain and tenderness over left side of chest. X-ray showed hemopnuemo thorax left side. The petitioner was admitted in neuro surgery from 20.06.199 to 06.07.1999. First injury was treated conservatively. Injury No.2 was treated with inter costal drainage tube. Both the injuries are grievous in nature. 25. He has also deposed that the petitioner/claimant complained about the pain on left side of the chest and right side of the chest on deep breathing. X-ray discloses plural adhesions on both sides of the chest. Physiology test done on 02.06.2005 reveals disturbances in front temporal lobes in terms of disturbance of both verbal and visual working memory and visual integration functions. He assessed the permanent disability of the chest at 30% and 10% for whole body and brain at 40% and 15% of whole body. Totally 25% for the whole body. 26. No doubt the disability certificate from Medical Board is not produced but the disability stated cannot be totally ignored. The income of the deceased/claimant is shown around Rs.2600/- as per Ex.A6, the possibility of progress in the income at least 30% can be taken, whereby the income can be accepted at Rs.3000/- and the disability if taken at Rs.20%, the loss of income can be accepted at Rs.600/- per month and the same comes to 20 Rs.7200/- p.a.. For the age group of ‘30’ the multiplier applicable is ‘17’, whereby the entitlement of the claimant for the income under the head of loss of earnings due to disability comes to [Rs.7200 x 17] = 1,22,400/-. Medical expenditure is shown around Rs.24,000/-, considering the bills under Ex.A7, Rs.30,000/- can be awarded as compensation under the head of medical expenditure. Towards Transportation and attendant charges Rs.20,000/- under each head can be awarded to the claimant. Towards pain and suffering for the two injuries suffered, Rs.25,000/- each can be awarded. 27. Thus, the entitlement of the claimant for reasonable compensation under all the heads, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the precedential guidance mentioned above, in comparison to compensation awarded by the learned MACT is concluded as follows: S.No. Head Granted by the learned MACT Fixed by this Appellate Court 1. Medicines and Medical Treatment [Medical Expenditure] Rs.10,000/- Rs.30,000/- 2. Loss of earning capacity due to disability [loss of future earnings] -Nil Rs.1,22,400/- 3. Pain and suffering [for the two injuries suffered] Rs.10,000/- Rs.24,000/- [Rs.12,000/- each x 2] Rs.50,000/- [Rs.25,000/- eachx 2] 4. Future medical needs -Nil- -Nil 5. Attendant Charges -Nil Rs.20,000/- 6. Loss of amenities -Nil- -Nil- 7. Travelling and extra nourishment etc. -Nil Rs.20,000/- Total Rs.44,000/- Rs. 2,42,400/- 21 28. For the aforestated reasons and discussions made, it is found that the claimant is entitled for a compensation of Rs.2,42,400/-. Therefore, the impugned award and decree dated 30.09.2005 requires modification to that effect, and the compensation awarded by the learned MACT is enhanced to Rs.2,42,400/-. However, considering the long pendency of the case, interest component is restricted to @7.5% p.a. Point No.2 framed is answered accordingly. Points No.4 and 5: 29. In the result, MACMA No.3018 of 2012 filed by the 2nd respondent- Insurance Company is dismissed and MACMA No. 844 of 2006 filed by the claimant is partly allowed as follows:- [i] The compensation of Rs.44,000/- with interest @9% p.a. awarded under the impugned decree and order dated 30.09.2005 is modified and enhanced to Rs.2,42,400/- with interest @7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. [ii] The claimant/petitioner is entitled to withdraw the compensation amount at once, on deposit. [iii] Time for depositing the balance compensation amount is two (02) months. 22 [iv] No costs in the facts and circumstances. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed. ____________________________ A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J Date: 04.09..2025 Pnr 23 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA M.A.C.M.A.No.844 of 2006 and MACMA No.3018 of 2012 [COMMON JUDGMENT] Dt. 04.09.2025 Pnr