(Prayer: Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased to

IA NO: 1 OF 2013(MACMAMP 1560 OF 2013

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 180 days in reprsenting the above MACMA and pass.)

Introductory:

1. This appeal is directed against the order and decree dated 23.04.2012 passed in M.O.P.No.99 of 2010 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam (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.12,000/- awarded as against the claim made for Rs.2,00,000/-, the present appeal is filed.

3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein are the owner and the insurer of the Lorry bearing Registration No.AP 31 TT 6993 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”).

Case of the Claimant:

4(i). On 12.11.2007, at about 10:00 p.m. the claimant boarded the offending vehicle at Lala Chereuvu, Rajamundry, to go to Kothavalasa. When the vehicle reached near Weavers Colony, Kothavalasa at about 04:30 a.m. on 13.11.2007, due to rash and negligent driving of its driver, it fell into a drainage. As a result, the claimant sustained grievous injuries to the right knee, left leg and other parts of the body.

                  (ii). Immediately after the accident, the claimant was shifted to the Medical Centre, Nakkapalli. He subsequently underwent treatment as an inpatient for about two months and incurred an expenditure of Rs.85,000/- towards medical treatment, extra nourishment, transportation etc.

                  (iii). A case in Cr.No.125 of 2007 was registered by the Nakkapalli Police Station against the driver of the offending vehicle for the offence under Section 337 IPC.

                  (iv). As on the date of the accident, the claimant was aged about 33 years, hale and healthy, working as a Senior Technician in Electrical Manufacturers, Kothavalasa, Visakhapatnam and earning Rs.12,000/- per month.

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, nature of treatment taken and expenditure incurred are all incorrect and shall be strictly proved.

                  (ii). The factum of insurance and compliance of the conditions of the policy, including a valid and effective driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle, shall be proved.

                  (iii). In any event, the quantum of compensation claimed is excessive and respondent No.2 / insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation.

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 accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle lorry bearing No.AP 31 TT 6993?

                  (ii). Whether petitioner is entitled for compensation as claimed for, if so, from whom and how much?

                  (iii). To what relief?

Evidence before the learned MACT:

8(i). Claimant has taken the witness stand as P.W.1 and one Dr. B.D. Naidu, who treated him, was examined as P.W.2.

                  (ii). On behalf of the respondents, one K. M. Madhav, working as Manager in the respondent Insurance Company and one V.A. Krishna Mohan, Senior Assistant, RTA Office, Visakhapatnam were examined as R.Ws.-1 and 2.

9(i). The claimant relied on Ex.A1-FIR, Ex.A2-Wound Certificate and Ex.A3- copy of registration certificate of the offending vehicle, Ex.A4: Policy issued by Respondent No.2 in the name of Respondent No.1. Exs.A5 to A9 are medical records.

                  (ii). Respondents relied on the policy copy, legal notice issued to respondent No.1 by the Insurance Company, returned postal cover from respondent No.1, copy of the charge sheet and permit for the vehicle corresponding to Ex.X2.

Findings of the learned MACT:

10(i). P.W.1 is the injured cum eye witness. Ex.A1-FIR was registered based on his complaint.

                  (ii). No evidence was adduced by the respondents, including the driver of the offending vehicle, to rebut the allegation of negligence. Hence, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of respondent No.1.

                  (iii). In the absence of any official or Government record to establish that the injuries were grievous in nature, the injuries mentioned in Ex.A2 can be treated as simple injuries. A sum of Rs.12,000/- was awarded towards compensation.

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

Argument in the appeal:

For the appellant:

12(i). The compensation is grossly inadequate.

                  (ii). The claimant is entitled for more compensation.

                  (iii) Awarding Rs.12,000/- for the injuries sustained is contrary to the evidence on record and settled principles.

                  (iv). The learned MACT erred in ignoring Ex.A7 to A9 without assigning reasons.

                  (v). The evidence of P.W.2 (doctor) was not properly appreciated.

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

                  1) Whether the compensation of Rs.12,000/- awarded by the learned MACT is just and adequate or requires any modification, if so, to what extent?

2) What is the result of the appeal?

Point No.1:

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(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:

15(i). Ex.A2-wound certificate is disclosing that the petitioner sustained two injuries and they are simple in nature.

                  (ii). The case sheet-Ex.A6 is disclosing that the patient by name Karanam Srinivasulu was admitted in the hospital on 21.12.2007 and was discharged on 09.01.2008. The history of illness shows that the patient is involved in an accident

                  (iii). The bunch of medical bills covered by Ex.A7 are indicating that the claimant has incurred medical expenditure.

16. As per the evidence of claimant as P.W.1, he has incurred an expenditure of Rs.85,000/- towards medicines, hospitalization, transportation etc. and even after the discharge he is undergoing treatment. Ex.A7 is the bunch of medical bills on which the claimant relied on. Ex.A9 certificate issued by Dr. B.D. Naidu also indicates about hospitalization of the petitioner from 21.12.2007 to 09.01.2008.

17(i). Evidence of P.W.2-Dr.B.D.Naidu, who treated the petitioner, is supporting the documentary evidence and the contention of the petitioner. P.W.2 stated that he has issued Ex.A8 for Rs.46,260/- and he has also stated that the claimant has to face 10% to 15% difficulty while attending his job. Here itself, it is relevant to note that there is no disability certificate issued by the Medical Board, etc. P.W.2 failed to mention the reasons for specific quantification of disability.

                  (ii). During cross examination P.W.2 (Doctor) stated that the claimant did not sustain any fracture and as per Ex.A2-Wound Certificate, the injury is simple in nature. No X-ray was taken by him while treating the claimant. He has denied the other formal suggestions as to issuance of Ex.A5 to A8 to help the claimant.

                  (iii). It is also relevant to note that the claimant might have incurred some expenditure for treatment, medicines etc., during hospitalization and after discharge. Therefore, some reasonable amount can be awarded. Awarding of Rs.60,000/- towards medical expenditure is found just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case.

18. This is a claimant’s appeal. Insurance Company did not choose to file any appeal. For the purpose of quantification of either disability or for the loss of income due to disability, there is no legally acceptable evidence except the statement of P.W.2.

19. With regard to nature of injuries, period of hospitalization and for the medical expenditure, there is some evidence. In the process of quantifying the compensation, the precedential guidance quoted above, viz. Rajkumar vs. Ajay Kumar and Another (6 supra) and Sidram vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr (7 supra), indicate that a holistic approach, the difficulties of the claimant in procuring the evidence and the permissibility of guesswork with some hypothetical considerations etc. are to be kept in view.

20. 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:



21. For the reasons aforesaid, the point framed is answered in favour of the claimant concluding that the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and the order and decree dated 23.04.2012 passed by the learned MACT in M.O.P.No.99 of 2010 require modification accordingly

Point No.2:

22. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part as follows:

                  (i) The compensation awarded by the learned MACT at Rs.12,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum is modified and enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

                  (ii) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable. However, Respondent No.2 is liable in view of the Insurance Policy.

                  (iii) Time for payment / deposit of the balance amount is two months.

                  (a) If the claimant furnishes the bank account number within 15 days from today, respondent No.2/ Insurance Company shall deposit the amount directly into the bank account of the claimant and file the necessary proof before the learned MACT.

                  (b) If the claimant fails to comply iii(a) above, respondent No.2 / Insurance Company shall deposit the amount before the learned MACT and the claimant is entitled to withdraw the amount at once on deposit.

                  (iv) There shall be no order as to costs, in this appeal.

                  As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeal shall stand closed.