Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
G. Bala Krishna G. Balan vs A. Velumurugan 3 Others on 18 July, 2025
APHC010170312012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
FRIDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 40 OF 2012
Between:
G. Bala Krishna @ G. Balan, S/o Govindan, Aged about 38 years, Hindu
R/o Mahadeva Mangalam Village and Post G.D. Nellore Mandal, Chittoor
District.
...APPELLANT/PETITIONER
AND
1. A Velumurugan, S/o Not known Owner of the TATA Sumo bearing No.
TN 63-A-6774 R/o 3/151-5-7, Indira Nagar, Kosavampatti Police
Namakkal Taluk and District, Tamil Nadu.
2. M/s IFFCOTOKIO General Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by its
Branch Manager, New No. 28, 2nd Floor North Usman Road, T. Nagar,
Chennai-17
(Policy No. 37598649, Valid from 15-10-2007 to 14-10-2008)
3. V Vijaya Babu, S/o V. Narendra Babu Owner of the Car Bearing No. AP
03 AA 3636 R/o D.No. 2-1254/1, Officers Lane, Chittoor Town and
District.
r
4. M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by its
Branch Manager, 1st Floor, Indira Bhavan Road, 0pp. Hotel Chennai
International, Nellore-524 001
(Policy No. OG 08-1515-1801-00001206, Valid from 23-7-2007 to
22.07.2008)
...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS
Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, aggrieved by the
award passed in MVOP No. 115 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the District
Judge Cum Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chittoor dt. 12-10-2011.
This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of
appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Trial Court and material papers in
the Suit and upon hearing arguments of Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava,
Advocate for the Appellant and Sri Srinivasa Rao Kamarajugadda, Advocate
for Respondent No.2 and Sri Srinivasa Rao Vutia, Advocate for Respondent
No.4.
This Court doth Order and decree as follows:
1. That the appeal be and hereby is allowed;
2. That the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
at Rs.6,99,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum be and
hereby is modified and enhanced to Rs. 14,33,123/- with interest at the
rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of
realization:
3. That the claimant be and hereby is liable to pay the Court fee for the
enhanced part of the compensation, before the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal;
4. That the claimant be and hereby is entitled to withdraw the amount at
once on deposit;
V
5. That the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 be and hereby are liable to pay the
compensation and time for depositing the compensation amount is two
months and
6. That there shall be no order as to costs, in this appeal.
SD/- M.PRABHAKAR RAO
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTI C^N^FICER
To,
1. The District Judge Cum Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chittoor
Chittoor District
2. Two CD Copies
Stu
TAC
HIGH COURT
DATED: 18/07/2025
DECREE
WIACMA NO. 40 OF 2012
O' 3IJUL 2025 IS o»
rrentSectwDxV
<3 v^!
ALLOWING THE MAGMA WITHOUT COSTS
I*
APHC010170312012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
0
-y
FRIDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY 81 ml
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 40 OF 2012
Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, aggrieved by the
award passed in MVOP No. 115 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the District
Judge Cum Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chittoor dt. 12-10-2011.
Between:
G. Bala Krishna @ G. Balan, S/o Govindan, Aged about 38 years, Hindu
R/o Mahadeva Mangalam Village and Post G.D. Nellore Mandal, Chittoor
District.
...APPELLANT/PETITIONER
AND
1. A Velumurugan, S/o Not known Owner of the TATA Sumo bearing No.
TN 63-A-6774 R/o 3/151-5-7, Indira Nagar, Kosavampatti Police
Namakkal Taluk and District, Tamil Nadu.
2. M/s IFFCOTOKIO General Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by its
Branch Manager, New No. 28, 2nd Floor North Usman Road, T. Nagar,
Chennai-17
(Policy No. 37598649, Valid from 15-10-2007 to 14-10-2008)
3. VVijaya Babu, S/o V. Narendra Babu Owner of the Car Bearing No. AP
03 AA 3636 R/o D.No. 2-1254/1, Officers Lane, Chittoor Town and
District.
