(Prayer: Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased toallow the appeal in toto by awarding compensation of Rs. 2,18,735/- [Rupees Two lakshs Eighteen Thousands Seven Hundred and Thirty Five Only] to the petitioner/Appellant in additional to comepsnation already grnated by the Hon'ble Fiorst Addl. Dist. Judge cum MACT Guntur against all the respondents with interest thereon along wtih costs through out

IA NO: 1 OF 2008(MACMAMP 1649 OF 2008

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased condone the delay of 1996 days happened in preferring the appeal before this Hon'ble Court

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may please to allow the Petitioner/Appellant to produce hospital bill dated: 15.03.2006 as additional evidence in the above MACMA 658 of 2012 on the file of this Hon‟ble Court and to pass)

Common Judgment:

Introductory:

1. The claimant in M.V.O.P.No.68 of 1999, dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in a sum of Rs.81,265/- as against the claim made for Rs.3,00,000/- under decree and order dated 28.11.2001 passed by the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- I Additional District Judge, Guntur (for short “the learned MACT”), filed the present appeal.

2. Both the respondents remained ex parte before the learned MACT. However, in this appeal, respondent No.2 / Insurance Company is represented by Smt. A. Jayanthi, learned counsel.

3. Heard both sides.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as the claimant and the respondents as and how they are arrayed before the learned MACT. Case of the claimant:

5(i). The claimant was working as a regular Mazdoor in the Telephone Department, Chandramoulinagar, Guntur. While he was traveling along with other employees on 20.05.1995 at about 02:30 p.m. in a van bearing No.AP 7T 2738 of the Telephone Department and when the van reached Chintaguntla Village of Markapur Mandal, a vehicle / lorry of respondent No.1 bearing No.AP 10T 2979 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) came in the opposite direction and dashed the van in which the claimant was travelling, causing grievous injuries to his both legs and left hand and resulting in the death of two other employees traveling in the said vehicle.

                  (ii). A case in crime No.37 of 1995 for the offences under Sections 304-A and 338 IPC was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle, who was subsequently charge sheeted.

                  (iii). The petitioner / claimant was initially shifted to G.G.H., Guntur, where he was treated as an inpatient for four days. From there, he was shifted to Dr. Laxmana Swamy Hospital, Laxmipuram, Guntur, where he has undergone five major surgeries and was an inpatient in the said hospital for two months and incurred Rs.75,000/- towards the treatment etc. Due to the accident, he became permanently disabled. He sustained loss of salary. He is suffering from a permanent disability due to shortening of legs. He was aged „35‟ years as on the date of accident.

                  (iv). The owner and Insurance Company of the offending vehicle are liable to pay compensation. Since the respondents remained ex parte, the learned MACT formulated points touching accident, negligence and entitlement of the claimant for compensation and awarded the compensation referred to above by relying on the evidence of claimant as P.W.1 and the Ex.A1-FIR, Ex.A4-Charge sheet, Ex.A2-Certificate issued by Dr.Y.Lakshmanaswamy, Ex.A5-Pay Slip and Ex.A6-Disability Certificate. One Dr. Y. Lakshmanaswamy was examined as P.W.2.

6. The learned MACT awarded Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenses and extra nourishment. The contention as to loss of promotion was not accepted for want of evidence. However, the learned MACT awarded Rs.16,265/- towards loss of income for a period of five months at the rate of Rs.3,253/- per month and Rs.60,000,/- for three grievous injuries at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per each and in all, awarded compensation of Rs.81,265/-.

7. The appellant now filed an interlocutory application vide I.A.No.1 of 2024 invoking Order XLI Rule 27 r/w. Section 151 CPC for receiving additional evidence viz. hospital bill dated 15.03.2006 indicating the date of admission as inpatient on 02.02.2006 and date of discharge as 15.03.2006, wherein the expenditure is shown as Rs.68,050/-, which was heard along with the present appeal.

Arguments in the appeal:

For the claimant:

8(i). Additional evidence may be considered.

                  (ii). Compensation awarded is not in tune with the precedential guidance laid down in Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and Another((2011) 1 SCC 343), Mohd. Sabeer alias Shabir Hussain vs. Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation(2022 SCC OnLine SC 1701), T.J. Parameshwarappa alias Parameshwarappa alias J.T. Parameshwarappa alias Talaikena Gowdra Paremeshwarappa vs. Branch Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited and others(2022 SCC OnLine SC 1604).

                  (iii). He has submitted that the disability should be considered as 100% and the compensation awarded requires modification and enhancement to more than what is claimed, which is permissible.

For the Insurance Company:

9(i). The accident is dated 20.05.1995. Any enhancement will load the Insurance Company with financial burden.

                  (ii). The compensation awarded by the learned MACT itself is excessive when the socio-economic circumstances of the year 1995 are considered.

                  (iii). There is no basis for the claim made for enhancement.

                  (iv). The application filed for receiving additional evidence is liable to be dismissed.

10. Thoughtful consideration is given to the extensive arguments submitted by both sides.

11. The points that arise for determination in this appeal are:

                  1) Whether the additional evidence sought to be introduced in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in M.A.C.M.A.No.658 of 2012 can be received?

                  2) Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned MACT under order and decree dated 28.11.2001 is just and reasonable or requires any interference and, if so, to what extent?

                  3) What is the result of the appeal?

Point No.1:

12(i). The hospital bill now filed is dated 15.03.2006 as per the averment in the petition i.e. I.A.No.1 of 2024. The petitioner/claimant claimed that he was admitted on 02.02.2006 and discharged on 15.03.2006. Whether the treatment undergone and the medical expenditure incurred covered by the additional evidence now placed is proximate / connected to the accident in question is an important point.

                  (ii). The date of accident is 20.05.1995. As per his contention before the learned MACT, the claimant was admitted in the Nursing Home of P.W.2 on 27.05.1995 and was discharged on 10.06.1995. Again, he was admitted in the nursing home of P.W.2 on 15.10.1996 and discharged on 25.10.1996. Now the present additional evidence hospital bill is dated 15.03.2006. There is almost a decade gap from the date of accident till the date of the hospital bills, which the claimant now wants to rely upon. Any nexus between the proposed additional evidence and the injuries sustained in the accident is not made out except for the sworn affidavit of the petitioner / claimant. Therefore, the prayer for receiving additional evidence is found not convincing. Hence, the point framed is answered against the claimant, concluding that there are no sufficient grounds to receive the additional evidence. Point no.1 is answered accordingly. Hence, I.A.No.1 of 2024 is dismissed.

Point No.2:

13. The respondent Insurance Company and the owner of the offending vehicle remained ex parte before the learned MACT. They cannot make any improvement in their stand in this appeal. This Court shall be guided by the evidence available on record. Appeal is filed by the claimant. The aspects relating to accident, negligence, liability of the Insurance Company and entitlement of the claimant for compensation are all out of the scope of the present appeal. The only point fit to be considered in this appeal is whether the quantum of compensation awarded by learned MACT under the impugned order is just and reasonable.

Quantification of compensation:

Precedential Guidance:

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 (1 supra), 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.

Evidence:

15. The claimant, as P.W.1, deposed that he suffered grievous injuries all over the body. Both legs and the left hand are fractured. He took treatment in Government Hospital, Markapur, G.G.H., Guntur and with Dr. Lakshmanaswamy of Sanjeevi Nursing Home, Guntur. He was in Dr. Lakshmanaswamy‟s hospital for 20 days as an inpatient and had bed rest for about eight months. Due to accident, he is unable to climb poles and lost the promotion channel and is continuing as a Regular Mazdoor after the accident and is getting less salary, the difference being Rs.1200/- per month between the post of Regular Mazdoor and Lineman. He has spent Rs.2,00,000/- for medical expenditure and treatment.

