JUDGMENT : A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J. M.A.C.M.A.No.1511 of 2017 Introduction:- 1. [i] The claimant in M.V.O.P.No.562 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam [for short “MACT”], filed the present appeal, dissatisfied by the award and decree dated 18.10.2016, where under a compensation of Rs.6,36,500/- was awarded to him as against a claim made for Rs.10,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 15.11.2009. [ii] The 1 st respondent herein [insured] is the owner of the vehicle bearing No.AP 30 G 9888 [for short the ‘offending vehicle’], and the 2 nd respondent is the insurer, with which the offending vehicle was insured. Learned MACT imposed the liability on both the respondents . 2. For the sake of convenience, parties will be herein a fter referred to as the claimant and the respondents, with reference to their status before the learned MACT. Sequence of facts that lead to filing of this Appeal:- 3. [i] Claimant is the driver of the offending vehicle. While he was working under 1 st respondent and proceeding from Amadalavalasa to Batteru village in discharging his duties as the driver of the Zeep, due to narrow road and loose soil, the Zeep turned turtle, with the result, the petitioner/claimant sustained multiple fractures on upper and lower limbs. He was shifted to Government Hospital, Srikakulam from there to King George Hospital [KGH], Visakhapatnam. He was treated as in-patient in Neuro surgery ward from 16.11.2009 to 26.11.2009. Even after discharge, treatment was continued for both upper and lower limbs, urinary functioning and he was unable to attend normal duties. Claiming that he has spent amounts towards medical bills and attendant charges etc. and that a case in Cr.No.255 of 2009 is registered and charge sheet also laid for the offences under Section 279 IPC, the claim was made. [ii] Claim was resisted by the 1 st respondent contending that the petitioner is put to strict proof of all the allegations as to the accident, reasons for the accident, hospitalization treatment, expenditure incurred etc., while admitting that the 1 st respondent is the owner and the claimant was employed as a driver and that the vehicle was insured with the 2 nd respondent. However, 1 st respondent contended that the claim is excessive and in any event the 1 st respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. [iii]. The 2 nd respondent-Insurance Company resisted the claim contending that the claim is not maintainable under Motor Vehicles Act as the claimant is not a third party, claim if any lies before the appropriate Forum under Workmen’s Compensation Act. The claimant has to prove the necessary facts that entitle him for the compensation claimed. 4. On the strength of pleadings, learned MACT settled the following issues for trial: 1) Whether the petitioner is entitled for the compensation as prayed for? If so, to how much amount and from which of the respondents? 2) To what relief? Evidence before the learned MACT: 5(i). Documentary evidence:- (ii) ORAL EVIDENCE: Findings of the learned MACT:- 6. [i]. The evidence of the claimant and the crime record i.e., F.I.R., Charge Sheet etc. are sufficient to believe that the negligence is the cause for the accident and as the accident has occurred when the vehicle was in use, the claimant is entitled for compensation. [ii] Further by referring to the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Jasibir Kaur , 2003 ACJ 1800 (SC) that there is no bar for claiming compensation in terms of Motor Vehicles Act, although the claim would lie in terms of Workmen’s Compensation Act, learned MACT found that the choice is left to the claimant or the dependents. [iii] Further, while referring to the wound certificate-Ex.A3 and case sheet under Ex.A7, evidence of PW.1/claimant and PW.2- Dr.L.Prasannakumar, who stated about the disability at 50%, which is functional and permanent, accepting the income at Rs.4,500/- per month notionally, adopting multiplier ‘17’, quantified the compensation as follows:- Arguments in the Appeal: For the appellant/claimants:- 7. [i] The learned MACT failed to add future prospects. [ii] Income taken at Rs.4,500/- is very low. [iii] Entitlement of the claimant for compensation under several pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages is not considered. For the respondent-Insurance Company:- 8. [i] Since it is a case of self-accident, the claimant is not entitled for compensation. [ii] The claim before the learned MACT is not maintainable. [iii] There is no basis for accepting the income of claimant @Rs.4500/- per month [iv] Compensation awarded is on high side. 9. For the respondent-Insurance Company:- 8. [i] Since it is a case of self-accident, the claimant is not entitled for compensation. [ii] The claim before the learned MACT is not maintainable. [iii] There is no basis for accepting the income of claimant @Rs.4500/- per month [iv] Compensation awarded is on high side. 9. Perused the record and thoughtful consideration given to the arguments advanced by the both sides. 10. This appeal is field by the claimants. There is neither appeal nor cross-objections filed by the respondents. Therefore, the negligence, entitlement and liability of the respondents to pay the compensation, violation of conditions of Policy etc, factual aspects are out of dispute. The only points that remain for determination are the maintainability of the claim before the learned MACT and quantification of compensation. 11. The points that arise for determination in this appeal are - 1) Whether the claim before the learned MACT is maintainable, when the driver of the vehicle suffered injuries during or in the course of employment? 2) Whether the compensation of Rs.6,36,500/- awarded by the learned MACT is just and reasonable or require any interference by way of enhancement? If so, to what quantum? 3) What is the result of the appeal? Point No.1 :- 12. Section 167 of M.V. Act reads as follows:- “167. Option regarding claims for compensation in certain cases.—Notwithstanding anything contained in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) where the death of, or bodily injury to, any person gives rise to a claim for compensation under this Act and also under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the person entitled to compensation may without prejudice to the provisions of Chapter X claim such compensation under either of those Acts but not under both.” 13. The Hon’be Supreme Court in a case between Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd Vs Dyamavva & Ors. , 22013 (09) SCC 406 explaining the scope of Section 167 of M.V. Act and options available under the said provision to claim compensation either under M.V. Act 1988 or under Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, in para 17, observed that if the claimants have exercised the option of seeking compensation under the provisions of the Workmen’s compensation Act, then the bar would apply. But, if no such option was ever exercised by the claimants, they cannot be precluded from seeking compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 14. But, if no such option was ever exercised by the claimants, they cannot be precluded from seeking compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 14. It is not the case of the Insurance Company that certain steps were taken in terms of Section 10 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, by the Commissioner under the said Act, or a claim has been preferred as provided under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Therefore, the objection of the Insurance Company in this connection is fit to be rejected and the reasoning of the learned MACT on this point is proper. Hence, concurred. Accordingly, the point framed is answered in favour of the appellant/claimant. Point No.2:- 15. A reference to parameters, for quantifying the compensation under various heads, addressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court is found necessary, to have standard base in the process of quantifying the compensation, to which the claimant is entitled. (i) With regard to awarding just and reasonable quantum of compensation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Baby Sakshi Greola vs. Manzoor Ahmad Simon and Anr. , 32025 AIAR (Civil) 1 , arising out of SLP(c).No.10996 of 2018 on 11.12.2024, considered the scope and powers of the Tribunal in awarding just and reasonable compensation within the meaning of Act, after marshaling entire case law, more particularly with reference to the earlier observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court made in Kajal V. Jagadish Chand and Ors.2020 (04) SCC 413 , referred to various heads under which, compensation can be awarded, in injuries cases vide paragraph No.52, the heads are as follows:- S. No. Head Amount (In Rs.) 1 Medicines and Medical Treatment xxxxx 2 Loss of Earning Capacity due to Disability xxxxx 3 Pain and Suffering xxxxx 4 Future Treatment xxxxx 5 Attendant Charges xxxxx 6 Loss of Amenities of Life xxxxx 7 Loss of Future Prospect xxxxx 8 Special Education Expenditure xxxxx 9 Conveyance and Special Diet xxxxx 10 Loss of Marriage Prospects xxxxxx Total Rs. …xxxxxx (ii). Hon’ble Apex Court in Yadava Kumar Vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited and Anr.,2010(10)SCC 341 vide para No.10, by referring to Sunil Kumar Vs. Ram Singh Gaud , 2007 (14) SCC 61 ,as to application of multiplier method in case of injuries while calculating loss of future earnings, in para 16 referring to Hardeo Kaur Vs. …xxxxxx (ii). Hon’ble Apex Court in Yadava Kumar Vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited and Anr.,2010(10)SCC 341 vide para No.10, by referring to Sunil Kumar Vs. Ram Singh Gaud , 2007 (14) SCC 61 ,as to application of multiplier method in case of injuries while calculating loss of future earnings, in para 16 referring to Hardeo Kaur Vs. Rajasthan State Transport Corporation , 1992(2) SCC 567 , as to fixing of quantum of compensation with liberal approach, valuing the life and limb of individual in generous scale, in para 17 observed that :- “The High Court and the Tribunal must realize that there is a distinction between compensation and damage. The expression compensation may include a claim for damage but compensation is more comprehensive. Normally damages are given for an injury which is suffered, whereas compensation stands on a slightly higher footing. It is given for the atonement of injury caused and the intention behind grant of compensation is to put back the injured party as far as possible in the same position, as if the injury has not taken place, by way of grant of pecuniary relief. Thus, in the matter of computation of compensation, the approach will be slightly more broad based than what is done in the matter of assessment of damages. At the same time it is true that there cannot be any rigid or mathematical precision in the matter of determination of compensation.” (iii). In Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another , 2011 (1) SCC 343 vide para No.19, the Hon’ble Apex Court summarized principles to be followed in the process of quantifying the compensation after referring to socio economic and practical aspects from which, the claimants come and the practical difficulties, the parties may face in the process of getting disability assessed and getting all certificates from either the Doctors, who treated, or from the medical boards etc., it is observed that :- “…We may now summarise the principles discussed above : (i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity. (ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. (ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as percentage of permanent disability). (iii) The doctor who treated an injured-claimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety. (iv) The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors…” (iv) In Sidram vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr. , 2023 (3) SCC 439 vide para No.40, the Hon’ble Apex Court referred to the general principles relating to compensation in injury cases and assessment of future loss of earning due to permanent disability by referring to Rajkumar’s case, and also various heads under which compensation can be awarded to a victim of a motor vehicle accident. (v) In Sidram’s case, reference is made to a case in R.D. Hattangadi V. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd. , 1995 (1) SCC 551 . From the observations made therein, it can be understood that while fixing amount of compensation in cases of accident, it involves some guess work, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of the disability caused. But, all these elements have to be viewed with objective standards. In assessing damages, the Court must exclude all considerations of matter which rest in awarding speculation or fancy, though conjecture to some extent is inevitable. Awarding more compensation than what claimed, if the claimant/s are otherwise entitled:- 16. The legal position with regard to awarding more compensation than what claimed has been considered and settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court holding that there is no bar for awarding more compensation than what is claimed. Awarding more compensation than what claimed, if the claimant/s are otherwise entitled:- 16. The legal position with regard to awarding more compensation than what claimed has been considered and settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court holding that there is no bar for awarding more compensation than what is claimed. For the said preposition of law, this Court finds it proper to refer the following observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court made in: (1) Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and Others , (2003) 2 SCC 274 , at para 21 of the judgment, that – “..there is no restriction that the Tribunal/Court cannot award compensation amount exceeding the claimed amount. The function of the Tribunal/Court is to award “just” compensation, which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record.” (2) Kajal Vs. Jagadish Chand and Ors.2020 (04) SCC 413 at para 33 of the judgment, as follows:- “ 33 . We are aware that the amount awarded by us is more than the amount claimed. However, it is well settled law that in the motor accident claim petitions, the Court must award the just compensation and, in case, the just compensation is more than the amount claimed, that must be awarded especially where the claimant is a minor .” (3) Ramla and Others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Others , (2019) 2 SCC 192 at para 5 of the judgment, as follows:- “5. Though the claimants had claimed a total compensation of Rs 25,00,000 in their claim petition filed before the Tribunal, we feel that the compensation which the claimants are entitled to is higher than the same as mentioned supra. There is no restriction that the Court cannot award compensation exceeding the claimed amount, since the function of the Tribunal or Court under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is to award “just compensation”. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation. A “just compensation” is one which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record. It cannot be said to have become time-barred. Further, there is no need for a new cause of action to claim an enhanced amount. The courts are duty- bound to award just compensation.” Analysis of Evidence:- 17. As per the evidence of PW.1/claimant, he is aged ‘23’ years, and driver by profession. The accident occurred in the course of his employment. Year of accident is 2009. Further, there is no need for a new cause of action to claim an enhanced amount. The courts are duty- bound to award just compensation.” Analysis of Evidence:- 17. As per the evidence of PW.1/claimant, he is aged ‘23’ years, and driver by profession. The accident occurred in the course of his employment. Year of accident is 2009. He has claimed that he spent Rs.30,000/- towards medical and travelling expenditure, Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment Rs.10,000/-, towards attendant charges, he was getting Rs.100/- per day as daily allowance apart from Rs.5000/- per month as salary. He suffered disability due to the accident, lost marital prospects and became permanently disabled. Ex.A3-Wound Certificate is reflecting three (3) injuries, injury No.3 is grievous and other injuries are simple in nature. The injuries mentioned in Ex.A3 are as follows:- 1) An abrasion over the Left shoulder 1 x ¼” red in colour, duration of 1 to 6 hrs 2) An abrasion near the Right shoulder anterior aspect 3 x 2” red in colour. 3) Tenderness over the neck region. 18. Ex.A5- Medical Bills are standing for Rs.27,443/-. Ex.A7 Case Sheet is indicating the treatment undergone. Ex.X1 is the Disability Certificate issued by the Medical Board, Srikakulam indicating the disability of the claimant at 50%. The evidence of PW2-Doctor, who examined the claimant, is to the effect that he has examined the claimant and issued Disability Certificate. The disability is assessed at 50% and the same is functional and permanent. 19. The cause for the disability is due to injury to cervical spine card, hence, the claimant cannot drive a vehicle and do labour work. Further, the claimant is not passing urine voluntarily. He is in continuously urinary catheterisation and he requires frequent change of Urinary catheters and he need medical attendance and it affects the marital life also. During the cross-examination, except eliciting that PW.2 is not concerned with the case sheet and that urinary disfunction is not the subject of PW.2, nothing is elicited. The witness being a Medical professional explained voluntarily that the urinary disfunction and pennal disfunction is due to cervical spinal card injury. There is nothing strange found in the evidence of PW.2 to disbelieve the evidence of PW.2 as to the disability, nothing strange is found to disbelieve the disability of the petitioner at 50%. 20. Leaned MACT has accepted the income of the claimant at Rs.4500/- per month. There is nothing strange found in the evidence of PW.2 to disbelieve the evidence of PW.2 as to the disability, nothing strange is found to disbelieve the disability of the petitioner at 50%. 20. Leaned MACT has accepted the income of the claimant at Rs.4500/- per month. Minimum wages in the state of Andhra Pradesh for a Driver, during the year 2009 is around Rs.5000/- even for a light Motor Vehicle. In view of the age of the claimant being ‘21’, as per wound certificate, at least 40% of the same can be added towards future prospects. Then the income of the claimant/injured can be accepted at Rs.7000/- per month. 50% disability, if accepted, the loss of income comes to Rs.3500/- per month and Rs.42,000/- per annum. For the age group of the claimant, the multiplier applicable is ‘18’. Then the entitlement of the claimant for the compensation under the head of permanent disability comes to [Rs.42,000/- x 18] Rs.7,56,000/- as against the amount Rs.4,59,000/- awarded by the learned MACT. 21. The claimant might have lost income during the period of treatment and bed rest, at least for a period of 06 months, for which the claimant is entitled for compensation under the head of loss of earning capacity due to permanent disability Rs.30,000/-, @Rs.5000/- per month. PW.3 said to be an attendant to the claimant/injured, stated that he was paid Rs.5000/- towards attendant charges. Though there is no documentary proof for the same, some reasonable amount can be awarded as compensation to the claimant towards attendant charges. 22. The entitlement of the claimant under the other heads also requires a revisit and revamp in the light of the evidence and discussion made above. Thus, the entitlement of the claimant for reasonable compensation under conventional and non-conventional, pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages and the heads contemplated in terms of precedential guidance mentioned above, in comparison to compensation awarded by the learned MACT is as follows: 23. For the aforestated reasons and discussions made, it is found that the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs. 11,66,000/- with interest @9% p.a.. Therefore, the impugned award and decree dated 18.10.2016 requires modification to that effect, and the compensation awarded by the learned MACT is enhanced to Rs.11,66,000/-. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered accordingly. Point No.4: 24. For the aforestated reasons and discussions made, it is found that the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs. 11,66,000/- with interest @9% p.a.. Therefore, the impugned award and decree dated 18.10.2016 requires modification to that effect, and the compensation awarded by the learned MACT is enhanced to Rs.11,66,000/-. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered accordingly. Point No.4: 24. In the result, appeal is allowed as follows:- [i] The compensation of Rs.6,36,500/- with interest @9% p.a. awarded under the impugned decree and order dated 18.10.2016 is modified and enhanced to Rs.11,66,000/- with interest @9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. [ii] The claimant/petitioner shall pay the Court fee in respect of enhanced part of compensation, before the learned MACT. [iii] The claimant/petitioner is entitled to withdraw the compensation amount at once, on deposit. [iv] Time for depositing the balance compensation amount is two (02) months. [v] No costs in the facts and circumstances. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.