APHC010504922004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Thursday, the Twenty sixth day of February, Two Thousand and Twenty The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Miscellaneous Between: 1. Para Ramadas, S/o.Para Anjanaiah, age 61 years, cooly, resident of M.Joharapuram village, Aspari Mandal, Kurnool District. 1. M.A.Subhan, S/o.M.A.Aziz, major H.No.2/300, Karpet, Adoni. 2. The New India Assurance Company Limited, represented by its Divisional Manager, Kurnool. Counsel for the appellant: 1. K Rathanga Pani Reddy Counsel for the respondents: 1. P.A.N.V. Ravi Teja IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Thursday, the Twenty sixth day of February, Two Thousand and Twenty Six Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2707 of 2004 Para Ramadas, S/o.Para Anjanaiah, age 61 years, cooly, resident of M.Joharapuram village, Aspari Mandal, Kurnool District. ...Appellant and M.A.Subhan, S/o.M.A.Aziz, major H.No.2/300, Karpet, Adoni. The New India Assurance Company Limited, represented by its Divisional Manager, Kurnool. ...Respondents Counsel for the appellant: K Rathanga Pani Reddy Counsel for the respondents: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3311] Thursday, the Twenty sixth day of February, Two Thousand and Twenty Para Ramadas, S/o.Para Anjanaiah, age 61 years, cooly, resident of ...Appellant M.A.Subhan, S/o.M.A.Aziz, major H.No.2/300, Karpet, Adoni. The New India Assurance Company Limited, represented by its ...Respondents 2 BSB,J C.M.A.No.2707 of 2004 The Court made the following JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 09.07.2001 in M.V.O.P.No.549 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II-Additional District Judge, Kurnool. 2. The appellant is the claimant and the respondents are the respondents before the Tribunal. 3. The case of the claimant, is briefly, as follows : On 09.05.1997 at about 4.30 p.m, while he was going in a bus bearing No.AP 21 V 0689, the lorry bearing No.AAQ 2228, belonging to the respondent No.1 and insured by respondent No.2 driven in rash and negligent manner, as a result the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and finally suffered permanent disability. The case was registered by the police against the driver of the bus. Therefore, the petition is filed seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. 4. The 1st respondent remained exparte. The 2nd respondent filed counter opposing the petition and denying the case of the petitioner and further stating that the driver of the lorry was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. 5. On behalf of the appellant, he got himself examined as PW1, besides examining the doctor as PW2 and marked Exs.A1 to A6. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was adduced but Ex.B1 was marked. P.W.1: Ramadas. P.W.2: B.Chandranna. Ex.A1: Certified copy of F.I.R. 3 BSB,J C.M.A.No.2707 of 2004 Ex.A2: Certified copy of charge sheet. Ex.A3: Certified copy of wound certificate. Ex.A4: Bunch of Medical bills (6) in number worth Rs.1,809/- Ex.A5: Bunch of prescriptions by Medical Officer (9) in number. Ex.A6: X-Ray. Ex.B1: Copy of policy marked with consent. 6. After hearing both the parties, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition awarding compensation of Rs.13,800/- with interest therein @ 9% p.a., from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization and proportionate costs. 7. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal was filed stating that the Tribunal failed to grant adequate amount of compensation in respect of the permanent disability suffered by the petitioner and that the Tribunal failed to grant compensation for pain and suffering, medical expenses, attendant charges, extra nourishment etc., 8. Since the appeal was filed by the claimant challenging the quantum of compensation, the scope of appeal was restricted to the same. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted as in the grounds of appeal stressing the inadequacy of the amount of compensation awarded, particularly with reference to the alleged permanent disability. 10. The notice sent to the respondent No.1 was returned unserved as refused. In fact, the respondent No.1 did not contest the matter before the Tribunal. 4 BSB,J C.M.A.No.2707 of 2004 11. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that the Tribunal rightly decided the quantum of compensation, since there was no proof of the alleged disability. He drew the attention of this Court to the observation for the Tribunal in paragraph No.6 of its order wherein the evidence of P.W.2, the doctor who was examined to prove the case of the claimant, was discussed in detail. 12. The claimant sought compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-, whereas the Tribunal awarded Rs.13,800/-, which includes compensation of Rs.1,000/- for each of the six simple injuries and Rs.5,000/- for one grievous injury, towards pain and suffering, Rs.1,800/- for medical expenses and Rs.1,000/- for transportation expenses. 13. In case of claim for compensation for any permanent disability suffered on account injuries sustained in any motor vehicle accident, the parameters set by the Supreme Court in various cases were reiterated and compiled in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar1. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows: “19. 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 1 (2011) 1 SCC 343 5 BSB,J C.M.A.No.2707 of 2004 evidence, concludes that the percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as the 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 with regard to 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.” 14. Therefore, the claimant has to first establish that he suffered permanent disability resulting from the injuries suffered in the accident and further that such disability reduced the earning capacity. In the present case, the percentage of the disability @ 10% deposed by P.W.2 is based on examination of X-Ray and not the physical examination of the claimant. X-Ray would show only fracture of bone and nothing else. It is not even X-Ray taken after the treatment. Merely because there is a fracture injury, it need not always result in permanent disability. When a fracture injury heals after treatment, it cannot give raise to permanent disability, particularly with reference to the earning capacity of an individual. A fracture injury temporarily disables a person during the period of the treatment till the injury gets fixed. To grant compensation under the head permanent disability to meet the loss of future earnings, there must be proof of permanent disability and the degree of its impact on the earning capacity. If the permanent disability results in loss of earning capacity, compensation would be granted by applying multiplier method i.e., 6 BSB,J C.M.A.No.2707 of 2004 multiplying the amount of loss per annum by the relevant multiplier applicable as per the age of the claimant. If the permanent disability does not result in loss of earning capacity, compensation can be awarded only to meet other kinds of loss such as marital prospects, disfigurement, amenities of life which are usually compensated in the form of a lump sum amount. 15. In the present case, except the evidence of P.W.2 that the disability of the claimant is 10% due to the fracture injury, there is no proof that it has resulted in deprivation of the earning capacity of the claimant. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly awarded a lump sum amount of compensation under the above noted heads. There is no reason to interfere with the amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal in the present case. 16. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI Date: 26.02.2026. GRL 7 BSB,J C.M.A.No.2707 of 2004 61 HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI C.M.A.No.2707 of 2004 Date: 26.02.2026 GRL 8 BSB,J C.M.A.No.2707 of 2004