4. M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by its
Branch Manager, 1st Floor, Indira Bhavan Road, 0pp. Hotel Chennai
International, Nellore-524 001
(Policy No. OG 08-1515-1801-00001206, Valid from 23-7-2007 to
22.7.2008)
...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA
Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI SRINIVASA RAO
KAMARAJUGADDA
Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : SRI SRINIVASA RAO VUTLA
Counsel for the Respondent: SRI T MAHENDER RAO
Counsel for the Respondent: SRI A RAMAKRISHNA REDDY
The Court made the following JUDGMENT :
1
APHC010170312012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3520]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 40/2012
Between:
1.G. BALA KRISHNA @ G. BALAN, S/O GOVINDAN HINDU R/0
MAHADEVA MANGALAM VILLAGE AND POST G.D. NELLORE
MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
AND
1.A VELUMURUGAN 3 OTHERS, S/O NOT KNOWN OWNER OF THE
TATA SUMO BEARING NO. TN 63-A-6774 R/O 3/151-5-7, INDIRA
NAGAR, KOSAVAMPATTI POLICE NAMAKKAL TALUK AND DISTRICT,
TAMIL NADU.
2.M/S IFFCOTOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REP.
BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, NEW NO. 28, 2ND FLOOR NORTH
USMAN ROAD, T. NAGAR, CHENNAI-17 (POLICY NO. 37598649, VALID
FROM 15-10-2007 TO 14-10-2008
3.V VIJAYA BABU, S/O V. NARENDRA BABU OWNER OF THE CAR
BEARING NO. AP 03 AA 3636 R/O D.NO. 2-1254/1, OFFICERS LANE,
CHITTOOR TOWN AND DISTRICT.
4. M/S BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REP.
BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, 1ST FLOOR, INDIRA BHAVAN ROAD,
2
OPP. HOTEL CHENNAI INTERNATIONAL, NELLORE-524 001 POLICY
NO. OG 08-1515-1801-00001206. VALID FROM 23-7-2007
...RESPONDENT(S):
Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying the High court may be pleased
to award passed in MVOP No. 115 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the District
Judge Cum Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Chittoor dt. 12-10-2011
Counsel for the Appellant:
1.SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. SRINIVASA RAO VUTLA
2.T MAHENDER RAO
3. SRINIVASA RAO KAMARAJUGADDA '
4.A RAMAKRISHNA REDDY
The Court made the following:
3
JUDGMENT:
1. The claimant in M.V.O.P.No.115 of 2010 on the file of the District judge- cum-Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chittoor (for short "the learned MACT") filed the present appeal feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation of Rs.6,99,000/- awarded by the learned MACT against the claim made for Rs.12,00,000/-.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as and how they are arrayed before the learned MACT. Case of the claimant:
3. On 12.07.2008 at about 04:00 a.m., when the petitioner was travelling in Car bearing Registration No.AP 03 AA 3636, driven by one N. Mahadeva Reddy, on Chittoor-Tirupathi Main Road near Panapakkam Bus Stop, the Tata Sumo bearing Registration No.TN 63 A 6774 (hereinafter referred to as "the offending vehicle") driven by respondent No.1, came in the opposite direction and dashed against the car, causing the accident. The petitioner and other inmates of the car, including the driver, sustained grievous injuries and the driver succumbed to injuries on the spot. Negligence of Respondent No.1, the driver of the offending vehicle, is the cause for accident.
4. A case in Crime No. 106 of 2008 was registered against Respondent No.1 for the offences under Sections 304-A and 338 I.P.C, and he was subsequently charge sheeted vide C.C.No.65 of 2008 on the file of III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate. Tirupati.
5. Further, the case of petitioner is that immediately after the accident, the petitioner was shifted to SVRR Government Hospital, Tirupati and after first aid, he was referred to SVIMS Hosptial, Tirupati for expert treatment. The SVIMS Hospital authorities referred him to C.M.C. Hospital, Vellore for expert treatment for the Head injury. He took treatment from 13.07.2008 to 28.07.2008 at C.M.C. Hospital, Vellore and underwent a major operation, during which steel plates and screws were inserted for the fractures. Periodical visits were advised. On 18.12.2008, the petitioner was readmitted in MIOT Hospital, Chennai and discharged on 30.12.2008. Later, he was admitted in Global Hospital, Chennai on 24.08.2009 and discharged on 02.09.2009. He was unable to move from the bed and became permanently disabled. His face is completely disfigured. His movements are restricted to bed only. The disability is assessed at 75%. Future treatment / further operation is necessary for removal of the steel plates. He has incurred Rs.4,50,000/- towards hospital and medical expenses, Rs.26,000/- towards transport expenses, and Rs.50,000/- towards attendant charges, extra nourishment and other expenses.
