As per the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India
in Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and others10, under the
provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, there is no restriction
that the compensation could be awarded only upto the amount
claimed by the claimant. In an appropriate case where from the
evidence brought on record, if Tribunal/Court considers that
claimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed, the
Tribunal may pass such an award. There is no embargo to
award compensation more than that claimed by the claimant.
Rather it is obligatory for the Tribunal and Court to award “just
compensation”, even if it is in the excess of the amount claimed
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI
****
M.A.C.M.A.No. 1566 of 2006
Between:
Chinna Obaiahgari Mohan Reddy,
S/o.Venkata Rami Reddy, Aged 35 years, Agriculturist,
R/o.Koilkuntla Village and Mandal, Kurnool District.
... Appellant
And
1. S.Madduleti Reddy,
S/o.Madduleti Reddy, Rig Owner,
R/o.T.B.Road, Allagadda, Kurnool District.
2. The New India Assurance Company Limited,
Rep.by its Divisional Manager, Kurnool. ... Respondents
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 18.01.2023
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers
may be allowed to see the judgment? No
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters / Journals? Yes
3. Whether His Lordship wish to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes
DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA, J
2023:APHC:937
2
* THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA
+ M.A.C.M.A.No.1566 of 2006
% 18.01.2023
Between:
Chinna Obaiahgari Mohan Reddy,
S/o.Venkata Rami Reddy, Aged 35 years, Agriculturist,
R/o.Koilkuntla Village and Mandal, Kurnool District.
... Appellant
And
1. S.Madduleti Reddy,
S/o.Madduleti Reddy, Rig Owner,
R/o.T.B.Road, Allagadda, Kurnool District.
2. The New India Assurance Company Limited,
Rep.by its Divisional Manager, Kurnool. ... Respondents
! Counsel for Appellant : Sri A.Jaya Sankara Reddy
^ Counsel for 2nd Respondent : Sri G.Vasantha Rayudu
Ms.T.V.Sridevi
< Gist:
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1. (2022) 1 SCC 317
2. (2020) ACJ 1042 (SC)
3. (1879) LR 5 QBD 78
4. 1963 2 WLR 1359
5. (1965) 1 ALL ER 563
6. 2012 ACJ 2694 (SC)
7. 2022 ACJ 2122
8. 2011 ACJ 1 (SC)
9. 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)
10. (2003) 2 SCC 274
This Court made the following:
2023:APHC:937
3
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA
M.A.C.M.A.No.1566 of 2006
JUDGMENT:
This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act
(for short “the Act”) has been preferred by the appellantclaimant, challenging the Award dated 22.02.2006, in
M.V.O.P.No.575 of 2003 delivered by the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal –cum- V Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal
(for short „the Tribunal”), granting compensation of
Rs.2,05,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum thereon,
from the date of the petition till the date of realization, to the
petitioner-injured against the 1st & 2nd respondents jointly and
severally, on account of the injuries sustained in a road traffic
accident at Koilkuntla Town.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as
they are arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The factual context of the case is as under:
a) A 43-year-old Chinna Obaiahgari Mohan Reddy was a
Commission Agent and landlord. At the time of the accident, the
claimant was getting an annual income of more than
Rs.1,00,000/-, as per the income tax returns filed before the
Income Tax Department. On 27.02.2003 at about 3.00 p.m.,
2023:APHC:937
4
while the petitioner was returning to his house on a motorcycle
bearing No.AP 21 D 8729, after attending a function, and when
he reached near the bus stand at Koilkuntla Town, the offending
vehicle (Jeep) bearing No.AP 21 D 8999 belongs to the 1st
respondent driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner,
and hit on the rear side of his motorcycle, as a result, the
petitioner-claimant fell down and sustained a fracture of the left
posterior i.e., left side of the hip. Immediately, he was shifted to
Balaji Nursing Home, Kurnool for treatment. The matter was
reported to the Police alleging that the accident took place as a
result of rash and negligent driving of the said Jeep and based
on the complaint lodged by the petitioner-claimant, Koilkuntla
Police, registered a case in Crime No.16 of 2003 for the offence
under Section 337 IPC and issued F.I.R and after completion of
investigation of the case, a charge sheet was submitted against
the accused driver for having committed an offence punishable
under Section 338 IPC and Section 134 (a) & (b) read with 187 of
M.V.Act and the claimant Ch.Mohan Reddy filed an application
claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.4,75,000/-, but restricted
the claim to Rs.3,00,000/- before the Tribunal, on account of
the injuries sustained by him in the said road traffic accident.
2023:APHC:937
5
b) The 1st respondent, who is the owner of the offending
vehicle, did not contest the matter.
c) The 2nd respondent-Insurance Company filed a counter
contending inter alia that the accident did not take place near
the bus stand at Koilkuntla and it took place somewhere in
Kurnool Town, due to the hit by an unidentified vehicle. It is
further contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was
not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the
accident. It is further contended that the offending vehicle was
not having a valid permit and violated the policy conditions. It is
further contended that this respondent is not at all responsible
for the alleged accident and is not liable to pay the compensation
and prayed to dismiss the petition.
d) Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the
following issues:
1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of the jeep bearing No.AP 21 D 8999
resulting in injuries to the petitioner?
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation?
And if so, to what amount and from which of the
respondents?
3) To what relief?
2023:APHC:937
6
e) During the trial, in order to establish his claim, the
injured-claimant was examined himself as P.W.1, Dr.B.V.Subba
Reddy, Dr.Jai Ramachandra Pingle, who treated and operated
for replacement of the hip, were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3
respectively and C.Obula Reddy, who shifted the injured to the
hospital for treatment, was examined as P.W.4 besides marking
Exs.A.1 to A.8 and Exs.X.1 to X.3 on behalf of the petitioner.
K.Prabhakara Rao, who was the Branch Manager of the 2nd
respondent-Insurance Company, was examined as R.W.1, and
Ex.B.1 was got marked.
(f) The Tribunal, after analyzing the entire evidence of P.Ws.1
to 4 and Exs.A.1 to A.8, Exs.X.1 to X.3, and Ex.B1, came to the
conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and
negligent driving of the offending vehicle (Jeep) bearing No.AP 21
D 8999 by its driver and passed the impugned Award granting
compensation of Rs.2,05,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum
and with proportionate costs to be paid by the 2nd respondentInsurance Company.
g) On appreciation of evidence, the following compensation
was awarded by the Tribunal by applying multiplier „15‟.
2023:APHC:937
7
S.No. Heads of compensation Amount of
compensation awarded
1 Loss of Income for six months Rs.20,000/-
2 Compensation for pain and
suffering
Rs.20,000/-
3 Medical and Transport
expenses
Rs.75,000/-
4 Permanent disability and loss
of future income
Rs.90,000/-
Total Rs.2,05,000/-
(h) Aggrieved by, and dissatisfied with the said award, the
injured/claimant, being the appellant, preferred the present
appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant would submit
that, considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal ought to
have awarded higher compensation. It was further submitted
that the income of the injured was taken on the lower side by
the Tribunal which ultimately resulted in the grant of lesser
compensation. It is further submitted that the Tribunal ought to
have taken into consideration the income tax returns filed by the
appellant-claimant for the assessment year 2002-03, definitely,
the appellant-claimant would have got more compensation than
the awarded amount by the Tribunal. It was further urged that
the compensation under various conventional heads granted by
the Tribunal is very lesser resulting in prejudice to the case of
the appellant-claimant. Therefore, the figures and multiplier
2023:APHC:937
8
applied by the Tribunal are not justified and warrant the
interference of this Court for enhancement of the compensation.
5. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-Insurance
Company would submit that, on proper appreciation of the
evidence on record, the Tribunal had rightly awarded a just and
fair compensation to the appellant. He would further submit
that the figures and multiplier applied by the Tribunal and the
amount of compensation awarded, were absolutely justified.
Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal does not warrant
any interference in the appeal. The learned counsel, therefore,
urges the Court for dismissal of the appeal.
6. In the light of the above rival arguments, the point for
determination in this appeal is:
“Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just
and reasonable, in the facts and circumstances of the case
or requires enhancement?”
7. POINT: Considering the above submissions of learned
counsels representing the parties, perused and assessed the
entire evidence including the exhibited documents. A perusal of
the impugned award would show that the Tribunal has framed
Issue No.1 as to whether the accident occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of the offending vehicle (jeep) bearing No.AP 21
D 8999 resulting in injuries to the petitioner, to which the
2023:APHC:937
9
Tribunal after considering the evidence of P.W.1, at Para 20 of
the award, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle (jeep)
bearing No.AP 21 D 8999. Ex.A.4 is the Certified Copy of the
Calendar and Judgment dated 05.04.2003 passed in CC.No.35
of 2003 by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Koilkuntla.
When the trial Court examined the accused (driver of the
offending vehicle) under Section 251 Cr.P.C., as to the
allegations leveled against him in the charge sheet, the accused
admitted the offence voluntarily and pleaded guilty. In view of
the voluntary admission by the accused-driver, the trial Court
convicted the accused and sentenced him to pay a fine of
Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 338 IPC
and Rs.250/- each for the offence under Sections 134(a) and (b)
read with 187 of M.V.Act, totaling the fine amount of Rs.1,500/-,
in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months
each. In view of the admission made by the accused-driver of the
offending vehicle, I see no reason to interfere with the finding of
the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle (jeep)
bearing No.AP 21 D 8999. Therefore, I hold that it was only the
driver of the offending vehicle, who was negligent in driving the
2023:APHC:937
10
vehicle and causing the accident. Even assuming that the driver
of the offending vehicle was not possessing a valid driving
licence by the date of the accident, the Insurance Company
cannot escape from its liability in view of the decision of the
Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Kurvan Ansari @ Kurvan Ali
& Another Vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu & Another1, wherein, at
Para No.17, it was held as follows:
“…………..The entire compensation shall be
paid to the appellants by Respondent 2 insurance
company, and we keep it open to the insurance
company to recover the same from Respondent 1
owner of the motorcycle by initiating appropriate
proceedings as the motorcycle was driven by the
driver who was not possessing valid driving licence
on the date of the accident.
18. Accordingly, this civil appeal is allowed
partly with directions as indicated above. No order
as to costs.”
8. Further, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondentinsurance company would submit that the offending vehicle was
not having a valid permit and violated the policy conditions. On
perusal of Ex.B.1-Insurance Policy, the offending vehicle bearing
No.AP 21 D 8999 was covered with the Insurance Policy by the
date of the accident, as the period of insurance was from
01.08.2002 at 12.00 a.m to the midnight of 31.07.2003.
1
(2022) 1 SCC 317
2023:APHC:937
11
Therefore, the plea taken by the 2nd respondent-Insurance
Company that the offending vehicle does not cover under the
insurance policy as on the date of the accident, is found to be
false. The Policy taken by the 1st respondent was in existence at
the time of the accident and the same has been proved before
the Tribunal by producing Ex.B.1-copy of the Insurance Policy
issued by the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company. Therefore, I
hold that the offending vehicle (jeep) bearing No.AP 21 D 8999
was covered with an insurance policy at the time of the accident
on 27.02.2003 and there was no violation of policy conditions.
9. In so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned,
while determining the compensation for physical injuries, the
head on which the amount of compensation to be determined,
may be of two types, one is pecuniary damages and the other is
non-pecuniary damages.
10. It is not out of place to state that, by making the payment
of compensation for damages would not revive the claimant into
his original physical position. The compensation towards
wrongful act in terms of money though cannot be decided by the
Court, it may be determined as per the recognized principles. In
the said context, some of the English judgments are relevant,
which may specify why the compensation be paid, what should
2023:APHC:937
12
be the basis for determination, and what may be the reason for
awarding such compensation, applying the uniform methodology
for determination of compensation, comparable to the injuries,
thereby a person can lead his life, though his physical frame
cannot be reversed.
