Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Gade Seshibhushana Rao vs Gajula Uma Maheswara Rao Anr on 6 October, 2023

     HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA

                    M.A.C.M.A.No.2864 of 2008
JUDGMENT:

This appeal is preferred by the appellant/petitioner

aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 09.08.2005 delivered

by the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-

XI Additional District Judge (F.T.C), Guntur at Tenali (for short

"the Tribunal") in M.V.O.P.No.250 of 2003.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as

they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 26.01.2003 at about

7.00 a.m., while the petitioner and another person were

proceeding to Avulavaripalem from Kolluru on a cycle and when

they reached near Repalle Kaluva bridge, a lorry bearing No.AP

11 T 4329 (hereinafter referred to as "the offending vehicle")

driven by its driver at a high speed in a rash and negligent

manner without blowing horn, dashed the cycle due to which

the petitioner fell down and sustained severe injuries all over the

body. Immediately the petitioner was shifted to the Government

Hospital, Tenali and while taking treatment, his right leg was

amputated. One Sanaka Siva Prasad, who is the relative of the

injured, received the information about the accident and

presented a report in Kolluru Police Station, based on which, a

case in Crime No.4 of 2003 was registered for the offence under

Sections 337 and 304-A IPC. After investigation of the case, a

charge sheet was submitted against the accused-driver for

having committed the offence punishable under Sections 338

and 304-A IPC.

(ii) The petitioner/injured filed an application claiming

compensation of a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- before the Tribunal on

account of the amputation to his right leg and the injuries

sustained by him in the said accident.

(iii) The 1st respondent/owner of the offending vehicle did not

contest the matter.

(iv) The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company filed a written

statement and contended that the accident did not take place as

alleged by the petitioner and the accident occurred due to the

negligence of the petitioner, who suddenly came and hit the lorry

due to which, he sustained injuries. It is further contended that

the accident was not reported to the 2nd respondent/Insurance

Company as the 1st respondent colluded with the petitioner and

filed this petition. It is further averred that the driver of the

offending vehicle had no valid driving licence and there was no

valid permit to ply the offending vehicle. The claim of the

petitioner is excessive and prays for dismissal of the petition.

(v) On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal

framed the following issues:

(i) Whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 11 T 4329?

(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for the compensation, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

(iii) To what relief?

(vi) During the trial, in order to establish the claim of the

petitioner, the father of the petitioner was examined as P.W.1,

petitioner/injured was examined as P.W.2 and the Doctor, who

treated the petitioner was examined as P.W.3 and got marked

Exs.A.1 to A.5 and Ex.X.1. The 1st and 2nd respondents neither

led any evidence nor marked any documents on their behalf.

(vii) The Tribunal, after analyzing the entire oral and

documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the alleged

accident occurred on 26.01.2003 due to the rash and negligent

driving of the offending lorry bearing No.AP 11 T 4329 by its

driver and dashed the cycle due to which the petitioner, who was

pedaling the cycle and another person, who sat on the back of

the petitioner sustained injuries. Considering the above aspect,

the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,26,000/-

with interest @ 7.5% per annum and with proportionate costs

against the respondents, from the date of the petition till the

date of realization.

(viii) The learned Tribunal has discussed the manner in which

the said compensation was arrived at, in Para No.18 of its Order

and the corresponding amount is set out herein below in a

tabular form for ready reference.

  S.No.         Heads of compensation             Amount of
                                             compensation awarded
                                                    in Rs.
       1     Pain and Suffering                            20,000/-
       2     Loss of future expectance of                1,04,000/-
             life and future earnings
       3     Extra Nutrition and Attendant                  2,000/-
             Charges
             Total                                       1,26,000/-

(ix)       Being dissatisfied with the amounts awarded by the

learned Tribunal, the appellant/petitioner preferred the present

appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.

4. Heard Sri N.Subbarao, learned counsel for the appellant

and Smt. A.Jayanthi, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd

respondent/Insurance Company.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner would submit

that the Tribunal erred in taking the notional income of the

petitioner at Rs.15,000/- per annum. Further, he would submit

that the petitioner/injured is a student aged about 15 years at

the time of the accident and to pursue his further studies the

awarded compensation is very meager, and it needs to be

enhanced. He would further submit that it is difficult to have an

accurate assessment of the compensation in case of children

suffering disability on account of motor vehicle accident and an

appropriate compensation under all other heads in addition to

the actual expenditure should be awarded. Therefore, the

petitioner is before this Court for enhancement of compensation

awarded by the Tribunal. He would further submit that the

petitioner/injured is entitled to compensation for the loss of

future prospects and that the compensation under the head of

pain and suffering should not be less than Rs.2,00,000/- as the

permanent disability is assessed at 60% and that his marriage

prospects have been greatly diminished because of the accident

and that he should be awarded compensation under the head of

loss of marriage prospects. Therefore, he urged that the amount

of compensation may be re-determined and just and reasonable

compensation may be awarded. Further, he would submit that

the award passed by the Tribunal suffers from infirmity and

illegality which calls interference of this Court and therefore,

prayed to enhance the compensation.

