(Prayer: Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased toagainst the Order and decree passed in MVOP.No. 7/2012 dt. 29-05- 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool.)

Introductory:

1. This appeal is directed against the order and decree dated 29.05.2015 passed in M.V.O.P.No.7 of 2012 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool(for short “the learned MACT”). The claimant/petitioner before the learned MACT is the appellant herein.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation of Rs.54,100/- awarded as against the claim made for Rs.10,00,000/-, the present appeal is filed seeking enhancement of compensation.

3. The respondent herein is A.P.S.R.T.C., owner of the bus bearing Registration No.AP 28 Z 3263 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”).

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as the petitioner/claimant and the respondent, as and how they are arrayed in the impugned proceedings.

Case of the claimant:

5(i). On 14.02.2011, at about 05:00 A.M., while the claimant was travelling in A.P.S.R.T.C. Bus / the offending vehicle from Chennai to Kurnool, when the bus reached near Hussainaiah Swamy Darga, near Duvvur, the driver of the bus drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against a stationed lorry bearing No. AP 16 TV 3507, resulting in the accident.

                  (ii). As a result of the said accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries including fracture of left femur, fractures of both bones of left leg, tibia and fibula and other multiple injuries. Initially, he was shifted to A.P. Vaidya Vidhana Parishad, District Hosptial, Proddatur, Kadapa District for treatment and thereafter to Sri New Balaji Super Specialty Hospital, Kurnool and subsequently to KIMS Hospital, Secunderabad, for better treatment.

                  (iii). The claimant was hale and healthy prior to the accident and was working as Deputy Executive Engineer in Panchayat Raj Department, Kurnool. For treatment etc. he has incurred huge medical expenses and suffered pain and disability and is unable to attend to his normal duties.

Case of the respondent / A.P.S.R.T.C.:

6(i). The accident occurred due to negligent parking of the lorry

                  (ii). A false case is foisted against the driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C bus / offending vehicle with false allegations.

                  (iii). The claim is excessive.

                  (iv). The petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.

Evidence before the learned MACT:

7(i). The petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and one Dr. I. Viswanath Reddy, who treated the petitioner was examined as P.W.2.

                  (ii). The petitioner relied upon Exs.A1 to A7, which include FIR, charge sheet, wound certificate, discharge summary, outpatient review card and bunch of medical bills.

                  (iii). No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondent.

Findings of the learned MACT:

8(i). The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus / offending vehicle.

                  (ii). The petitioner failed to prove his case with regard to disability.

                  (iii). In total, the claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.54,100/-.

Arguments in the Appeal: For the claimant:

9(i). The compensation awarded by the learned MACT is very meager and wholly inadequate as the nature of injuries are grievous and treatment was taken by the claimant for a long period.

                  (ii). The learned MACT failed to appreciate the documentary evidence under Ex.A5 and Ex.A7, which clearly establishes medical expenditure incurred by the claimant.

                  (iii). The learned MACT erred in not granting medical expenses on the ground of partial reimbursement by the employer, which is contrary to the settled principles of law.

                  (iv). The learned MACT failed to consider the evidence of P.W.2, the doctor who treated the claimant, regarding the nature of injuries and treatment.

                  (v). The learned MACT ought to have granted reasonable compensation under all relevant heads including medical expenses, disability, pain and suffering and loss of amenities.

For the respondent / A.P.S.R.T.C.:

10(i). The learned MACT has rightly appreciated the evidence and awarded just compensation.

                  (ii). There are no grounds to interfere.

Scope of appeal:

11. This is an appeal filed by the claimant. There is no cross-appeal by the respondent concerned with the offending vehicle. Therefore, the negligence, liability and entitlement of the claimant for compensation are all out of dispute.

12. The only point that requires consideration is the just and adequate nature of the compensation awarded by the learned MACT.

13. Now, the points that arise for determination in this appeal are:

                  1) Whether the compensation Rs.54,100/- awarded by the learned MACT under the order and decree dated 29.05.2015 in M.V.O.P.No.7 of 2012 is just and reasonable or requires any modification; if so, to what extent and on what grounds?

                  2) What is the result of the appeal?

Point No.1:

Precedential Guidance with regard to quantum of compensation:

14. 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.

Analysis and reasoning:

15. The compensation awarded by the learned MACT under various heads is as follows: