Introductory:

1. This appeal is directed against the order and decree dated 28.07.2011 passed in M.O.P.No.195 of 2009 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram (for short “the MACT”). The claimant before the learned MACT is the appellant herein.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the quantum of compensation of Rs.1,91,000/- awarded as against the claim made for Rs.5,00,000/-, the present appeal is filed.

3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein are the owner and the insurer of the Auto bearing Registration No.AP 35 U 5822 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”).

Case of the Claimant:

4(i). On 21.07.2007, at about 01:30 p.m., when the petitioner / claimant was driving the offending vehicle which was loaded with chairs and when he reached near Gayatri College, he met with an accident. As a result of the said accident, the claimant sustained fracture of his right hand and other injuries all over his body. After the accident he was moved to Government Headquarters Hospital, Vizianagaram and from there he was shifted to KGH, Visakhapatnam for better treatment. Thereafter, the petitioner was again admitted in Government Hospital, Vizianagaram and his right hand was amputated.

                  (ii). As on the date of accident, the petitioner was hale and healthy and was working as driver under respondent No.1 and was earning Rs.150/- per day. As he sustained grievous injuries and his right hand was amputated, he spent a considerable amount for his treatment, suffered a lot and is deprived of doing his normal work.

5. Respondent No.1, the owner of the offending vehicle, remained ex parte before the learned MACT.

Case of the Respondent-Insurance Company:-

6(i). Age, occupation and income of the claimant and the nature and effect of injuries, particularly contributing for the loss of income to the claimant, shall be strictly proved.

                  (ii). Further, the claimant shall also prove the insurance coverage in respect of the offending vehicle with the respondent Insurance Company and compliance with the conditions of policy, including a valid and effective driving licence to the petitioner, as well as the fitness and permit of the vehicle to run on the road at relevant time.

                  (iii). It is also the case of the respondent Insurance Company that since the petitioner was negligent, he is not entitled to compensation and respondent No.2 Insurance Company is not liable.

7. On the strength of pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial by the learned MACT:

                  (i). Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the pleaded accident that occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle (Auto) bearing No.AP 35 U 5822 by its driver?

                  (ii). Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation and if so from which of the respondents?

                  (iii). To what relief?

                  Additional issue:

                  (i). Whether the pleaded accident was occurred resulting in injuries to the petitioner due to his involvement in a motor vehicle accident involving the auto bearing registration No.AP 35 U 5822 while it was in use in a public place?

Evidence before the learned MACT:

8(i). During trial, the claimant has taken witness stand as P.W.1 and one Dr. M. Sankara Rao examined as P.W.2.

                  (ii). Petitioner relied on Ex.A1-GD Entry containing the statement of P.W.1, Ex.A2-medical intimation, Ex.A3-reciept of complaint, Ex.A4-O.P. Certificate/ticket, Ex.A5-discharge summary, Ex.A6-medical bills, Ex.A7-Disability Certificate, Ex.A8-copy of the licence of the claimant, Ex.X1-case sheet and Ex.X2-latest X-ray{{

Findings of the learned MACT:

9(i). The pleaded accident occurred resulting in injuries to the petitioner while the offending vehicle was in use in a public place.

                  (ii). P.W.2, Dr. M. Sankara Rao, deposed that he was working as Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Vizianagaram and that the petitioner was under his supervision. His evidence reveals that the claimant sustained fracture, that an operation was conducted on 25.07.2007 and the claimant‟s right hand was amputated and Ex.X.1 is the M.L. case record. He has assessed the disability at 65%.

                  (iii). The petitioner might have incurred necessary expenses towards transport to hospital, extra nourishment and attendant charges. Therefore, a sum of Rs.15,000/- is the entitlement under this head.

                  (iv). The petitioner sustained both simple and grievous injuries, he must have suffered pain, inconvenience, discomfort and mental agony. Therefore, a sum of Rs.10,000/- is the entitlement under this head.

                  (v). The petitioner sustained fracture and amputation of the right hand, he must have been under treatment and bed rest for about three months. Hence, a sum of Rs.6,000/- was awarded towards loss of earnings.

                  (vi). Petitioner is entitled for Rs.1,70,000/- towards loss of future income.

                  (vii). In all, the petitioner is entitled to Rs.1,91,000/-.

                  (viii). The learned MACT relied upon the decision in New India Assurance Company Limited, Vijayawada vs. Doredla Satyam(1997 (5) ALT 219), wherein it was held that the insurer is liable to indemnify the insured even when the driver himself was negligent.

                  (ix). Both the respondents are jointly and severally liable.

10. Heard both sides extensively. Perused the record. Thoughtful consideration is given to the arguments advanced by both sides.

Arguments in the appeal:

For the claimant:

11(i). A very meager amount is awarded under the heads of transport to hospital, medicines, extra nourishment and attendant charges and all heads.

                  (ii). The learned MACT failed to consider that the petitioner, being an Auto Driver, suffered functional disability due to amputation of his hand which shall be taken to tune of 100%.

                  (iii). The learned MACT ought to have awarded the compensation as prayed for.

For the respondents:

12(i). The compensation awarded by the learned MACT under the impugned order is excessive and the appeal is filed to test the claim of the claimant.

(ii). There are no grounds to enhance the compensation.

13. This is an appeal filed by the claimant. There is no appeal by the Insurance Company. Therefore, the objection with regard to liability of the Insurance Company is out of dispute and the only point this Court shall examine is just and adequate nature of compensation awarded to the claimant.

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

                  1) Whether the compensation of Rs.1,91,000/- awarded by the learned MACT under the impugned order and decree is just and adequate or requires any enhancement, if so, to what extent?

                  2) What is the result of the appeal?

Point No.1:

Precedential Guidance:

15. 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:

16. The evidence of claimant as P.W.1 is clear and categorical as to the injuries sustained in the accident, the treatment undergone and the amputation of the right hand, the same being a permanent disability contribution for total loss of income. The occupation of the petitioner/claimant was driver of an auto at the relevant time. He has claimed that he was earning Rs.150/- per day. There is no proof, but notionally, the income can be adopted at Rs.100/- per day, taking note of the socio economic circumstances of the year 2007.

17. Ex.A7 is the disability certificate indicating the disability at 65%. The ability of the petitioner to do some work with the left hand and earn something is different. The disability in respect of the occupation as a driver, can be considered as 100%.

18. The date of admission into Government Hospital, Vizianagaram on 08.08.2007 and treatment undergone etc. are all matters of record. Medical bills may be standing for a lesser amount but incurring reasonable expenditure either towards medical treatment, attendant charges, transportation etc. cannot be ignored, particularly in view of the observations in the authorities cited above as to permissibility of guess work and hypothesis.

19. Practical and empathetic consideration is sometimes necessary, is the spirit of the authorities referred above.

20. As per the discharge summary and the medical records, case sheet etc. the claimant is aged about “30‟ years. Adding of future prospects to the income is permissible. Even in respect of an injury case.

21. The ratio at which the future prospects have to be adopted is provided in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others(2017(16) SCC 680) case which is as follows:

                  Adding future prospects at 50% in respect of permanent employment where the claimant is below 40 years, 30% where claimant is between 40-50 years and 15% where the claimant is between 50-60 years. Further, in respect of self-employed etc., addition of income at 40% for the claimant below 40 years, at 25% where the claimant is between 40-50 years and at 10% where the claimant is between 50-60 years.

22. The claimant is self employed, aged 30 years. Therefore, 40% addition can be made towards the future prospects. Considering his nature of employment, the income of the petitioner is acceptable at Rs.3,000/- per month, as observed above in the light of the socio economic circumstances of the year 2007. On 40% addition, the same will come to Rs.4,200/- per month, which will come to Rs.50,400/- per annum. The multiplier applicable for the age group of “30‟ years is “17‟. Therefore, under the head of the disability, the entitlement of claimant for compensation at Rs.8,56,800/-.

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