(Prayer: Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Courtaggrieved by the decree and judgment Dtd.4th day of August, 2014, passed in M.O.P. No. 192 / 2013 in the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (1st Addl. District Court) Vizianagaram

IA NO: 1 OF 2015(MACMAMP 4883 OF 2015

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 to condone the delay of 324 days in re-presenting M.A.C.M.A. Sr.No.35141 of 2014 and pass)

Introductory:

1. This appeal is directed against the order and decree dated 04.08.2014 passed in M.V.O.P.No.192 of 2013 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram (for short “the learned MACT”). The petitioner before the learned MACT is the appellant herein.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation of Rs.5,81,053/- awarded as against a claim made for Rs.12,00,000/-, the present appeal is filed seeking enhancement.

3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the driver and owner of the lorry bearing No.AP 35 U 1548 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) and respondent No.3 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. The claim was allowed against all the respondents, fixing joint and several liability.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as “the claimant” and “the respondents” as arrayed before the learned MACT.

Case of the claimant:

5(i). On 06.01.2013 at about 01:00 PM, while the claimant was proceeding on his motor cycle on the left side of the road near CMR Shopping Mall, Railway Station Road, Vizianagaram, the offending vehicle, driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner, came in the opposite direction and dashed the motor cycle.

                  (ii). As a result of the accident, the claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries. He was initially shifted to Sukhibhava Critical Care Hospital, Vizianagaram and thereafter referred to Indus Hospital, Visakhapatnam for better treatment.

                  (iii). The claimant sustained crush injury to his left leg and other injuries all over the body, his left leg was amputated below the knee.

                  (iv). At the time of the accident, the claimant was aged about 35 years, hale and healthy, and working as an electrician, earning Rs.10,000/- per month.

                  (v). Due to the amputation of his left leg, the claimant became permanently disabled and lost his earning capacity and also suffered loss of amenities of life, apart from incurring huge medical expenses.

                  (vi). The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1, and hence, the respondents being driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

Case of the respondents:

6. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex parte before the learned MACT.

Case of respondent No.3 / Insurance Company:

7(i). The age, occupation and income of the claimant, the nature and manner of the accident, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, the nature and effect of injuries and the expenditure incurred for treatment etc. shall be strictly proved.

                  (ii). The driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence and that the vehicle was not having proper permit and fitness certificate.

                  (iii). The petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and that the compensation claimed is excessive.

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

                  1) Whether the accident occurred resulting injuries to the petitioner due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle (lorry) bearing No.AP 35 U 1548, by its driver?

                  2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation and, if so at what quantum and from which of the respondents?

                  3) To what relief?

Evidence before the learned MACT:

9(i). The claimant was examined as P.W.1 and the doctor, who treated the claimant, was examined as P.W.2.

                  (ii). The claimant relied upon Exs.A1 to A9 and Ex.X1, which include FIR, wound certificate, MVI report, charge sheet, medical bills, disability certificate and case sheet.

                  (iii). On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.B1-insurance policy was marked.

Findings of the learned MACT:

10(i). The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle.

                  (ii). Monthly income of the claimant is acceptable at Rs.3,000/- notionally, as proof is not placed.

                  (iii). The disability of the claimant is at 70% as per the evidence of P.W.2.

                  (iv). Multiplier „16‟ is applicable and the claimant is entitled for Rs.4,03,200/-towards loss of earning capacity.

                  (v). In all claimant is entitled for a compensation of Rs.5,81,053/- with interest at 7.5% per annum.

Arguments in the appeal:

For the claimant:

11(i). The learned MACT erred in awarding meagre compensation.

                  (ii). The learned MACT failed to consider the income of the claimant properly and erred in taking notional income at Rs.3,000/- per month.

                  (iii). The learned MACT failed to appreciate that due to amputation of the left leg, the claimant suffered functional disability affecting his total earning capacity.

                  (iv). The learned MACT failed to award just compensation under various heads including future earnings and loss of amenities.

For the Insurance Company:

12(i). The compensation awarded by the learned MACT is just and reasonable.

                  (ii). There are no grounds to interfere.

Scope of Appeal:

13. The appeal is filed by the claimant. There is no appeal by the respondent Insurance Company. Therefore, the accident, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and liability of the respondents to pay the compensation are all out of dispute and the scope of appeal is relating to the just and adequate nature of the compensation awarded.

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

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

                  1) Whether the compensation of Rs.5,81,053/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% awarded by the learned MACT under the award and decree dated 04.08.2014 are proper in law and on facts or requires any modification, if so, on what grounds and to what extent?

                  2) What is the result of the appeal?

Point No.1:

Precedential Guidance:

16. 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.

Evidence and Analysis:

17(i). Ex.A2-Wound Certificate is reflecting that there is crush injury and the same is grievous. Ex.X1 is the case sheet maintained by Indus Hospital, Visakhapatnam. Ex.A5 is the bunch of medical bills (Nos.33) standing for Rs.1,52,853.13/-. Ex.A8 is the disability certificate of the claimant. Ex.A9 is the photograph with CD indicating the condition of the claimant.

                  (ii). P.W.2 is the Doctor who deposed about the medical condition as well as the disability of the claimant. The evidence of P.W.2 / Dr. G.V.N. Bhoopathi Rao shows that he is a Consultant Orthopedic Surgeon at Indus Hospital, Visakhapatnam. On 06.01.2013, the claimant was admitted in Indus Hospital with the history of involvement in a road traffic accident with a crush injury to the left lower limb. He found that the all bones and soft tissues are exposed, devitalized and crushed with de-vascularized ankle, foot and toes, contaminated and evalues skin and muscles. In consultation with a plastic surgeon and in view of the irreparable tissue injury, dressing was done. On the same day, below-knee amputation delay was done to the left lower limb under spinal anesthesia. The claimant was discharged on 11.01.2013 to take further treatment as an outpatient. The claimant cannot stand and cannot walk without help of a stick and he is suffering from disability to the tune of 70%. Ex.X1 is the case sheet and Ex.A2 is the wound certificate. Ex.A5 is the bunch of medical bills.

                  (iii). The only suggestion put to P.W.2 was that the treatment at K.G. Hospital, Visakhapatnam will be free of cost and that the disability assessed is on the higher side.

18. The claimant was working as an electrician and was aged about „35‟ years as on the date of the accident. Although no proof is filed, upon considering the socio-economic conditions of the year 2013 and the nature of employment of the claimant, the income of the claimant can be accepted at Rs.4,500/- per month at the rate of Rs.150/- per day and in view of his age being 35 years, addition to the tune of 1/3rd towards future prospects can be accepted, whereby the income of the claimant can be considered at Rs.6,000/- per month. Even if the 70% of the disability accepted by the learned MACT is adopted, the loss of income for the petitioner/claimant would be around Rs.4,200/- per month, which comes to Rs.50,400/- per annum. For the age group of 35 years, the multiplier applicable is „16‟. When the same is applied, the entitlement of the claimant for compensation under the head of permanent disability comes to Rs.8,06,400/-(Rs.50,400/- x 16). Towards medical expenditure, the claimant is entitled for Rs.1,52,853/- as evidenced by the bunch of medical bills-Ex.A5. Claimant is entitled for reasonable compensation under the other heads also.

19. In view of the discussion made 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.5,81,053/-

7.5%