(Prayer: Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Court against the judgment and decree passed in O.P.No.98/2014 dt.19-09-2014 on the file of the court of the MACT-cum-Family Court cum VI Addl Dist Judge, Kadapa Kadapa Dist.)

Introductory:

1. The Claimant in M.V.O.P.No.98 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Family Court-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa [for short “the learned MACT”], feeling dissatisfied with the award and decree dated 19.09.2014 passed therein, where under the claim against the 1st respondent alone was allowed while dismissing the same against the 2nd respondent and a compensation of Rs.93,400/- only was granted as against the claim made for Rs.2,00,000/-, filed the present appeal, disputing the exoneration of the 2nd respondent from the liability and the quantum of compensation awarded as inadequate.

2. 1st respondent is owner of the vehicle bearing No.AP 04 W 6793 [hereinafter referred as “the offending vehicle‟] and the 2nd respondent is the Insurance Company, with which the offending vehicle was insured.

3. For the sake of convenience, parties will be herein after referred as the claimant/petitioner and the respondents as and how they are arrayed before the learned MACT.

Case of the claimant/petitioner:-

4. [i] On 18.03.2013 while the claimant/petitioner was proceeding in his auto, near Nallavanka situated on Kamalapuram to Ayyavaripalli main road, the offending vehicle, owned by the 1st respondent came in an opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the said auto, with the result petitioner and others sustained injuries.

                  [ii] The injured including the petitioner were shifted to Government Hospital, Proddatur. Fracture of right femur and other injuries were noted on the body of the petitioner. He has undergone surgery and three rods were inserted and he stayed in the hospital for (16) days. Thereafter, taken treatment in a private hospital at Kadapa under the supervision of orthopedic surgeon. He was advised to take treatment and medicines. He has spent Rs.20,000/- towards medicines, treatment, transport, attendant and extra nourishment, etc.. He lost grip, strength and unable to walk independently, sit and squat properly, suffering permanent physical and functional disability.

                  [iii] Petitioner was attending coolie works and feeding his family.

                  But due to the accident, he became disabled. Since the driver of the Tipper is responsible for the accident, the 1st respondent being the owner and the 2nd respondent, with whom the offending vehicle was insured, are liable to pay just compensation.

5. The 1st respondent, owner remained ex parte.

Case of the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company:-

6. [i] Negligence of the driver of the auto is the cause for the accident and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle.

                  [ii] Compliance of the conditions of the Policy, manner of the accident, age, occupation, income and disability shall be properly proved.

                  [iii] The driver of the auto did not possess valid driving licence.

                  [iv] There was overload in the auto and the same has contributed to lose control and the auto turned turtle. The auto alone was involved in the accident. There was no negligence on the part of the driver of the Tipper/offending vehicle.

                  [v] The petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.

Evidence:-

7. [i] The petitioner was examined as PW.1. One Dr.C.Sanjevaiah, who treated the petitioner was examined as PW.2.

                  [ii] Petitioner relied on the documents, Ex.A1-FIR, Ex.A2- wound certificate, Ex.A3 -charge sheet, Ex.A4-disability certificate issued by RIMS Hospital, Kadapa.

                  [iii] Respondent relied on the evidence of RW1-J. Vijaykumar. RW2- M. Mallikarjuna and Ex.B1- Insurance Policy, Ex.B2- legal notice, Ex.B3- unserved postal cover, Ex.X1- letter from the Deputy Transport Commissioner, Kadapa, Ex.X2- R.C. extract of vehicle bearing No.AP 04 W 6793. Ex.X3 - Permit history and Ex.X4 - Fitness Certificate.

Findings of the learned MACT:-

8. [i] No direct witnesses are examined for the Insurance Company, relating to the accident. FIR was registered and charge sheet was also filed against the driver of the Tipper /offending vehicle.

                  [ii] The evidence of PW.1 gets supported by the documents Exs.A1 to A3. Evidence of RW.2 shows that driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid driving licence to drive the Tipper, with which it can be accepted that the owner has entrusted the offending vehicle to the driver, who did not possess the driving licence. Hence the Insurance Company cannot be made liable and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

                  [iii] In view of the wound certificate and the evidence of PW.2-Doctor, disability assessed at 15%, treatment undergone by the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.93,400/- under various heads viz., Rs.18,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.3,000/- towards transportation, Rs.3,000/- towards extra nourishment and Rs.10,000/-towards medical expenditure and Rs.59,400/- towards permanent disability.

Arguments in the appeal:

For the claimant/petitioner/appellant :-

9. [i] Dismissal of the claim against the 2nd respondent is not correct.

                  [ii] The findings as to the absence of driving licence to the driver of the offending vehicle is not proper.

                  [iii] When it is clear that the driving licence No.DLAP 004158552004 was issued in the name of the driver – Suresh Reddy, as issued by the RTA department.

                  [iv] Learned MACT has erred in taking the disability at 15% instead of 40%, which is mentioned in the Ex.A4-physical disability certificate, issued by RIMS Hospital, Kadapa.

                  [v] The compensation awarded is not just and adequate and require enhancement.

For the Insurance Company/2nd respondent:-

10. [i] The findings of the learned MACT are correct.

                  [ii] Negligence and involvement of offending vehicle is not shown.

                  [iii] No interference is necessary.

                  [iv] Exoneration of the 2nd respondent from liability is well reasoned and the Insurance Company has discharged its burden by examining RW.1 and RW.2 and placing Exs.B1 to B3 and Exs.X1 to X4.

11. Perused the record. Thoughtful consideration is given to the arguments advanced by both sides.

12. The points that arose for determination in this appeal are –

                  1) Whether exoneration of the 2nd respondent from the liability by the learned MACT under the impugned order and decree is proper?

                  2) Whether the compensation of Rs.93,400/- awarded by the learned MACT under the impugned order and decree dated 19.09.2014 is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances? Or require any modification? If so, on what grounds and to which extent?

                  3) What is the result of the appeal?

Point No.1:-

13. It is clear from the law and settled practice that any claim made for compensation in terms of Motor Vehicles Act, the record maintained by the Police in discharge of their official findings can be relied on. In the context of objections, it is also relevant to note that the appreciation of evidence in answering the question of fact as to negligence in a motor accident claim and other relevant aspects learned MACT can rely on the official records adopting the theory of probability with a holistic approach.

Statutory and Precedential guidance in that regard are as follows:-

14 (i). As per Section 176 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the State Governments are entitled to make rules for the purpose of carrying effect to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.

                  (ii). In relation to claims before the learned MACT, Rule 455 to Rule 476 of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, vide Chapter No.11 provides comprehensive guidance. As per Rule 476 of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, the claims Tribunal shall proceed to award the claim basing on the registration certificate of the vehicle, Insurance Policy, copy of FIR and Post-mortem certificate etc.

15. As per Rule 476 of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, the crime record can be the basis. The official acts done are presumed to be proper until a contrary is proved particularly when some statutory recognition is given to such official records.

16. 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 claimants shall have to establish is preponderance of probability only. The legal position to this extent is settled and consistent.

17. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation(2009 (13) SCC 530), in para 15 observed as follows:

                  “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 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..”

Reasoning and Findings :-

Accident - negligence and absence of Driving Licence:-

18. [i] Petitioner/PW1 is an eye witness to the accident. He has stated in clear terms as to the manner of the accident and negligence as to the driver of the offending vehicle. There is no oath against oath with regard to the manner in which the accident was occurred. RW.1 and RW.2 are not the eye witnesses to the accident. The driver of the offending vehicle is not examined. Result of the criminal case is not known. Charge sheet was laid against the driver of the offending vehicle.

                  [ii] It is relevant to note that charge sheet is not indicating the absence of driving licence and the prosecution of the driver under Sections 180 or 181 of MV Act viz., relating to the offences of driving the vehicle without a driving licence.

                  [iii] Evidence of RW.1 and RW.2 is relied on by the Insurance Company shows that there is no driving licence to the driver of the offending vehicle. RW.1 is the legal officer in the Insurance Company. He stated that 1st respondent allowed the vehicle in question to be driven by the person, not possessing effecting driving licence. He has referred the legal notice- Ex.B2, got issued and absence of reply thereon. It is relevant to note that Ex.B2 is returned unserved with an endorsement that the addressee is not at the place shown in the address and he stays in Kadapa.

19. Whether sending of notice is sufficient to discharge the burden of proving absence of driving licence is an important question. The notice was addressed to one A Vivekananda Reddy/1st respondent, owner of the offending vehicle. No steps are taken to examine either the 1st respondent or the driver of the offending vehicle by taking summons. RW.1 during the cross -examination stated that the Insurance Policy was in force and he has also admitted that no document is produced to support the contention that the vehicle is not having permit and the driver is not having valid driving license. Therefore, the evidence of RW 1 is of no use.

20. RW 2 is one M. Mallikarjuna Reddy, Stenographer in the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Transport, Kadapa. His authorization is Exs.X1 and Ex.X2 is the registration extract and Ex.X3 is the permit history and Ex.X4-is Fitness Certificate. He stated that one Narravula Suresh Reddy, did not possess any driving licence as on 18.03.2013. During the cross-examination, it is elicited that by producing proof of residence, one can obtain licence from any place. Here it is pertinent to note that absence of registration certificate to the vehicle gets answered with Ex.X2 and X3 and mechanical defects gets answered with Ex.X4. As per letter Ex.X1, the authorization copies of registration certificate etc. are transmitted.

21. The evidence of RW.2 as to absence of driving licence to one Narravula Suresh Reddy is oral and he has simply stated that as per records maintained in their office, said Suresh Reddy did not have any license. Whether the same is sufficient to discharge of burden is next question. Motor Vehicles Inspector's report is not called for and no steps are taken to place the same by the Insurance Company, on whom the burden lies, particularly in the context of the clamant being third party. The plea is taken generally that there is no proper registration certificate, no driving licence to the driver and no fitness to the vehicle. The Insurance Company failed to prove that there is no driving licence to the driver of the offending vehicle. Therefore, this Court finds that the 2nd respondent - Insurance Company is also liable to pay the compensation. The findings of the learned MACT contra are not sustainable. Point No.1 is answered against the 2nd respondent and in favour of the claimant.

Point No.2:-

Quantum of compensation:

22. [i] Ex.A4 is the Disability Certificate issued by the Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences, Kadapa on assessment by the Medical Board, disability is stated at 40% and it is specifically mentioned in the document - Ex.A4 that the document is issued for Court purpose.

                  [ii] The evidence of Doctor-PW2, who treated the petitioner, is that he is working as Assistant Professor in Orthopedic Department, RIMS, Kadapa. He has examined the petitioner on 09.05.2014 and his findings are as follows:

                  a) Non-union fracture shaft of right femur with implant in situ.

                  b) Osteoporosis of the surrounding bones of right hip and knee.

                  c) Painful and restricted movements of right hip and knee.

                  d) Unable to stand on the affected limb

                  e) Unable to squat and cross legged.

                  f) Antalgic gait present.

                  [iii] Based on the above findings he has assessed the disability at 40%. During the cross-examination it is elicited that he did not treated the petitioner and he has stated that the petitioner received one grievous injury i.e. fracture shaft of right femur. He has denied the suggestion that the petitioner is attending his duties as and how he earlier attending. He denied the suggestion that the injuries are healed and that there is no disability. The evidence of PW.2 indicates that the petitioner suffered injuries and suffering permanent disability.

23. [i] From the evidence of PW1 as petitioner, it is clear that he has suffered accident and undergone treatment. His claim is that he was attending coolie works. The age of the petitioner is around ‘50’ as per the wound certificate as per PW2.

                  [ii] When the Medical Board has assessed the disability at 40%, the learned MACT, without any basis, reducing the same to 15% is not sustainable. If the Tribunal was of the view that the said assessment was not acceptable, it ought to have got the disability reassessed to have proper basis. That could have been done even at the instance of the respondent. Therefore, the disability is accepted at 40% as stated by PW.2 and evidenced by the disability certificate vide Ex.A4. Income of the petitioner is taken by the Tribunal at Rs.3,000/-. The Insurance Company contends that the same is without any basis. The petitioner claimed that he was an agricultural labour. However, upon considering the socio-economic circumstances of the year of the accident i.e., 2013, Rs.3,000/- is accepted as monthly income of the petitioner, inclusive of future prospects, for assessing the compensation. Whereby the loss of income of the petitioner can be taken at Rs.1200/- per month, which comes to Rs.14,400/- per annum. Multiplier applicable for the age group of the petitioner is ‘11’. Whereby the entitlement of the petitioner for compensation under the head of permanent disability comes to Rs.1,58,400/-.

Precedential Guidance:

24. 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.( 2025 AIAR (Civil) 1), 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.( 2020 (04) SCC 413), referred to various heads under which, compensation can be awarded, in injuries cases vide paragraph No.52, the heads are as follows:-

                

                  (ii). Hon’ble Apex Court in Yadava Kumar Vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited and Anr.,( 2010(10)SCC 341) vide para No.10, by referring to Sunil Kumar Vs. Ram Singh Gaud(2007 (14) SCC 61),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 Corporation(1992(2) SCC 567), 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 Another(2011 (1) SCC 343), 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 and getting all certificates from either the Doctors, who treated, or from the medical boards etc. principles summarized vide para No.19 are as follows:

                  “19. 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 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 in 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.”

                  (iv) In Sidram vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr.( 2023 (3) SCC 439) 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.( 1995 (1) SCC 551). From the observations 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.

25. In the light of the precedential guidance and in view of the reasons and evidence referred above, the entitlement of the petitioner/claimant for reasonable compensation in comparison to the compensation awarded by the learned MACT is found as follows: