Introductory:

1. This appeal is directed against the order and decree dated 24.09.2012 passed in M.V.O.P.No.540 of 2007 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Srikakulam (for short “the MACT”). The petitioner before the learned MACT is the appellant herein.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation of Rs.35,000/- awarded as against a claim made for Rs.4,00,000/-, the present appeal is filed.

3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein are the owner and the insurer of the TATA Sumo Car bearing Registration No.AP 31 M 2257 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”).

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/ appellant:

5(i). On 29.04.2007, at about 03:00 PM, the claimant was proceeding on his motor cycle and reached near Prince Showroom, Palakonda, Srikakulam district, with his friend K. Bullibabu as a pillion rider. The offending vehicle, driven by respondent No.1, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motor cycle from the opposite direction. As a result, the claimant sustained grievous injuries to his right leg due to fracture.

                  (ii). Immediately after the accident, the claimant was admitted in the Area Hospital, Palakonda, for about 20 days, and later shifted to private hospitals in Visakhapatnam for 30 days as an inpatient, incurring medical expenses of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.10,000/- towards travelling and extra nourishment.

                  (iii). As on the date of the accident, the claimant was aged about 34 years, hale and healthy, running iron and cement business in Palakonda and used to earn a profit of Rs.15,000/- per month. The claimant is permanently disabled due to fracture of the right leg and suffers mental agony, pain and suffering.

                  (iv). A case in Crime No.36 of 2007 was registered at Palakonda Police Station under Sections 337 and 338 IPC, and a charge sheet was filed vide C.C.No.77 of 2007 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Palakonda.

                  (v). Both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

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

Case of respondent No.2 / Insurance Company:

7(i). Age, occupation and income of the claimant and the nature and effect of injuries, cost of treatment and disability particularly contributing to the loss of income to the claimant shall be strictly proved.

                  (ii). The driver of the motor cycle had no valid driving licence, and the accident occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner.

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

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

                  (i). Whether the petitioner Voon Venkata Sai Kumar, son of Bhaskara Rao, sustained injuries in the motor vehicle accident that took place on 29.04.2007 at about 03.00 PM, opposite to Prince Show room, Palakonda town, Srikakulam District? If so, whether the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Tata Sumo bearing No.AP 31 M 2257 by its driver or due to that of the petitioner himself in riding his motor cycle or both of them?

                  (ii). Whether the petitioner is entitled to receive any compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?

                  (iii). To what relief?

Additional issue:

                  (i). Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim enhanced compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident?

Evidence before the learned MACT:

9(i). The claimant was examined as P.W.1 and Dr. M. Chandrasekhar Naidu (through Advocate-Commissioner) was examined as P.W.2.

                  (ii). The claimant relied on the FIR, charge sheet, wound certificate, medical bills, cash/cheque receipts, discharge summary and disability certificate etc.

                  (iii). Respondent No.2 relied on Ex.B1-the copy of the insurance policy.

Findings of the learned MACT:

10(i). The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle / respondent No.1.

                  (ii). Both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

                  (iii). In respect of most of the medical bills and receipts (Exs.A6 to A9), there are discrepancies in dates and lacking corroboration with hospital records.

                  (iv). Claimant entitled for Rs.15,000/- under the head of pain and suffering due to multiple fractures, Rs.15,000/- under the head of loss of amenities of life due to permanent partial disability, and Rs.5,000/- under the head of extra nourishment and travelling. In all, the claimant‟s entitlement is fixed at Rs.35,000/-.

11. 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:

12(i). The compensation awarded is grossly inadequate.

                  (ii). The claimant is a businessman earning Rs.15,000/- per month, and the learned MACT failed to take note of loss of earnings during the period of hospitalization and inability to run the business.

                  (iii). The learned MACT erred in disbelieving the evidence of P.W.2 and the disability certificate (Ex.A14), which confirms 45% permanent disability due to shortening of the right leg and loss of muscle.

                  (iv). The learned MACT erred in disbelieving Exs.A6 to A9 cash/cheque receipts, which establish the medical expenses incurred by the claimant.

                  (v). The learned MACT ought to have awarded reasonable compensation towards pain and suffering, medical expenses, and permanent disability combined.

                  (vi). The learned MACT erred in awarding interest only at 8% per annum.

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

For the respondents:

13(i). The compensation awarded by the learned MACT under the impugned order is excessive.

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

14. This is an appeal filed by the claimant. There is no appeal by the Insurance Company. Therefore, the liability of the Insurance Company is out of dispute.

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

                  1) Whether the compensation of Rs.35,000/- awarded by the learned MACT to the claimant under the impugned judgment dated 24.09.2012 in M.V.O.P.No.540 of 2007 on the file of the learned MACT is proper, viz. just and reasonable or requires any modification and if so, to what extent.

                  2) What is the result of the appeal?

Point No.1:

Evidence and Analysis:

16. As per Ex.A4-wound certificate, the claimant sustained grievous injuries.

                  Ex.A5 is the bunch of medical bills (12 cash bills) issued by Saraswathi Medical and General Stores. Ex.A6 is the cash receipt issued by P.W.2 for Rs.14,000/-. Ex.A7 is the receipt issued by Dr.P.R.K. Prasad for Rs.4,000/-. Exs.A8 and A9 are cash/cheque receipts issued by Kanaka Durga Nursing Home, Visakhapatnam for Rs.15,106/- and Rs.12,066/- respectively. Ex.A13 is the laboratory report. Ex.A14 is the disability certificate.

17(i). P.W.2 / Dr. M. Chandrasekharam Naidu deposed that the claimant was admitted with compound fracture of both bones of the right leg with thigh injury. An operation was conducted and nailing was done. Primary skin grafting was done by one Dr. P.R.K. Prasad, Plastic Surgeon and that P.W.2 issued the disability certificate assessing 45% disability.

                  (ii). During cross-examination, except suggesting that a similar operation can be done at K.G. Hospital, Visakhapatnam and that P.W.2 is not a member of the District Medical Board for issuing the disability certificate, nothing more was elicited. The evidence of P.W.2 cannot be totally brushed aside.

                  (iii). The learned MACT did not consider the evidence of P.W.2. The evidence of P.W.2, to some extent, corroborates the medical expenditure pleaded by the claimant.

18. Upon considering the bunch of medical bills etc., this Court finds that the claimant is entitled for reasonable compensation under the head of medical expenditure. Further, though the disability certificate was not issued by the Medical Board, since it was issued by the doctor who treated the claimant and who spoke about the disability, it cannot be ignored. The reasoning stated that there is shortening of the right leg and that skin grafting was also done is evident from the evidence of P.W.2.

Precedential Guidance:

19. 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.

20. The claimant was engaged in iron and cement business and claimed that he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. However, for want of proper proof etc., the income of the claimant notionally can be considered as Rs.3,000/- per month. As per the evidence and also the wound certificate-Ex.A4, the age of the claimant is „34‟ years. He is self-employed. Therefore, 40% addition to the income can be accepted. Therefore, the income of the claimant can be accepted at Rs.4,200/- per month and Rs.50,400/- per annum. For the age group of 31 to 35 years, the multiplier applicable is „16‟. The disability of the claimant can be accepted at around 40% in the light of the evidence of P.W.2. Then the loss of income under the head of disability comes to Rs.3,22,560/- (Rs.50,400/-x16x40%).

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