Reserved for orders on : 24.08.2026 Pronounced on : 18.09.2026 Date of uploading :18.09.2026 Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether full judgment is pronounced : FULL. APHC010879762017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2772 of 2017 [3584] Oleti Diwakar Naidu, Kadapa District ...Appellant Vs. M/s. Pioneers Builders Ltd, Anantapur Dist and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE LISA GILL SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE :18th September 2026 Present: Advocate for Appellant: MR. M S P KAMARAJU Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): MRS. A JAYANTHI *** JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Gunaranjan) The injured claimant preferred present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 (for short “the Act”), being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation determined vide Award, dated 27.09.2016, passed in M.V.O.P. No.338 of 2015 by 2 HCJ & CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A. No.2772 of 2017 the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa (for short “the Tribunal”). 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they were arrayed in the M.V.O.P. before the Tribunal. 3. Facts in brief are as follows: (a) Claimant, aged 39 years, was working as Purchase In- charge in Star Alfa General Trading Company at Kuwait and earning about ₹1,50,000/- per month. While in India, on 13.10.2014, he, along with others, was proceeding in a car bearing registration No.AP-04 AR- 7389 from Rajampet to Tirupati. At about 02.30 p.m., when they reached Anjaneyapuram village, lorry bearing registration No.KA 21A 0232 driven by its driver, suddenly turned towards the road from a static position without any prior indication or signal, resulting in both vehicles dashing against each other. Claimant and other inmates of car sustained injuries, and one Mr. M. Subbarayudu, succumbed due to severe injuries. They were all shifted to Government Hospital at Tirupati and then to private hospital for better treatment. Claimant underwent surgery to his left hip, and steel rods were inserted, nevertheless, he sustained disability. The doctors certified that claimant suffered 40% functional disability. 3 HCJ & CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A. No.2772 of 2017 (b) The incident was reported to police, and Crime No.174 of 2014, for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC and also Sections 134(a) and (b) r/w.187 of the M.V. Act was registered against the driver of offending lorry. After investigation, police laid charge sheet against the driver of the offending lorry. (c) Claimant incurred various amounts towards medical expenditure and also on account of permanent disability, he was not continued in the employment and deprived of earnings, therefore, claim was laid seeking compensation of ₹50,00,000/- along with interest. 4. 1strespondent, owner of lorry, filed written statement denying the occurrence of accident as well as claimant sustaining injuries besides death of another person. Further, even otherwise, it was also pleaded that the accident, if any, that occurred was due to rash and negligent driving of driver of car and not that of driver of lorry. The nature of injuries and treatment availed by claimant were also denied, besides disputing the avocation, age, and income of claimant. 5. 2ndrespondent, insurer, filed written statement, inter alia, pleading that the driver of car was at fault due to his negligence, without noticing that lorry was taking turn, dashed the same. Since there was collision between vehicles, the negligence was solely 4 HCJ & CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A. No.2772 of 2017 attributable to driver of car. It was also pleaded that the injury sustained and medical treatment availed were false and that there was no permanent disability as such, therefore, claimant was not entitled for compensation in any manner. The insurer also filed additional written statement, after enhancement of claim from ₹15,00,000/- to ₹50,00,000/-, denying the avocation of injured, as well as the claim basis as per Indian currency to be excessive and exorbitant for sustaining simple injuries. 6. 3rdrespondent, driver of offending lorry, remained ex parte. 7. Basing on the aforesaid pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: “1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.KA21A 0232 on 13.10.2014? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief?” 8. Claimant examined PW.1 to PW.4 and marked Exs.A1 to A9 and Ex.A1. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of respondents. 9. The Tribunal, after appreciating both oral and documentary evidence on record, answered first issue in favour of claimant, holding 5 HCJ & CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A. No.2772 of 2017 that he sustained injuries in the accident occurred due to negligent driving of driver of offending lorry. For coming to such conclusion, Tribunal relied on Ex.A1 FIR and Ex.A2 charge sheet, coupled with evidence of PW1 himself. Insofar as the quantum of compensation, though, claimant pleaded that as Purchase In-charge, he was earning 550 Kuwaiti dinars per month, which is equivalent to ₹1,15,000/- per month in Indian currency and PW.4, claiming to be representative of employer of claimant, examined and Ex.A5 salary certificate was produced, the Tribunal disbelieved the same, however, determined income of claimant at ₹15,000/- per month on notional basis. As claimant was aged 39 years, it applied multiplier of 15 for the purpose of assessing future earnings. Based on the evidence of PW.2 and PW.3, doctors who treated the claimant and issued disability certificate under Ex.A9, functional disability was assessed as 40%. Further, considering medical treatment availed by the claimant, ₹88,000/- was awarded towards medical expenditure. Thus, in all, the Tribunal awarded the following amounts along with interest at the rate of 9%. 