6. The petitioner was aged about '38' years; hale and healthy. He was doing mason contract works and real estate business, earning Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month and also holding six (06) acres of agriculture land. He 5 was also attending to cultivation work, from which he was earning Rs.50,000/- to Rs.60,000/- income per year. Due to the unfortunate accident, he become totally disabled. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for just and reasonable compensation.
7. Negligence of Respondent No.1 is the cause for the accident. The Vehicle was insured with Respondent No.2.
8. Respondent No.3 is the owner of car in which the petitioner was travelling. Respondent No.4 is the Insurance Company. Hence, all the respondents are liable to pay compensation.
9. Respondent No.1 remained ex-parte.
10. The other respondents contested.
Case of Respondent No.2:
11. The petitioner is put to strict proof of all the allegations including the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, valid and effective Policy issued by Respondent No.2, age, occupation and income of the petitioner, nature and effect of injuries, expenditure incurred for treatment at various places, disability pleaded, and all other relevant facts making the claimant eligible for compensation.
12. The TATA Sumo / the offending vehicle belonging to Respondent No.1 was insured with Respondent No.2. The liability is strictly in accordance with the terms of the Policy. They shall be a valid and effective driving license by Respondent No.1 to drive the vehicle.
% 6
13. In any event. Respondent No.2 is not liable and the quantum of compensation claimed is excessive.
Case of Respondent No.3:
14. The petitioner and others, as travellers, have approached the tribunal and pleaded that they were travelling in the car belonging to Respondent No.3, which was driven by one N. Mahadeva Reddy in the course of his employment, occurrence of accident on the negligence of Respondent No.1 are all true. Case is registered against Respondent No.1. Respondent No.3 is not liable to pay any compensation. The petition against Respondent No.3 is not maintainable, in the light of pleadings that Respondent No.1 is negligent. Therefore, the petition is liable to dismissed against Respondent Nos.3 and 4. Case of Respondent No.4:
15. The petitioner's allegations are incorrect. The petitioner is put to strict proof of all allegations. The liability of Respondent No.4 is as per the terms of the policy only. The case is registered against the driver of Respondent No.1. Respondent No.4 is wrongly impleaded and hence not liable to pay any compensation. The driver of the car was not holding proper license and, in any event, the claim against Respondent No.4 is not tenable and liable to be dismissed.
16. On the strength of pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial by the learned MACT:
1
1. Whether the motor vehicle accident on 12.07.2008 at 4 a.m. arose on account of negligence of driver of 1st respondent, causing injuries to the petitioner?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
3. To what relief?
17. Evidence before the learned MACT:
Description Remarks
Oral evidence P.W.1: G. Balakrishna @ G. Balan Claimant
P.W.2: Dr. M. Sanjeevarayudu Member of the
District Medical
Board, Chittoor
P.W.3: Dr. A.R. Kesavan Orthopaedic
Surgeon and Senior
Consultant,
Speicalist in Hip
and Pelvic Surgery,
Global Hospital.
Chennai
P.W.4: Dr. Sanjay Pandey Orthopaedic
Surgeon, MIOT
Hospital, Chennai
P.W.5: Dr. Able Livingston Assistant Professor
in Orthopaedic Unit-
3 in CMC Hospital,
Vellore
Documentary Ex.AI: CC of first information
evidence report in Cr.No.106 of 2008 of
Chandragiri Police Station.
Ex.A2: CC of Wound Certificate On behalf of the
issued by SVRRG Hospita, petitioner.