11. This Court perused the record and the impugned award,
and finds that the learned Tribunal has not followed the
contours of just compensation in this matter. The Court has to
make a judicious attempt to award damages so that the
claimant or the victim may be compensated for the loss suffered
by him.
12. In the case of Kajal Vs. Jagdish Chand2, wherein, the
Hon‟ble Apex Court has quoted pertinent observations from a
very old case Phillips Vs. London & South Western Railway
Co.,3 as under:
“You cannot put the plaintiff back again into
his original position, but you must bring your
reasonable common sense to bear, and you must
always recollect that this is the only occasion on
which compensation can be given. The plaintiff can
never sue again for it. You have, therefore, now to
give him compensation once and for all. He has
done no wrong, he has suffered a wrong at the
hands of the defendants and you must take care to
give him full fair compensation for that which he
has suffered.” Besides, the Tribunals should
2
(2020) ACJ 1042 (SC)
3
(1879) LR 5 QBD 78
2023:APHC:937
13
always remember that the measures of damages in
all these cases “should be such as to enable even a
tortfeasor to say that he had amply atoned for his
misadventure.”
13. The Hon‟ble Apex Court has further quoted pertinent
observations from the case titled H. West & Son Ltd. vs.
Shephard4 as under:
“Money may be awarded so that something
tangible may be procured to replace something else
of the like nature which has been destroyed or lost.
But money cannot renew a physical frame that has
been battered and shattered. All that Judges and
Courts can do is to award sums which must be
regarded as giving reasonable compensation. In the
process there must be endeavour to secure some
uniformity in the general method of approach. By
common assent awards must be reasonable and
must be assessed with moderation. Futhermore, it
is eminently desirable that so far as possible
comparable injuries should be compensated by
comparable awards.
In the same case Lord Devlin observed that the
proper approach to the problem was to adopt a test as to
what contemporary society would deem to be a fair sum,
such as would allow the wrongdoer to "hold up his head
among his neighbours and say with their approval that he
has done the fair thing", which should be kept in mind by
the court in determining compensation in personal injury
cases.”
14. Lord Denning while speaking for the Court of Appeal in
the case of Ward v. James5, laid down the following three basic
principles to be followed in such like cases:
4
1963 2 WLR 1359
5
(1965) 1 All ER 563
2023:APHC:937
14
“Firstly, accessibility: In cases of grave injury,
where the body is wrecked or brain destroyed, it
is very difficult to assess a fair compensation in
money, so difficult that the award must
basically be a conventional figure, derived from
experience or from awards in comparable cases.
Secondly, uniformity: There should be some
measure of uniformity in awards so that similar
decisions may be given in similar cases;
otherwise there will be great dissatisfaction in
the community and much criticism of the
administration of justice. Thirdly, predictability:
Parties should be able to predict with some
measure of accuracy the sum which is likely to
be awarded in a particular case, for by this
means cases can be settled peaceably and not
brought to court, a thing very much to the public
good.”
15. From a reading of all the above Judgments, it is crystal
clear that, while determining the compensation for physical
injuries, the heads on which the amount of compensation are to
be determined, is an extreme task. What may be the adequate
amount for a wrongful act and can it be compensated by money,
particularly, towards pain and suffering by an arithmetical
calculation, it cannot be decided what may be the extent of the
amount of money, which would represent the pain and suffering
to a person. There has to be a measure of calculated guesswork
and conjecture. An assessment, as best as can, in the
circumstances should be made. The determination of quantum
2023:APHC:937
15
must be liberal, not niggardly since the law values life and limb
in a free country in generous scales.
16. In the case of K.Suresh Vs. New India Assurance Co.,
Ltd.,6 the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held as follows:
“2...There cannot be actual compensation for
anguish of the heart or for mental tribulations. The
quintessentiality lies in the pragmatic computation
of the loss sustained which has to be in the realm
of realistic approximation. Therefore, Section 168 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity „the Act‟)
stipulates that there should be grant of “just
compensation”. Thus, it becomes a challenge for a
court of law to determine “just compensation” which
is neither a bonanza nor a windfall, and
simultaneously, should not be a pittance.”
17. Applying the aforesaid principles laid down in the abovereferred Judgments, now processed to assess the compensation.
While assessing the compensation by the Court-Tribunal, one of
the factors, which must be careful in a case like the present one,
is that the claim can be awarded only once. The claimant cannot
come back to the Court for enhancement of the award at a later
stage praying that something extra has been spent. Therefore,
the Court should have to take a liberal view of the matter while
awarding compensation.
6
2012 ACJ 2694 (SC)
2023:APHC:937
16
18. In the instant case, the Tribunal committed an error while
awarding compensation to the claimant by taking the annual
income of the petitioner-injured as Rs.40,000/-. A perusal of
Ex.A.5-Income Tax returns of the petitioner-injured at Column
Nos.23 and 24, would show that the income of the petitioner is
Rs.57,100/- and Rs.62,600/- respectively, and in total
Rs.1,19,700/- per annum. The Tribunal ought to have taken the
annual income of the injured as Rs.1,19,700/-, but committed
an error by taking the annual income as Rs.40,000/-. At least
the Tribunal ought to have taken 60% of the annual income out
of the amount shown in Ex.A.5-Income Tax Returns. It is
relevant to refer to a decision in Royal Sundaram Alliance
Ins.Co.Ltd., Vs. Vinaya Udaybabu Shah and others7 wherein,
at Para-33, held as follows:
“Learned counsel for the appellant during the
course of argument also submitted that learned
Member has wrongly relied upon the income tax
returns for the financial year 2003-04 to assess the
income of deceased. According to learned counsel
the accident in question took place on 23.02.2003
and, therefore, the income taken for assessment of
compensation should have been based on previous
year‟s return.”
7
2022 ACJ 2122
2023:APHC:937
17
19. According to the above said decision, it is crystal clear that
the income tax returns have to be taken into consideration for
the assessment of compensation, based on the previous year‟s
returns. In the instant case, the petitioner-injured filed income
tax returns for the assessment year 2002-03, and the alleged
accident occurred on 27.02.2003. In view of the above said
decision, the income tax returns filed by the petitioner have to
be taken into consideration, while determining the
compensation. This Court is of the view that 60% of the annual
income shown in Ex.A.5-Income Tax Returns has to be taken
into consideration, which comes to Rs.71,820/- (Rs.1,19,700 x
60%).
20. In the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar8 the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court of India, held as under:
“In Raj Kumar (supra), the Supreme Court has
held that award of compensation should, to the
extent possible, fully and adequately restore the
claimant to the position prior to the accident. A
person is not only to be compensated for the
physical injury, but also for the loss which he
suffered as a result of such injury. This would
include compensation for his inability to lead a full
life, enjoy those normal amenities which he would
have enjoyed but for the injuries, as also his
inability to earn as much as he used to earn or
could have earned. The WP(C) No.7856/2010 Page
5 Supreme Court further laid down the heads under
8
2011 ACJ 1 (SC)
2023:APHC:937
18
which the compensation is to be awarded in
personal injury cases as under:
“(5) The heads under which the compensation is
awarded in personal injury cases are the following:
Pecuniary Damages (Special Damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization,
medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and
miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the
injured would have made had he not been injured,
comprising:
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of
permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General damages):
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a
consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and / or loss of prospects of
marriage)
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal
longevity).
In routine personal injury cases, compensation
will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii) (a) and
(iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where
there is specific medical evidence corroborating the
evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be
granted under any of the heads Iii) (b), (iii), (v) and
(vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of
permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss
of amenities (and / or loss of prospects of
marriage), and loss of expectation of life.”
21. In the light of the above Judgments, it is well settled that
the income on the date of the accident, ought to have been taken
into consideration, after deducting the income tax payable by
the claimant. Admittedly, as the accident occurred on
2023:APHC:937
19
27.02.2003, this Court is of the opinion that the learned
Tribunal was not right in taking into consideration 1/3rd of the
income tax returns of the petitioner for the assessment year
2002-03. At least, the learned Tribunal ought to have taken
60% of the annual income of the claimant under Income Tax
Returns for the assessment year 2002-03.
22. As regards the disability suffered by the petitionerclaimant for his whole life, in view of the evidence of P.W.3-
Dr.Jai Ramachandra Pingle, who treated and operated on the
claimant deposed that he was working as Senior Orthopedic
Surgeon at Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad. The petitioner-injured
was admitted in the hospital on 22.02.2004 due to pain in the
left hip joint, a fracture in the left hip, and that in the year 2003,
he was operated with A O screws and X-ray showed a vascular
nerve of the left hip with orthocities. He further deposed that
the injured was operated on 23.02.2004 and total hip
replacement uncemented was done and the injured was
discharged on 26.02.2004. The injured had severe pain in the
hip and joint defect in the patient, there was a collapse head
femoral due to „AVN‟ femur. The hip joint was replaced. P.W.3
identified Ex.A.8-discharge summary card and he also issued
Ex.X.1-Emergency Certificate. The medicines in Ex.A.6 bills of
2023:APHC:937
20
Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad, were all prescribed by him (P.W.3).
Further, he stated that, as a result of the injuries sustained, an
operation of total hip replacement with an artificial joint was
done. Therefore, the injured has a permanent disability of 30%.
23. Therefore, as per the evidence of P.W.3-Doctor, the
petitioner-claimant sustained permanent disability of 30%. But,
the petitioner did not file the disability certificate issued by the
Medical Board or issued by the Doctor, except the evidence of
P.W.3-Doctor. In the absence of any disability certificate, it
cannot be considered that the petitioner-injured sustained 30%
disability. However, this Court is of the view that 15% of
disability has to be taken, as per Raj Kumar‟s case (supra).
24. To award compensation, it is the duty of the Court to
ensure that the petitioner-claimant is paid “just compensation”.
No amount of money can compensate the injured for the injuries
suffered by him. The injured can never be put back to the same
position, however, the compensation has to be determined in
terms of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Act
refers to the determination of payment of “just compensation” to
the injured.
25. In the facts of this case, looking to the beneficial purpose
of the enactment of the Motor Vehicles Act, and further having
2023:APHC:937
21
regard to the principles laid down in the aforesaid Judgments,
the Tribunal failed to consider the gravity of the injuries
sustained by the petitioner and thereby, committed an illegality
in awarding a meager amount of compensation to the claimant
under the head of “loss of future earnings”.
26. In the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation9, while determining the multiplier applicable with
reference to the age of the petitioner-injured, the Hon‟ble Apex
Court, held as follows.
21. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should
be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared
by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and
Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for
the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by
one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30
years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then
reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for
51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65
years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.
27. In Ex.A.5-Income Tax Returns, the total annual income of
the petitioner-injured is Rs.1,19,700/- ( Rs.57,100 + Rs.62,600),
out of which, this Court has taken 60% as his annual income,
which comes to Rs.71,820/- (Rs.1,19,700 x 60%). The
petitioner-injured suffered permanent disability of 30% as stated
9
2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)
2023:APHC:937
22
supra, but in the absence of a disability certificate, this Court
assessed the loss of earning capacity of the petitioner-injured as
15%. In Ex.A.8-Discharge Summary Card issued by Apollo
Hospital, Hyderabad, the age of the petitioner-injured is „43‟
years at the time of the accident. But, the learned Tribunal
committed an error and illegality in taking the annual income of
the petitioner-injured as Rs.40,000/-, and also in taking 15% of
the annual income i.e., Rs.6,000/-. The Tribunal applied the
multiplier „15‟ for the age group of 41 – 45 years, and awarded
an amount of Rs.90,000/- (Rs.6,000 x 15) towards permanent
disability and loss of future earnings, which is not in accordance
with the proposition laid down by Hon‟ble Apex Court in Sarla
Verma‟s case (supra). In the instant case, the multiplier „14‟
should be applied.
28. In the light of the principles laid down in Raj Kumar‟s case
(supra), the calculation of compensation under the head of loss
of future earnings is as follows:
a) Annual income before the accident : Rs.71,820/-
b) Loss of future earnings per annum
(15% of the prior annual income) : Rs.10,773/-
c) Multiplier applicable with reference
to the age group of 41- 45 years : 14
d) Loss of future earnings
(Rs.10,773 x 14) : Rs.1,50,822/-
2023:APHC:937
23
29. This Court finds that the Tribunal has not awarded
appropriate compensation towards permanent disability and loss
of future earnings. A reading of the Tribunal‟s award, makes it
appear that the Tribunal‟s approach does not accord at all with
current judicial opinion. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to a
sum of Rs.1,50,822/- under the head of loss of future earnings.
30. As can be seen from the award passed by the Tribunal, the
petitioner-injured was under medical care from the date of the
accident. Later he was admitted in Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad
on 22.02.2004, and on 23.02.2004 he was operated for total hip
replacement of hip joint and discharged on 26.02.2004.
Considering the nature of the injuries and the period of
treatment undergone by the petitioner-injured, a meager amount
of Rs.20,000 was awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and
suffering. The loss of income of the petitioner-injured from the
date of the accident till the date of hip replacement of left hip
joint operated on 23.02.2004 is for nearly 12 months and after
the hip replacement definitely, he would have lost the income for
at least six months which needs to be just. Therefore, a total
period of 18 months has to be calculated on monthly income.
31. This Court has taken the annual income of the petitionerinjured as Rs.71,820/-, as stated above and the monthly income
2023:APHC:937
24
of the petitioner-injured would be Rs.5,985/- (Rs.71,820/12 =
Rs.5,985/-). Thus, the loss of income for a period of 18 months
would be Rs.1,07,730/-(Rs.5,985 x 18). The Tribunal has
committed an error in awarding an amount of Rs.20,000/-
towards loss of earnings for six months. Therefore, the petitioner
is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,07,730/- under the head of loss of
earnings during the period of treatment i.e., for 18 months.
32. The Tribunal has committed illegality in awarding a
meager amount of Rs.75,000/- towards medical and transport
expenses. Since the petitioner-injured was admitted in Apollo
Hospital, Hyderabad, and was inpatient for four days, and
underwent surgery for hip replacement, definitely, he would
have spent more amount than the amount awarded by the
Tribunal. The petitioner deposed that he spent Rs.1,59,000/-
towards the medical expenditure, he restricted his claim to only
Rs.50,000/- and Rs.25,000/- towards transport expenses, in
total Rs.75,000/-, as observed by the Tribunal in Para No.26 of
the award. The claimant who is not well educated, is not
supposed to be that much of meticulous so as to maintain the
bills for any future use. The claimant has remained in Balaji
Nursing Home, Kurnool and later he was admitted in Apollo
Hospital, Hyderabad, and operated for hip replacement and he
2023:APHC:937
25
must have incurred that much of expenses, and this Court‟s
interference is required on the compensation awarded towards
medical and transport expenses. Therefore, this Court is of the
view that the petitioner is entitled to an amount of
Rs.1,75,000/- under the head of medical and transport
expenses, which is just and reasonable.
33. The Tribunal has committed illegality in awarding a
meager amount of Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering. The
petitioner-claimant suffered from pain and suffering for not less
than 18 months from the date of the accident till operated for
hip replacement as stated supra. Taking into consideration of
the pain and suffering already undergone by the petitioner and
to be suffered in the future, mental and physical shock,
hardship, inconvenience, and discomforts due to the hip
replacement, the amount of compensation needs to be enhanced
to Rs.1,50,000/- under the head of pain and suffering.