16. In the claim petition, he has claimed that he spent Rs.75,000/- towards medical expenses. When he came to the evidence / witness box, he claimed that he spent Rs.2,00,000/-. He has also claimed that he suffered 40% disability as per Ex.A6. Since the respondents remained ex parte, there is no cross- examination. The disability claimed and other aspects have to accepted on their face value.

17. P.W.2 / Dr.Y. Lakshmana Swamy, who treated the petitioner, deposed that the claimant sustained fractures of both bones of both legs and the left humerus due to the vehicle accident. In all, there are three fractures and re-operation was done to the left humerus due to nonunion of the fracture. Removal of the plates was done by another operation. The petitioner might have suffered 35% to 40% disability roughly. The Medical Officer of the Government Hospital opined / gave that the claimant is suffering disability at around 40%.

18. The argument of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is that there is no loss of employment, the petitioner is continuing in employment and reduction of either scale or employment etc. is not proved. None was examined indicating any loss of income to the petitioner, as rightly observed by the learned MACT at para 10 of the Judgment.

19. In a similar context of objections regarding the victim / claimant continuing in employment and considering his disability as to whether functional disability or physical disability, in a case between Ch. Udaya Bhaskar vs. K. Appa Rao and others(2025 SCC Online AP 2767; CDJ 2025 APHC 954) under common Judgment dated 25.07.2025 in M.A.C.M.A.Nos.1180 of 2011 and 1223 of 2012, vide para No.27, the following observations are made by me while authoring the judgment. They are:

                  Disability - Effect and Quantification of Compensation:

                  27. The disability contributing to loss of income is a relative aspect. Disability may not always directly affect income. But, it is not always the same as functional disability. Functional disability refers to a limitation in respect of day to day activities of a person who becomes disabled. Ability to earn is a different aspect from the disability suffered, causing inconvenience for daily routine. A person might have functional disability although same does not affect the income. A functional disability certainly contributes to loss of income in some cases, restricting someone with mobility issues, making him unable to attend all physical requirements of his job leading to a reduced income, availment of leaves, unable to do extra work having effect on promotions in the job. Factors like accommodation at a particular job, type of job and nature of disability play a role.

20. The disability a person suffers due to accident may expose him to incur additional expenditure lifelong when the disability is permanent in nature. There will be additional expenditure, but there will not be additional income. The income will be standard including its growth. In the absence of the accident and disability, the victim need not incur additional expenditure. The same can be considered as loss. In the context of 40% disability now shown, the contention that there is continuation of employment and no compensation can be awarded under the head of disability is not acceptable.

21. From the evidence, the following points are clear:

                  (i). The claimant / petitioner suffered three grievous injuries.

                  (ii). The claimant was in the hospital for two spells

                  (iii).The claimant undergone operations and screws and nails were inserted.

                  (iv).The claimant suffered disability to a tune of 40%. The same is not a functional disability and did not cause for loss of employment. However, it can be considered that the petitioner/claimant has to incur additional expenditure throughout his life for certain amenities in view of the disability and injuries.

22. The income of the claimant, as per Ex.A5-pay slip is Rs.3,253/- per month and the claimant was in fixed employment. His age was 35 years as on the date of accident. Therefore, future prospects shall be taken to an extent up to 50%, with which the income can be taken at around 5,000/- per month. For the purpose calculating the compensation, the disability causing additional expenditure and consequent necessity of more amenities etc., which he could not get and has to adjust within the income derived, the extent of disability is considered at 10%. Then the same comes to Rs.500/- per month and Rs.6,000/- per annum. For the age group of 35 years, the multiplier applicable is „16‟. Then the entitlement comes to Rs.96,000/- (Rs.6000/- x16).

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:

-Nil-

Rs.5,000/-

-Nil-

Rs.16,265/-

-Nil-

Rs.81,265/-

9%

In view of the long

lapse of time