Tirupati
Ex.A3:C.C. of Charge sheet in
C.C.No.65/2008 of HI Additional
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
8
TiruapatL
quPD 'ssued by
SVRR hospital, Tirupati
qfmfc '^sued by
SVIMS hospital, Tirupati ^
u P'^^harge summary
^sued by CMC Hospital, Vellore
tx.AZ; Gastros copy reoort
Hospital, Vellore.
tx.A8. Medical report of the CMC
Hospital, Vellore
Ex.A9;
Discharge summary
issued by MIOT Hospital,
Chennai u admitted 30.09.2008
and discharged on 16.10 2008
Ex.AIO;
Discharge summary
issued
by MIOT, Hospital,
Chennai admiited
u 18.12.2008
and discharged on 30.12.2008
Minrli
MIOT Hospital, Chennai,
issued by
^'■ascriptions issued by
MIOT hospital, Chennai ^
Ex.AIS;
Discharge summary
issued by the Global Hospital
Chennai as in patient from
24.08.2009 to 02.09.2009.
^^'■''^sate issued by the
MIOT hospital, Chennai
Ex.AIS;
Disability certificate
issued by the District Medical
Board, Chittoor stating 75%
disability
EX.A16; Hospital bills and
medical bills of CMC HospFtai.
Vellore for Rs. 1,56,324-42.
Ex.A17: Hospital bills and medical
bills of MIOT Hospital, Chennai
forRs.76,211/-.
Ex.A18;
Hospital bills ^
and
me^aL^pf Global Hospitpr
9
Chennai for Rs.14,630/-.
Ex.A19: Medical Bills issued by
Global hospital for
Rs.1,03.458.00/-
Ex.A20: Transport bills for
Rs.25.620/-
Ex.A21: Election confirmation
certificate issued by election
returning officer, counter singed
by the M.P.D.O. of G.D. Nellore
Mandal in favour of G. Balan.
EX.A22: Sarpanch training
certificate issued by the
commissioner. Apard, Signed by
M.P.D.O. of G.D.Nellore in favour
of G.Balan
Ex.B1: Xerox copy of house hold
supply card. On behalf of the
Ex.B2: Xerox copy of Insurance
Respondents.
Policy.
Ex.X1: Attested copy of in patient
record.
Ex.X2: Attested copy of out
patient record.
Ex.X3: Discharge summary
issued by Global hospital.
Findings of the learned MACT:
On negligence:
18. The petitioner examined himself as P.W.1 and got certified copies of FIR and charge sheet i.e. Ex.AI and EX.A3 respectively, marked on his behalf. Respondents did not choose to adduce any oral or documentary evidence touching the aspect of negligence.
10
19. The petitioner, PW.1. being one of the inmates of the car, testified about the occurrence of the accident and negligence on the part of respondent No.1, driver of the offending vehicle. The petitioner is cited as witness in the charge sheet.
20. In the light of evidence placed by the petitioner and absence of evidence of respondents side, particularly the driver of the Tata Sumo, the negligence alleged against Respondent No.1 is fit to be accepted.
On liability:
21. Since the negligence of Respondent No.1 is the cause for accident and the vehicle was insured with Respondent No.2 and policy was in force, violations of conditions of policy are not proved. Respondent No.2 is liable for compensation. Since no relief is claimed against the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 and they are only formal parties, the crime was proceeded against the driver of the offending vehicle only. RespondentNos.3 and 4 are not liable to pay any compensation. On quantum:
22. The evidence of P.W.2, 3, 4 and 5 and the documentary evidence, including the disability medical records of various hospital covered by Ex.XI to Ex.X3, indicate the nature of injuries, treatment undergone.
23. In the light of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned MACT found the entitlement of petitioner for compensation under various heads as follows: 11
Compensation for injuries, pain and suffering Rs.50.000/-
Loss of past earnings Rs.50,000/-
Permanent disability ^ Rs.3,24,000/-
Medical expenses Rs.2,50,000/-
Transportation charges Rs. 15,000/-
Extra nourishment
Rs. 10,000/-
Total
Rs.6,99.000/-
Arguments and contention.^; in the appeal:
For the Appellant:
24. The learned MACT failed to consider
a) The entitlement of claimant under all necessary heads and awarded meagre compensation,
b) Disability is 75%, which can be considered as 100%, but the learned MACT erred in taking it as only 60%, although the disability is assessed by the District Medical Board under Ex.A15.
c) The learned MACT erred in taking the income of the petitioner at Rs.3,000/-
per month, despite several documents being exhibited, including social roots of claimant as Sarpanch of the village and other sources of income.