34. The learned Tribunal has not awarded the amount under
the head of extra-nourishment. When the petitioner-injured
underwent hip replacement, extra nourishment needs to be
provided to the petitioner-injured for a speedy recovery. As such,
an amount of Rs.25,000/- needs to be awarded under the head
of extra-nourishment.
2023:APHC:937
26
35. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at
providing relief to the claimant. The compensation is only the
means to grant some support for the loss suffered with which he
is expected to live and the amount awarded under the above
heads has to be commensurate with the injury and its impact on
the claimant.
36. In Sarla Verma‟s case (supra) the Hon‟ble Apex Court,
while elaborating the concept of „just compensation‟ observed as
under:
“Just compensation is adequate compensation which is
fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the
case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the
wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well
settled principles relating to award of compensation. It is
not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of
profit.”
37. On an overall re-appreciation of the pleadings, material on
record, and the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court
and this Court in the aforesaid decisions, I am of the definite
opinion that the appellant-claimant is entitled to enhancement
of compensation as modified and re-calculated above and given
in the table below for easy reference.
2023:APHC:937
27
S.No.
Heads of compensation Amount of
compensation
awarded
1 Loss of future earnings Rs. 1,50,822/-
2 Loss of earnings during the period of
treatment
Rs. 1,07,730/-
3 Medical and Transport expenses Rs. 1,75,000/-
4 Pain and Suffering Rs. 1,50,000/-
5 Extra-nourishment Rs. 25,000/-
Rs. 6,08,552/-
(-) Compensation already awarded by the
Tribunal
Rs. 2,05,000/-
Rs. 4,03,552/-
38. The amount of compensation enhanced by this Court in
appeal shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of
filing of the claim petition till the realization of the amount.
39. As per the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India
in Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and others10, under the
provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, there is no restriction
that the compensation could be awarded only upto the amount
claimed by the claimant. In an appropriate case where from the
evidence brought on record, if Tribunal/Court considers that
claimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed, the
Tribunal may pass such an award. There is no embargo to
award compensation more than that claimed by the claimant.
Rather it is obligatory for the Tribunal and Court to award “just
compensation”, even if it is in the excess of the amount claimed.
10
(2003) 2 SCC 274
2023:APHC:937
28
The Tribunals are expected to make an award by determining
the amount of compensation that should appear to be just and
proper. The compensation as awarded by the Claims Tribunal,
against the background of the facts and circumstances of the
case, is not just and reasonable, and the claimant is entitled to
more compensation, as stated supra, though he might not have
claimed the same at the time of filing of the claim petition.
40. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the award
passed by the Tribunal warrants interference by enhancing the
compensation from Rs.2,05,000/- to Rs.6,08,552/-.
41. In the result, the appeal is allowed, enhancing the
compensation from a sum of Rs.2,05,000/-(Rupees Two lakhs
Five thousand only) to Rs.6,08,552/- (Rupees Six lakhs Eight
thousand Five hundred and Fifty Two only) with interest @ 7.5%
per annum and costs from the date of the petition till the date of
realization, payable by the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and
severally.
(ii) The 2nd respondent is directed to deposit the
compensation amount within two months from the date of this
judgment, failing which execution can be taken out against it.
2023:APHC:937
29
(iii) The appellant-claimant shall pay the requisite Courtfee in respect of the enhanced amount awarded over and above
the compensation claimed.
(iv) The appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire
amount with accrued interest.
(v) The impugned award of the learned Tribunal stands
modified to the aforesaid extent and in the terms and directions
as above.
As a sequel, interlocutory application(s) pending for
consideration, if any, shall stand closed.
JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA
Date: 18.01.2023
L.R.Copy to be marked
Dinesh
2023:APHC:937
30
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA
M.A.C.M.A.No.1566 OF 2006
18.01.2023
L.R.Copy to be marked
Dinesh
2023:APHC:937
