APHC010273972005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Saturday, the seventh day of March two thousand and twenty six The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Between: Patnana Appanna and Shaik Masthan Pyarejan and Counsel for the appellant: 1. Aravala Rama Rao Counsel for the respondent 1. B. Nalin Kumar 2. V. Veerabhadra Chary The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Saturday, the seventh day of March two thousand and twenty six Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.3629 Shaik Masthan Pyarejan and others ...Respondents ppellant: Aravala Rama Rao espondents: Veerabhadra Chary The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3311] Saturday, the seventh day of March two thousand and twenty six The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi 3629 of 2005 ...Appellant Respondents 2 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3629 of 2005 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and the decree, dated 11.05.2005, in M.V.O.P.No.457 of 2000 before the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Srikakulam. 2. The appellant is the claimant and the respondents are the respondents before the Tribunal. 3. The case of the claimant, briefly stated, is as follows: On 06.03.2000, at about 7 P.M., after loading casuarina timber poles, the claimant boarded a lorry bearing No.AP 30/T 5533 of the respondent No.1 at Akulamulagam village for unloading the timber at Vizianagaram. On 07.03.2000 at about 2 A.M., near Girivanipalem road junction, the driver of the lorry drove in a rash and negligent manner with high speed. As a result, the lorry turned turtle. The claimant sustained multiple fracture injuries to his left leg and other parts of the body. The claimant fell unconscious. The S.H.O. of J.R.Puram P.S., registered a case in Crime No.20 of 2000 against the driver of the lorry. It is registered as C.C.No.226 of 2000 by the Court of I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Srikakulam. He was shifted to the Government Headquarters Hospital, Srikakulam. Later, he was shifted to the King George Hospital, Visakhapatnam, where he was treated as inpatient for about two months. He underwent two major operations. Implants were inserted to his left leg. Even after discharge from the hospital, he continued to take treatment from Dr.Ambedkar, M.S. (Ortho) and in the other clinics in Visakhapatnam. He had to engage attendants. He spent Rs.50,000/- for medical and travelling expenses; Rs.5,000/- for extra nourishment and Rs.10,000/- for attendant charges. 3 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3629 of 2005 The claimant became permanently disabled due to which he cannot attend labour work. The claimant sought compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- against the respondent No.1 who is the owner of the lorry and the respondent No.2 who is the insurer of the lorry. 4. The respondent No.1 remained ex parte. 5. The respondent No.2 filed a written statement denying the allegations and putting the claimant to strictly prove the averments made by him. It is also denied that the crime vehicle was insured by this respondent. 6. On behalf of the claimant, P.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and exhibits A1 to A11 were marked. Ex.A1 is the certified photostat copy of F.I.R. in Crime No.20 of 2000 of J.R.Puram police station; Ex.A2 is the certified photostat copy of M.V.I report; Ex.A3 is the certified photostat copy of wound certificate; Ex.A4 is the certified photostat copy of charge sheet in C.C.No.226 of 2000 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Srikakulam; Ex.A5 is the bunch of medical prescriptions (3 in number); Ex.A6 is the bunch of medical bills (17 in number); Ex.A7 is the letter written by Dr.M.Ambedkar; Ex.A8 is the bunch of x-ray films (8 in number); Ex.A9 is O.P. discharge book given by K.G. Hospital, Visakhapatnam; Ex.A10 is the receipt, dated 10.09.2000, for Rs.10,000/- towards attendant charges issued by Kambapu Papayya of Vizianagaram; Ex.A11 is the physically handicapped certificate, dated 23.04.2001, relating to the claimant. On behalf of the respondents, neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced. Ex.C1 and C2 were marked. Ex.C1 is the physically handicapped certificate, dated 02.01.2005, relating to the claimant and 4 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3629 of 2005 Ex.C2 is the case sheet relating to the claimant maintained in King George Hospital, Visakhapatnam. 7. After hearing both the parties, the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,07,600/- with interest thereon at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of payment and proportionate costs with joint and several liability of the respondents Nos.1 and 2. 8. Aggrieved by the award, the claimant preferred the appeal stating that he suffered 40% permanent partial disability certified under Ex.C1 and confirmed by the evidence of P.W.2, however, the Tribunal erred in taking into consideration only 30% of the disability and that the income was taken at grossly low rate. It is also contended that the Tribunal erroneously deducted 1/3rd of the income towards personal expenses and that the rate of interest granted is very low. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the grounds of appeal and prayed to enhance the amount of compensation by considering the permanent disability at the rate of 40% and considering the high amount of income and also to grant interest at the rate of 12% per annum. 10. There is no representation for the respondent No.1 though appeared through a counsel. 11. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 contended that the Tribunal had rightly awarded the amount after thoroughly considering the evidence on record and that there is no need to interfere with the award. He further submitted that in fact, no policy copy of insurance was filed before the Tribunal and that basing on the details of the cover 5 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3629 of 2005 note in the Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report, the Tribunal fastened liability on the respondent No.2 as well. 12. Insofar as compensation payable for permanent disability is concerned, unless the disability is proved to have reduced future earning capacity, it can be compensated by awarding a lumpsum amount to meet other kinds of loss, such as, marital prospects in case of an unmarried person, disfigurement, amenities of life etc. But, if the permanent disability results in loss of future earnings, after deciding the percentage of reduction in the earning capacity consequent to the disability, amount of compensation shall be calculated by multiplying the amount of loss by a multiplier relevant to the age of the victim. To arrive at the amount of loss, in such a case, initially, the amount of income shall be decided either notionally or basing on the evidence and thereafter, depending on the affect of the disability and the earning capacity, the percentage of loss of future amenities is calculated. In this regard, the decision of the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Ors.1 is referred. On assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent disability, it was held in the cited decision at paragraphs Nos.6 to 9 as follows: “6. Disability refers to any restriction or lack of ability to perform an activity in the manner considered normal for a human-being. Permanent disability refers to the residuary incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body, found existing at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation, after achieving the maximum bodily improvement or recovery, which is likely to remain for the 1 Neutral Citation: 2010 INSC 703 # (2011) 1 SCC 343 6 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3629 of 2005 remainder life of the injured. Temporary disability refers to the incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body on account of the injury, which will cease to exist at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation. Permanent disability can be either partial or total. Partial permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform all the duties and bodily functions that he could perform before the accident, though he is able to perform some of them and is still able to engage in some gainful activity. Total permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform any avocation or employment related activities as a result of the accident. The permanent disabilities that may arise from motor accidents injuries, are of a much wider range when compared to the physical disabilities which are enumerated in the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 ('Disabilities Act' for short). But,` if any of the disabilities enumerated in Section 2(i) of the Disabilities Act are the result of injuries sustained in a motor accident, they can be permanent disabilities for the purpose of claiming compensation. 7. The percentage of permanent disability is expressed by the Doctors with reference to the whole body, or more often than not, with reference to a particular limb. When a disability certificate states that the injured has suffered permanent disability to an extent of 45% of the left lower limb, it is not the same as 45% permanent disability with reference to the whole body. The extent of disability of a limb (or part of the body) expressed in terms of a percentage of the total functions of that limb, obviously cannot be assumed to be the extent of 7 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3629 of 2005 disability of the whole body. If there is 60% permanent disability of the right hand and 80% permanent disability of left leg, it does not mean that the extent of permanent disability with reference to the whole body is 140% (that is 80% plus 60%). If different parts of the body have suffered different percentages of disabilities, the sum total thereof expressed in terms of the permanent disability with reference to the whole body, cannot obviously exceed 100%. 8. 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, 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. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanently disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earning 8 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3629 of 2005 capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terns 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 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) SCALE 298] and Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. [2010 (8) SCALE 567]. 9. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether there is any permanent disability and if so the extent of such permanent disability. This means that the tribunal should consider and decide with reference to the evidence: (i) whether the disablement is permanent or temporary; (ii) if the disablement is permanent, whether it is permanent total disablement or permanent partial disablement, (iii) if the disablement percentage is expressed with reference to any specific limb, then the effect of such disablement of the limb on the functioning of the entire body, that is the permanent disability suffered by the person. If the Tribunal concludes that there is no permanent disability then there is no question of proceeding further and determining the loss of future earning capacity. But if the Tribunal concludes that there is permanent disability then it will proceed to ascertain its extent. After the 9 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3629 of 2005 Tribunal ascertains the actual extent of permanent disability of the claimant based on the medical evidence, it has to determine whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect his earning capacity.” 13. The percentage of disability assessed on orthopedical parameters is different from the percentage of loss of future earnings. As such, the Tribunal is not bound to follow the percentage of disability mentioned in Ex.C1. Since the claimant was a labourer, the Tribunal rightly assessed the percentage of disability at 30% for the purpose of calculating future loss of earning capacity. However, the Tribunal committed an error in deducting 1/3rd of the income of the claimant towards his personal expenses in a case of compensation sought for injuries suffered in the accident. Therefore, since the Tribunal notionally estimated the income of the claimant at Rs.1,250/- per month, the same shall be considered without any objections. The annual income comes to Rs.15,000/-. 30% of such annual income (i.e., 30% of Rs.15,000/-) comes to Rs.4,500/-. Since the relevant multiplier applicable to the age of the petitioner being 40 years at the time of the accident is ‘15’ as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma & others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and others 2 , the amount payable is Rs.67,500/- (Rs.4,500/- X 15). 14. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.25,000/- for medical and travelling expenses, Rs.10,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.10,000/- for attendant charges and Rs.5,000/- for extra nourishment. These 2 AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 3104 10 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3629 of 2005 amounts do not require any change as they were adequately awarded as per the value as on the date of the accident. The rate of interest awarded is also just and reasonable. 15. Thus, in all, the claimant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.1,17,500/-. The rest of the award remains intact. 16. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed by enhancing the amount of compensation from Rs.1,07,600/- to Rs.1,17,500/- while retaining the other part of the award intact. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ B.S.BHANUMATHI, J Dt.07.03.2026 RAR