■1 c 12
25. Awarding compensation under the medical expenditure at Rs.2,50,000/- when the record is indicates Rs.3,50,000/- is not correct. The compensation awarded under the heads of Transportation and extra nourishment very meagre and heads like future medical needs, loss of amenities, attendant expenditure etc. are not considered.
For the Respondents:
26(i). The compensation already awarded is excessive.
(ii). The post of Sarpanch is an honorary position and does not carry any income.
(iii). There is no clear proof for the income of the petitioner with reference to ' salary certificates, income tax returns etc.
(iv) The disability pleaded is excessive and the evidence of doctors does not support the contentions of the petitioner.
27. Perused the record. Thoughtful consideration is given to the arguments advanced by both sides.
28. The appeal is filed by the claimant.
29. There is neither an appeal nor cross-objections from the end of the Respondents. Therefore, the objections relating to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and the liability of Respondent No.2 to pay compensation and exoneration of Respondent Nos.3 and 4 from liability etc. are all out of 13 dispute. The only point requires consideration and determination is what is the just and adequate compensation to which the claimant is entitled.
30. Therefore, the points that arise for consideration in this appeal are:
1) What is the just and reasonable compensation that can be awarded to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case and whether the award and decree awarding a compensation of Rs.6,99,000/- require any interference, if so to what extent?
2) What is the result of the appeal?
Point No.1:
Precedential Guidance:
31. 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.^, 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 "2025 AlAR (Civil) 1 Vs, 14 Supreme Court made in K^jal V. Jagadish Chand and Ors.^, referred to various heads under which, compensation can be awarded, in injuries cases vide paragraph No.52, the heads are as follows:-
S. No. Head
Amount (In ?)
1. Medicines and Medical Treatment xxxxx
2.
Loss of Earning Capacity due to Disability xxxxx
3. Pain and Suffering xxxxx
4. Future Treatment xxxxx
5. Attendant Charges xxxxx
6. Loss of Amenities of Life xxxxx
7. Loss of Future Prospect xxxxx
8. Special Education Expenditure xxxxx
9. Conveyance and Special Diet xxxxx
10. Loss of Marriage Prospects xxxxxx
Total Rs. ...xxxxxx
(ii). Hon'ble Apex Court in Yadava Kumar Vs. Divisional Manager,
National Insurance Company Limited and Anr.,^ vide para No. 10, by referring to Sunii Kumar Vs. Ram Singh Gaud*,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^, 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 ^2020(04) see 413 ^2010(10)sce341 2007 (14) see 61 ^ 1992(2) see 567 15 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 Anothei^, 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. observing relevant paras applicable to the present case vide para Nos.5, 12, 13 and 19 are as follows:
5. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the Act", for short) makes It clear that the award must be Just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court or the Tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he ® 2011 (1) see 343 16 suffered as a rem of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability those normal amenities which he to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to have earned. earn or could
12. Therefore, the Tribunal permanent has to first decide whether there is any disability and, if so, the extent of such permanent disability. This means that the Tribunal should consider and decide with reference to the evidence:
(i) whether the disablement IS permanent or temporary;
(ii) if the disablement i IS permanent, whether it IS /, permanent total disablement or permanent partial disablement;
(Hi) if the disablement percentage is expressed with reference to any specific limb, then limb on the the effect of such disablement of the functioning of the entire body, that is, the permanent disability suffered by the person.
If the Tribunal concludes that there i there is no question IS no permanent disability then of proceeding further and determining the loss of future earning capacity. But if the Tribunal concludes that there is permanent disability then it wili proceed to ascertain its extent, After the Tribunal ascertains the actual extent of permanent disability of the claimant based on the medical evidence , It has to determine whether such permanent disability has affected or win affect his capacity. earning
13. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the 17 permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent disability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (Hi) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood.
19. \Ne 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).
(Hi) 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 18 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.^ 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.^. 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.
' 2023 (3) see 439 ® 1995 (1) see 551 19 Analysis of Evidence:
32.