1. Medical treatment ₹ 88,000.00 2. Loss of income ₹ 30,000.00 3. Towards pain and suffering ₹ 50,000.00 4. Transport charges ₹ 25,000.00 5. Towards permanent disability ₹ 50,000.00 6. Loss of future earnings ₹10,80,000.00 Total ₹13,23,000.00 6 HCJ & CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A. No.2772 of 2017 10. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation so determined, present appeal is preferred. 11. The insurer is not in appeal either on liability or quantum. Therefore, there is no dispute with regard to occurrence of accident and negligence of driver of offending lorry. 12. Heard Mr.M.S.P. Kamaraju, learned counsel for appellant/claimant and Mrs.A.Jayanthi, learned counsel for 2nd respondent-insurer. 13. The main contentious point between the parties in the present case is with regard to income of claimant. As per claimant, as Purchase In-charge, working at Kuwait, he was earning 550 Kuwaiti dinars per month. In support, claimant relied on Ex.A5 salary certificate, Ex.A8 attested passport, besides examining PW.4, General Manager of Star Alfa General Trading Company, Kuwait. As per the said evidence, it was claimed that the factum of claimant being at Kuwait in various spells from the year 2009 onwards stands substantiated (basis Ex.A8 passport) and further was paid salary of 550 Kuwaiti dinars per month (basis Ex.A5 salary certificate). In the evidence of PW.4, it was categorically stated that claimant was working as Purchase In-charge since 01.09.2009 and was earning 550 7 HCJ & CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A. No.2772 of 2017 Kuwaiti Dinars per month and on account of the accident and injury suffered, he was unable to perform the duties of Purchase In-charge, thus, stopped attending to the job. He also confirmed issuance of Ex.A5 salary certificate. However, during the cross-examination, he admitted that claimant never worked under him and he did not pay salary and further that there is no proof filed to establish that claimant was paid salary through bank transfer in any of the commercial banks at Kuwait. Considering aforesaid evidence, Tribunal has completely disbelieved the version of claimant, and assessed his income on notional basis at ₹15,000/- per month. 14. On deeper scrutiny and examination of aforesaid evidence, we are of the view that Ex.A8 demonstrates that claimant was staying at Kuwait for substantial period from 2006 onwards till the occurrence of accident. He visited India once in a while. Thus, the stay of claimant at Kuwait clearly stands established. Insofar as the avocation and income are concerned, Ex.A5 is one piece of evidence certifying that claimant was working as Purchase In-charge since 01.09.2009 till the occurrence of accident. It also indicates that claimant was paid 550 Kuwaiti dinars per month. PW.4, who issued the said certificate, was examined to confirm the same. However, in the cross-examination, there is a slight inconsistency with regard to the method and manner of 8 HCJ & CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A. No.2772 of 2017 payment of salary. We cannot completely disbelieve and discard aforesaid evidence and be oblivious to the situation of a person staying at Kuwait for substantial period without minimum earnings to sustain himself and also family. The family of claimant was residing at his native place in India, therefore, claimant was visiting the family on and off. 15. Keeping in mind aforesaid evidence and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the claimant was gainfully employed and earning 550 Kuwaiti dinars per month. The Tribunal was not justified in disbelieving aforesaid evidence and merely assessing the income on a notional basis. Having said that, the other issue that needs to be addressed is whether the income earned in foreign currency be converted to Indian Rupees and determine the multiplicand basis the principles and ratio laid down in various judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in regard to compensation. The three-Judge Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in United India Insurance Company Limited v. Satinder Kaur1, considering the case of deceased who was living and earning in a foreign country i.e. Qatar, assessed the income taking into account the local currency and then applied exchange rate prevailing in India. Further, 50% of the same was deducted towards personal expenses because of the higher cost 1(2021) 11 SCC 780 9 HCJ & CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A. No.2772 of 2017 of living there. Though learned counsel for respondent insurer brought to our notice judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Tharunoju Eshwaramma v. K. Ram Reddy2, which, after referring to various other judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court on the very same point, referred the issues to be decided by a larger bench for authoritative pronouncement. With great respect, having regard to the fact that injured has not been retired as on date, we follow the three-Judge Bench judgment in Satinder Kaur1. 16. Accordingly, we assess the income of claimant at 550 Kuwaiti dinars, and by applying conversion rate as applicable on the date of accident i.e., 1 KWD =₹211/-, the income is worked out as ₹1,16,050/- per month, which is equivalent to 550 Kuwaiti dinars, thus, annual income comes to ₹1,16,050/- x 12 = ₹13,92,600/-. 17. The nature of injuries is described in Ex.A3 wound certificate and Ex.A9 certificate of disability. As per Ex.A9, nature of disability is “post-traumatic acetabular old fracture left. Acetabular post dislocation, hip operated, heel was found painful, restricted movement. Hop last ask to squeeze and sitting in the Indian type toilet. 40% disability”. Further, it was certified that claimant sustained 40% disability and even PW.3 doctor who issued the same also deposed in 22025 LiveLaw (SC) 1053 10 HCJ & CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A. No.2772 of 2017 similar manner. Thus, the Tribunal has assessed the functional disability at 40%. 18. In Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar3, Hon’ble Apex Court, while dealing with assessment of permanent disability, observed as under: “10. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is, the percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be different from the percentage of permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation. 11. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanent disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terms of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find that the percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of the permanent disability, is approximately the same as the percentage of permanent disability in which case, of course, the Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination of compensation. (See for example, the decisions of this Court in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [(2010) 10 SCC 254 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1258 : (2010) 10 Scale 298] and Yadava Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2010) 10 SCC 341 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1285 : (2010) 8 Scale 567] )” 3 (2011) 1 SCC 343 11 HCJ & CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A. No.2772 of 2017 19. Therefore, in the present case, the Tribunal has merely considered the disability as found in Ex.A3 and Ex.A9 and as corroborated by PW.3, to be 40%, without examining as to the extent such disability would impact the functional capacity for continuing with the nature of duties the injured was engaged. When it comes to assessing the compensation in the context of injury suffered, what matters is the extent by which the functions of an injured person suffers, and not what the doctor may have judged in terms of medical standards. The functional aspect of disability arising out of injury has correlation with the age of injured, his occupation, engagement in work or avocation, the adversarial effect on the earning capacity of the injured, which would again depend upon the nature of work or earning activity with which and in which the injured is engaged and such other relevant considerations. 20. The appellant in the present case claims to be working as Purchase in-charge in a company dealing with sale of electronic goods. The nature of job and duties assigned to him, though, are not specifically pleaded, as the duties of Purchase in-charge essentially require a person to be good at negotiating the purchases without much mobility, therefore, we are of the view that functional disability of the injured can be assessed as 25%. 12 HCJ & CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A. No.2772 of 2017 21. Except for aforesaid amount, which is now being considered and decided, there is no dispute with regard to other pecuniary and non- pecuniary damages awarded. In view of the same, the revised compensation awarded to appellant/claimant stands as follows: 1. Annual income: ₹1,16,050/- x 12 ₹13,92,600/- 2. Future prospects (40%) ₹ 5,57,040/- 3. ₹13,92,600+₹5,57,040=₹19,49,640 minus 50% towards personal & family expenses ₹ 9,74,820/- 4. Multiplier “15” being 39 years old ₹9,74,820/- X 15 ₹1,46,22,300/- 5. Towards loss of future earnings with functional disability @ 25% on ₹1,46,22,300/- ₹ 36,55,575/- 6. Medical treatment ₹ 88,000.00 7. Loss of income for treatment period ₹ 30,000.00 8. Towards pain and suffering ₹ 50,000.00 9. Transport charges ₹ 25,000.00 Total ₹38,48,575/- 22. In the result, this appeal is allowed, and the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to ₹38,48,575/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The 2ndrespondent - Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation, after deducting the amount, if 13 HCJ & CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A. No.2772 of 2017 any, already deposited, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit being made, the appellant is entitled to withdraw the same. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. LISA GILL, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J cs