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.

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