Medical bills are covered by Ex.A16-CMC Hospital, Vellore, Ex.A17-MiOT Hospital, Chennai, Ex.A18 to Ex.A19-Global Hospital, Chennai; in total of EX.A16 to EX.A19 is Rs.3,50,623/-. Learned MACT found that Ex.A16 to Ex. 19 standing for Rs.3,50,623/- but, granted Rs.2,50,000/- by observing that impermissible items amount are deducted. There is no reasoning as to what are that impermissible amounts and why they are deducted, Therefore, the entitlement of claimant for compensation under the head of medical expenditure can be safely accepted at Rs.3,50,623/-.
33. Under the head of transport expenditure Ex.A20-transport bills are standing for Rs.25,620/-, whereas the learned MACT restricted the same to Rs. 15,000/- without any basis just and hypothesis that for Tirupati to Vellore travelling, expenditure may be Rs.15,000/-. But, it is pertinent to note that the trial Court extended up to Chennai also and it is also not for one time but several times. Therefore, under the head of transport expenditure considering the practical difficulties etc. and upon making some guess work which is permissible are found that the claimant is entitled for Rs.50,000/- as compensation.
34. Under the head of permanent disability, the learned MACT after referring to the disability sated in Ex.A15 at 75% by the District Medical Board, Chittoor reduced the same to 60% observing that it is somewhat excessive, For substituting the opinion of the medical experts particularly when a Medical Board 20 IS assessed the same and the doctor, who is one of the Principal of the Medical Board certified reducing the disability to 60% without there being any contra evidence of another expert is impermissible. If it was demonstrated that the disability is assessed by the expert is excessive for absence of disputing party or for the learned MACT seeks for second opinion after assigning the reason as to why the first opinion is doubtful. Without such exercise of going for another expert opinion, supplementation of opinion by the Court with reference to the arguments of the counsels cannot be concurred. Therefore, it is found that the disability is fit to be taken at 75%. The income of victim is pleaded at Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month notionally by doing mason contract works, real estate business referring that the claimant is working as Sarpanch. However, learned MACT taken income notionally at Rs.3,000/- per month.
35. Upon considering the socio economic circumstances of the year 2008-2010 and the evidence of the petitioner as to his involvement in contract business work etc. and upon considering his age being '38' years, his income can be safely taken at Rs.150/- per day comes to Rs.4,500/- per month and 1/3rd of the same can be added towards future prospects. Whereby, the acceptable income comes to Rs.6,000/-. Therefore, the income of the claimant can be taken at Rs.6,000/- per month comes to Rs.72,000/- per annum. 75%) of the same comes to Rs.54,000/-. The same can be considered as loss of income of the petitioner. Multiplier applicable is '15' as rightly observed by the learned MACT. 21 Then, the entitlement of petitioner for compensation under the head of permanent disability comes to Rs.8.10,000/-(Rs.54,000/- x 15). 36(i). The learned MACT found that the accident occurred on 12.07.2008 and the M.V.O.P. is filed in April, 2010. Hence, towards loss of past earnings Rs.50,000/- can be awarded. The time gap between the accident and filing of claim petition cannot be basis for assessing loss of past earnings. The concept of entitlement for compensation can be under the heads of:
a) Permanent total disability,
b) Permanent partial disability,
c) Total temporary disability,
d) Partial temporary disability.
36(ii). The heads under 'a' and 'b' can be considered, after total bed rest period etc. In the sense after the victim getting into normal work to the extent possible. Under the heads of 'b' and 'c' depending on the evidence, the entitlement of compensation can be considered between the date of accident and the victim coming to normal condition, considering whether there was income or possibility to get some income as per the evidence. In this case, the date of accident is 12.07.2008, the treatment continued up to September, 2009 with some intermittent admissions and discharge. Therefore, for a period of '15' months. total loss of income to the petitioner can be considered at the rate of Rs.4,500/- 22 per month. Whereby, the entitlement of the petitioner for compensation comes to Rs. 67,500/-.
37. The entitlement of petitioner for compensation under the other heads, for which the compensation can be awarded on notional basis with some guess work and hypothetical consideration with sympathetic approach taking aid of the guidance of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sidram's case are as follows:
a) Pain and suffering : Rs.50,000/-
b) Future medical needs : Rs.50,000/-
c) Attendant charges : Rs.25,000/-
d) Loss of amenities of life : Rs. 15,000/-
e) Extra nourishment : Rs. 15,000/-
38.