6. The learned counsel for the 2nd Respondent/Insurance

Company would submit that the Tribunal has taken into

account of all the relevant factors while arriving at the

compensation payable to the claimant. Further, she submitted

that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable

and warrants no interference of this Court. Further, she would

submit that the Tribunal, after considering all the material on

record in a proper perspective, rightly awarded the

compensation. The petitioner/injured had not made out any

case for enhancement of compensation and prayed to dismiss

the appeal.

7. In the light of the above rival arguments, the points for

determination in this appeal are:

1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not in accordance with the principles of law and requires enhancement?

2. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or needs interference of this Court?

POINT Nos.1 and 2:

8. A perusal of the impugned award would show that the

Tribunal has framed Issue No.1 as to whether the accident took

place due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing

No.AP 11 T 4329, to which the Tribunal after considering the

evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, coupled with the documentary evidence,

has categorically observed at Para 10 of the Order that the

accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the

driver of the offending lorry bearing No.AP 11 T 4329. Therefore,

there is 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 (lorry) bearing No.AP 11 T

4329.

9. In the present case, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd

respondent/Insurance Company has contended that the driver

of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence

and there is no permit to ply the vehicle on road as on the date

of the accident. A perusal of Ex.A.4/M.V.I.Report, clearly

indicates at Column No.15, that the insurance policy of

offending vehicle was valid up to 10.07.2003 and the validity of

permit to ply the vehicle was till 16.09.2007. At Column No.17,

it was mentioned that the driver of the offending was having

valid driving licence in R.C.No.38/TU/2001 till 07.01.2005. The

accident occurred on 26.01.2003. Therefore, in view of

Ex.A.4/M.V.I.Report, it can be said that the driver of the

offending vehicle had valid driving licence and the offending

vehicle has valid permit and insurance policy by the date of the

accident. Though the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company has

taken the above said pleas, no evidence was adduced to

substantiate their contention in the written statement. Even

otherwise, in view of the above material facts, the plea taken by

them is not sustainable. Therefore, the contention raised by the

learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company has

no force.

10. It is a well settled principle that while determining the

compensation payable to the injured in the claim filed under the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Lord Denning, while speaking for the

Court of Appeal in Ward v. James1, laid down the following

three basic principles to be followed in such like cases and held

as follows:

"When compensation is to be awarded for pain and suffering and loss of amenity of life, the special circumstances of the claimant have to be taken into account including his age, the unusual deprivation he has suffered, the effect thereof on his future life. The amount of compensation for non-pecuniary loss is not easy to determine but the award must reflect that different circumstances have been taken into consideration. "First, assessibility : In cases of grave injury, where the body is wrecked or the 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 are given in similar cases; otherwise there will be great dissatisfaction in the community, and much criticism of the administration

1 (1965) 2 WLR 455 :: (1966) 1 QB 273 :: (1965) 1 All ER 563 (CA)

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."

11. Further, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the

Hon‟ble Apex Court in Rekha Jain Vs. National Insurance Co.

Ltd.,2 wherein, it was held as follows:

"It is well settled principle that in granting compensation for personal injury, in injured has to be compensated (1) for pain and suffering (2) for loss of amenities, (3) shortened expectation of life, if any, (4) loss of earnings or loss of earning capacity or in some cases for both, and (5) medical treatment and other special damages".

12. If the above judgments are read together, the intention of

the Hon‟ble Apex Court, though under different contexts, is

crystal clear that the impugned award passed by the learned

Tribunal is not in accordance with the principles of law laid

down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court and the said award is not just

and reasonable.

13. In the present case, looking into the beneficial purpose of

the enactment of the Motor Vehicles Act and having regard to

the principles laid down in the aforementioned judgments, this

Court is of the view that the award passed by the Tribunal is not

in accordance with law.

2 2013 ACJ 2161 (SC)

14. In Kajal Vs. Jagdish Chand3, the Hon‟ble Apex Court has

quoted pertinent observations from a very old case in Phillips

Vs. London & South Western Railway Co.,4 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."

15. The Hon‟ble Apex Court has further quoted pertinent

observations from the case titled H.West & Son Ltd. vs.

Shephard5 which reads 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.

16. In the present case, the accident occurred in the year 2003

and there is no dispute that the petitioner/injured suffered 60%

permanent disability as stated by P.W.3(Doctor), who treated the

petitioner. As per the findings of the learned Tribunal, the

(2020) 4 SCC 413

(1879) LR 5 QBD 78

1963 2 WLR 1359

notional income of Rs.15,000/- as mentioned in Schedule II of

the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is not at all justified and not a

proper way of assessing loss of future income. Even if the daily

wage during the relevant time is taken into account, the same

would not be less than Rs.100/- per a day. Therefore, this Court

deems it reasonable to take the monthly income of the

petitioner/injured @ Rs.3,000/-. The view taken by Hon‟ble Apex

Court in Kajal's case (supra) at Para No.20 is as follows:

"Loss of earnings:

20. Both the courts below have held that since the girl was a young child of 12 years only notional income of Rs 15,000 p.a. can be taken into consideration. We do not think this is a proper way of assessing the future loss of income. This young girl after studying could have worked and would have earned much more than Rs 15,000 p.a. Each case has to be decided on its own evidence but taking notional income to be Rs 15,000 p.a. is not at all justified. The appellant has placed before us material to show that the minimum wages payable to a skilled workman is Rs 4846 per month. In our opinion, this would be the minimum amount which she would have earned on becoming a major. Adding 40% for the future prospects, it works to be Rs 6784.40 per month i.e. 81,412.80 p.a. Applying the multiplier of 18, it works out to Rs 14,65,430.40, which is rounded off to Rs 14,66,000."

17. In another decision in Sanjay Kumar Vs. Ashok Kumar &

another6, the Hon‟ble Apex Court at Para No.11 held as follows:

11. "Loss of future prospects" should be added to this amount as it cannot be accepted that an embroiderer will not have a future increment in income. As per the case of Sarla Verma v. DTC , keeping in mind the young age of the appellant, he is entitled to 50% of his income as future increase in income (Rs 4500 + 2250 = Rs 6750). We will apply a multiplier of 18 as taken by the High Court in the impugned judgment and as per Sarla Verma case. The appellant's

6 (2014) 5 SCC 330

permanent disability and loss of earning capacity was assessed at 70% and we will not interfere with that. Hence, the total amount of compensation due to loss of earning capacity along with future prospects in income will come to Rs 10,20,600 (Rs 6750 × 70/100 × 12 × 18)."

18. In Mohan Soni Vs. Ram Avtar Tomar & Others7, the

Hon‟ble Apex Court at Para Nos.11 & 14, it was held as follows:

"11. In a more recent decision in Raj Kumar v. Ajay this Court considered in great detail the correlation between the physical disability suffered in an accident and the loss of earning capacity resulting from it. In paras 10, 11 and 13 of the judgment in Raj Kumar this Court made the following observations: (SCC pp. 349-50)

"10. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is, the percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be different from the percentage of permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation.

11. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanent disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be

7 (2012) 2 SCC 267

quantified in terms of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find that the percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of the permanent disability, is approximately the same as the percentage of permanent disability in which case, of course, the Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination of compensation. (See for example, the decisions of this Court in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Yadava Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.

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 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 (iii) 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."

14. The loss of earning capacity of the appellant, according to us, may be as high as 100% but in no case it would be less than 90%. We, accordingly, find and hold that the compensation for the loss of the appellant's future earnings must be computed on that basis. On calculation on that basis, the amount of compensation would come to Rs 3,56,400 and after addition of a sum of Rs 30,000 and Rs 15,000 the total amount would be Rs 4,01,400. The additional compensation amount would carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment. The additional amount of

compensation along with interest should be paid to the appellant without delay and not later than three months from today."

19. In K.Janardhan Vs. United India Insurance Company

Limited and another8, the Hon‟ble Apex Court at Para Nos.3, 4,

6 and 7 held as follows:

"3. The Commissioner in his order dated 18-11-1999 observed that the claimant was 30 years of age and the salary as claimed by him was on the higher side and accordingly determined the same at Rs 2000 per month. The Commissioner also found that as the claimant had suffered an amputation of his right leg up to the knee, he was said to have suffered a loss of 100% of his earning capacity as a driver and accordingly determined the compensation payable to him at Rs 2,49,576 and interest @ 12% p.a. thereon from the date of the accident.

4. An appeal was thereafter taken to the High Court by the Insurance Company, respondent. The High Court accepted the plea raised in appeal that as per the Schedule to the Workmen's Compensation Act, the loss of a leg on amputation amounted to a 60% reduction in the earning capacity and as the doctor had opined to a 65% disability, this figure was to be accepted and accordingly reduced the compensation as already mentioned above. It is in this circumstance, that the aggrieved claimant has come up to this Court.

6. Applying the ratio of the cited judgment to the facts of the present case we are of the opinion that the appellant herein has also suffered a 100% disability and incapacity in earning his keep as a tanker driver as his right leg had been amputated from the knee. Additionally, a perusal of Sections 8 and 9 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 would show that the appellant would now be disqualified from even getting a driving licence.

7. We therefore allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore that of the Commissioner but with no order as to costs."

20. In the above-cited cases the injured persons suffered an

amputation of their lower limb (above knee/below knee). In

8 (2008) 8 SCC 518

Kajal's case (supra) though there was no amputation, the victim

who was 12 years old girl suffered serious injuries resulting in

brain damage and severe weakness in all four limbs. In the

instant case, the petitioner/injured is a bright young boy of 15

years attending school, playing with his friends and leading a

normal life like any other child. While he was going by cycle, the

accident occurred, and he suffered three grievous injuries and

his right leg was amputated above the knee. Therefore, this

Court is of the opinion that the amount of Rs.1,04,000/-

awarded by the learned Tribunal under the head of loss of

future expectancy and loss of future earnings, is very meager

and is not in accordance with the principles of law. The

petitioner sustained permanent disability due to amputation of

his right leg and P.W.3(Doctor), who treated the petitioner

issued a Wound Certificate under Ex.A.3 stating that the injured

sustained permanent disability of 60%. In Sanjay Kumar's case

(supra), the loss of earning capacity was assessed at 70% due to

permanent disability suffered by the victim on account of

amputation of his right leg above knee, in Mohan Soni's case

(supra), the left leg of the victim was crushed and amputated

below the knee and the disability assessed would not be less

than 90% and in Janardhan's case (supra), the injured has

suffered 100% disability and incapacity in earning as his right

leg had been amputated from the knee. In all the three cases,

the lower limb (above /below knee) of the injured was

amputated. However, in Kajal's case, though the injured was not

amputated, she sustained serious injuries resulting in brain

damage and severe weakness in all four limbs and the disability

was assessed at 100%, whereas, in other cases, the petitioner

sustained amputation of lower limb as stated supra.

21. In the present case, considering the above factual aspects

and the evidence of P.W.3(Doctor), the disability of the petitioner

can be taken as 60% for assessing loss of future earnings. At the

time of the accident, the injured was a 15 year young boy.

Whereas, in Kajal's case (supra) the Hon‟ble Apex Court has

taken a view that the minimum wages payable to a skilled

workman was Rs.4,846/- and calculated and assessed loss of

future prospects as stated above. In the present case, the

petitioner/injured is not a skilled workman. As per the

Minimum Wages Act, he may earn not less than Rs.100/- per

day i.e., Rs.3,000/- per month. Therefore, the learned Tribunal

has not properly awarded compensation towards loss of future

earnings of the petitioner/injured and therefore, the present

case has to be decided on its own merits as per the minimum

wages payable to the unskilled worker not less than Rs.100/-

per a day i.e., Rs.3,000/- per a month. Accordingly, the loss of

future earnings can be arrived at, by applying the multiplier „18‟

and taking the disability @ 60%. The monthly income of the

petitioner, after adding 60% for future prospects, would be

Rs.4,800/- (Rs.3,000 + Rs.1,800). The annual income would be

worked out to Rs.57,600/- (Rs.4,800 x 12). By applying the

multiplier of „18‟ as per judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in

Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation,9 the loss of

future earnings and future prospects works out to

Rs.10,36,800/- (Rs.57,600 x 18).

22. In the facts of this case, looking into the beneficial

purpose of the enactment of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and

having regard to the principles laid down in the aforementioned

judgments, the compensation under other conventional heads

has to be awarded to the petitioner/injured. The learned

Tribunal has committed an error in awarding amount under the

conventional heads in accordance with the judgments referred

to supra.

23. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount

towards medical expenses, which were incurred by the

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

petitioner/injured. Though the petitioner has not enclosed any

medical bills with the claim petition, it can be fathomed that the

amount has to be awarded by the Tribunal under the head of

medical expenses. The petitioner/injured was a 15 years old

young boy and his parents might have spent huge amount

towards medical expenses of the petitioner/injured. The parents

of the petitioner/injured, who are illiterates and labourers, are

not supposed to be that much meticulous so as to maintain the

bills for any future use. The petitioner has remained in the

hospital for more than two months, and as such, they might

have incurred that much of expenses. One must remember that

amongst the people, who are not Government employees and

belong to the poorer strata of society, the bills are not retained

by them and some of the bills even if produced have been

excluded by the Courts below only on the ground that the name

of the petitioner was not written on the bills. There is no dispute

with regard to the long period of treatment and hospitalization of

the petitioner immediately after the accident i.e., on 26.01.2003.

As per the evidence of P.W.3(Doctor), the petitioner was

hospitalized for more than one month, the right leg of the

petitioner was amputated above the knee and he sustained

three grievous injuries, as such, definitely, he would have

undergone surgeries. Therefore, huge medical expenses might

have incurred by the parents of the petitioner/injured. The

Tribunal committed an error in not awarding the compensation

under the head of medical expenses. Therefore, an amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- has to be awarded to the petitioner/injured

towards medical expenses, which would be just and reasonable.

24. Further, the learned Tribunal committed an error while

awarding a meager amount of Rs.2,000/- under the head of

extra nutrition and attendant charges. Since the

petitioner/injured was hospitalized for a period of more than one

month and his right leg was amputated, at least, two persons

are required to attend to the injured even to lift him from the

bed for attending calls of nature and needs all time attendance

for his daily routine work and he cannot move without the

attendants. Therefore, at least Rs.200/- for each attendant has

to be awarded, which comes to Rs.200 x 2 x 45 = Rs.18,000/-.

Hence, an amount of Rs.18,000/- towards attendant charges

deserves to be granted to the claimant. The compensation for

extra nutrition needs to be awarded separately for speedy

recovery and heeling of the injuries sustained by the petitioner.

Hence, an amount of Rs.15,000/- can be awarded to the

petitioner for extra nutrition.

25. Coming to the non-pecuniary damages, under the head of

pain and suffering a meager amount Rs.20,000/- was awarded

by the Tribunal and no amount was awarded for loss of

amenities. Since the petitioner suffered from severe injuries and

amputation of his right leg above the knee was done and he

sustained physical disability of 60% as stated above, the pain

and suffering suffered by the petitioner is such that no amount

of compensation can compensate him. The petitioner/injured

cannot come back to the Court for enhancement of award at a

later stage praying something for grant of amount under the

head. Therefore, this Court is of the view that in case of 60%

disability, the petitioner cannot enjoy the pleasure of life. This is

a case where the departure has to be made from the normal rule

and pain and suffering suffered by the injured is such that a

reasonable amount of compensation can be compensated for

pain and suffering. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that in

the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, by taking a

very conservative view of the matter, the learned Tribunal has

gravely erred in not awarding adequate compensation separately

under the head of pain and suffering, wherein, the injured

suffered amputation of leg and awarded a meager amount of

Rs.20,000/-. Therefore, this Court is of the view to award a sum

of Rs.2,00,000/- towards pain and suffering, as the injured has

suffered tremendously due to the accident in terms of pain and

suffering involved in the amputation. Loss of a limb causes a

profusion of distress and the petitioner/injured has to deal with

the same for the rest of his life and this Court is of the view that

it is justified to award the aforesaid amount under this head.

26. Further, the learned Tribunal has not awarded any

amount for loss of amenities (loss of marriage prospects). Since

at the age of 15 years, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries

and his right leg was amputated due to the accident, it is

necessary to award some amount under this head and the

injured will definitely deal with loss of amenities as he lost his

leg due to the accident and the injured is permanently disabled.

As such, this Court is of the opinion to award an amount of

Rs.1,50,000/- for loss of marriage prospects, which would be

just and reasonable.

27. Apart from this, by taking the pathetic situation of the

injured into consideration because of the amputation of his right

leg above the knee, an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards future

medical expenses (artificial leg) deserves to be granted to the

claimant.

28. 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."

29. On an overall re-appreciation of the pleadings, material on

record and the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in

the afore-cited decisions, I am of the definite opinion that the

appellant/petitioner is entitled to enhancement of compensation

as modified and recalculated above and given in the table below

for easy reference.

S.No. Head of Compensation Amount Enhanced Amount awarded by the Tribunal 1 Loss of future earnings 1,04,000/- Rs.10,36,800/-

(As permanent disability is 60% (Rs.100 x 30 = total loss of future earnings) Rs.3,000/- + 1,800 = Rs.4,800 x 12 x 18) 2 Medical Expenses 20,000/- 2,00,000/-

  3        Attendant       Charges  &          2,000/-               33,000/-
           Extra Nutrition                                   (Rs.18,000 + 15,000)
  4        Pain & Suffering                      ----              2,00,000/-
  5        Loss of Marriage Prospects            ----              1,50,000/-
  6        Future Medical Expenses               ----                50,000/-
           (Artificial Leg)
  7        Transportation charges               ----                20,000/-
                         Total               1,26,000/-          16,89,900/-

30. 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 compensation could be awarded only up to 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 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 excess of the amount claimed. The

Tribunals are expected to make an award by determining the

amount of compensation which should appear to be just and

proper. In the present case, 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 though he might not

have claimed the same at the time of filing of the claim petition.

31. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case

and in view of the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court, this

Court is of the opinion that the award passed by the Tribunal

(2003) 2 SCC 274

warrants interference and the amount of compensation needs to

be enhanced and thereby, enhanced the compensation from

Rs.1,26,000/- to Rs.16,89,900/-.

32. Resultantly, the appeal is hereby allowed, enhancing the

compensation from Rs.1,26,000/- to Rs.16,89,900/- with costs

and interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till

realization against the Respondents 1 and 2 jointly and

severally.

(ii) Respondents are directed to deposit the

compensation amount within a period of two months from the

date of this judgment, failing which execution can be taken

against them.

(iii) The appellant/petitioner is directed to pay the

requisite Court-fee in respect of the enhanced amount awarded

over and above the compensation claimed (As per the judgment

of Hon‟ble Apex Court in Ramla Vs. National Insurance

Company Limited11).

(iv) On such deposit, the appellant/petitioner is entitled

to withdraw the entire amount by filing proper application before

the learned Tribunal.

2019 ACJ 559 (SC)

(v) The impugned award of the learned Tribunal stands

modified to the aforesaid extent and in the terms and directions

as above.

(vi) The record be sent back to the Tribunal within three

weeks from this day.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending for consideration, if any, shall stand closed.

JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA 06.10.2023 Dinesh Mjl/* L.R.Copy to be marked

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA

M.A.C.M.A.No.2864 OF 2008

06.10.2023

Dinesh Mjl/* L.R.Copy to be marked

* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA

+ M.A.C.M.A.No.2864 of 2008

% 06.10.2023 Between:

Gade Seshibhushana Rao, S/o.Sambasiva Rao, aged 19 years, R/o.Near Fruit Stall, Kolluru Post & Mandal, Guntur District (Minor at the time of filing of O.P and now Became major) ... Appellant And

1. Gajula Uma Maheswara Rao, S/o.Madhusudana Rao, D.No.77-81-15, Owner of the lorry No.AP 11 T 4329, Payakapuram, Vijayawada

2. The New India Assurance Company Limited, Represented by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Guntur. ... Respondents

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 06.10.2023

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters / Journals? Yes/No

3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No

DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA, J

* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA

+ M.A.C.M.A.No.2864 of 2008

% 06.10.2023 Between:

Gade Seshibhushana Rao, S/o.Sambasiva Rao, aged 19 years, R/o.Near Fruit Stall, Kolluru Post & Mandal, Guntur District (Minor at the time of filing of O.P and now Became major) ... Appellant And

1. Gajula Uma Maheswara Rao, S/o.Madhusudana Rao, D.No.77-81-15, Owner of the lorry No.AP 11 T 4329, Payakapuram, Vijayawada

2. The New India Assurance Company Limited, Represented by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Guntur. ... Respondents ! Counsel for Appellant : Sri N.Subbarao

^ Counsel for 2nd Respondent : Smt.A.Jayanthi < Gist:

> Head Note:

? Cases referred:

1. (1965) 2 WLR 455 : (1966) 1 QB 273 : (1965) 1 ALL ER 563 (CA)

2. 2013 ACJ 2161 (SC)

3. (2020) 4 SCC 413

4. (1879) LR 5 QBD 78

5. (1963) 2 WLR 1359

6. (2014) 5 SCC 330

7. (2012) 2 SCC 267

8. (2008) 8 SCC 518

9. 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)