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 as follows:
SI. Head
Granted by Fixed by this
No. the learned Appellate
MACT Court
1. Compensation for Rs.50,000/- Rs.50,000/-
injuries, pain and
suffering
2.
Loss of past earnings / Rs.50,000/- Rs.67,500/-
total loss of income
during the period of
treatment etc.
23
3. Permanent disability Rs.3,24,000/- Rs.8,10,000/
4. Medical expenses Rs.2,50,000/- Rs.3,50,623/
5. Transportation charges Rs. 15,000/- Rs.50,000/
6. Extra nourishment Rs.10,000/- Rs.15,000/
7. Future medical needs -Nil- Rs.50.000/
8. Attendant charges -Nil- Rs.25,000/
9. Loss of amenities of life -Nil- Rs.15,000/
Total: Rs.6,99,000 /- Rs.14,33,123/
39. For the reasons aforesaid and in view of the discussion made above, the point framed is answered in favour of the claimant concluding that the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.14,33,123/- and the award and decree dated 12.10.2011 passed by the learned MACT in M.V.O.P.No.115 of 2010 require modification accordingly.
Granting of more compensation than what claimed. If the claimant is otherwise entitled:-
40. The legal position with regard to awarding more compensation than what claimed has been considered and settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court holding that there is no bar for awarding more compensation than what is claimed. For the said preposition of law, this Court finds it proper to refer the following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court made in:24
(1) Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and Others^ at para 21 of the judgment, that-
there is no restriction that the Tribunal/Court cannot award compensation amount exceeding the claimed amount. The function of the Tribunal/Court is to award "just" compensation, which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record."
10(2) Kajal Vs. Jagadish Chand and Ors. at para 33 of the judgment, as follows:-
33. We are aware that the amount awarded by us is more than the amount claimed. However, it is well settled law that in the motor accident claim petitions, the Court must award the Just compensation and, in case, the just compensation is more than the amount claimed, that must be awarded especially where the claimant is a minor."
(3) Ramla and Others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Others^^ at para 5 of the judgment, as follows;-
"5. Though the claimants had claimed a total compensation of Rs 25,00,000 in their claim petition filed before the Tribunal, we feel that the compensation which the claimants are entitled to is higher than the same as mentioned supra. There is no restriction that the Court cannot award compensation exceeding the claimed amount, since the function of the Tribunal or Court under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is to award "just compensation". The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation. A "just compensation" is one which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record. It cannot be said to have become time-barred. Further, * (2003) 2 see 274 10 2020 (04) see 413 11 (2019) 2 see 192 25 there is no need for a new cause of action to c'iaim an enhanced amount. The courts are duty-bound to award just compensation."
Point No.2:
41. For the aforesaid reasons and in view of the findings of point No.1, Point No.2 is answered as follows:
In the result,
(i) The appeal is allowed.
(ii) The compensation awarded by the learned MACT at Rs.6,99,000/-
with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum is modified and enhanced to Rs. 14,33,123/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.
(iii) The claimant is liable to pay the Court fee for the enhanced part of the compensation, before the learned MACT.
(iv) The claimant is entitled to withdraw the amount at once on deposit. (V) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are liable to pay the compensation and time for depositing the compensation amount is two months. (Vi) There shall be no order as to costs, in this appeal.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeal shall SD/- M.PRABHAKAR RAO stand closed.
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,
1. The District Judge Cum Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chittoor, Chittoor District (with records if any)
2. One CC to Sri. Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava Advocate [OPUC]
3. One CC to Sri. Srinivasa Rao Vutia Advocate [OPUC]
4. One CC to Sri. Srinivasa Rao Kamarajugadda Advocate [OPUC]
5. One CC to Sri. T Mahender Rao Advocate [OPUC]
6. One CC to Sri. A RamaKrishna Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]
7. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi
8. Two CD Copies Stu TAC HIGH COURT DATED: 18/07/2025 JUDGMENT + DECREE MACMA NO. 40 OF 2012 % ^ 3 1JUL 2025 )S ★ ntSectigQ,^^ ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS