JUDGMENT : A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('M.V.Act' for short), questioning the just and adequate nature of quantum of compensation granted under award dated 23.09.2011 in (Motor Vehicle Original Petition) M.V.O.P. No. 146 of 2008, by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- II Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, [‘for short ‘MACT’]. The claimant is the appellant. Learned MACT granted a compensation of Rs.4,06,400/- with interest @6% per annum as against the claim made for Rs.9,00,000/- against respondents No.1 and 2. The case of the appellant/ claimant, in brief, is that – 3. [i] He was working as a driver for the Lorry bearing No.AP 16 TV 2408. On the fateful day, i.e., on 14.04.2006 while he was driving the Lorry from Vizag to Gujarath with a load of iron, at about 3.30p.m., he suddenly observed that a lorry bearing No.16 TV 6135 was stationed near Kallupakalu, Dwaraka Nagar, on outskirts of M. Nagulapalli Panchayat, within the limits of Dwaraka Tirumala Police Station. But he could not control and dashed the stationed lorry. In the said accident, he has sustained severe fractures and multiple injuries all over the body. Along with him, cleaner was also travelling in the lorry. [ii] Respondent No.1 is the owner of the lorry bearing No.AP 16 TV2408 and respondent No.2 is the insurer. Respondent No.3 is the Insurer of the stationed lorry bearing No.AP 16 TV 6135 and respondents 4 and 5 are the driver and owner of said lorry respectively, all the respondents are liable to pay compensation. 4. Respondents No.1, 4, 5 remained ex-party before the Tribunal. Respondents 2 and 3 contested the matter. Contention of the respondent No. 2 Insurance Company:- 5. The claimant shall prove that, he is the driver of the vehicle bearing No.AP 16 TV 2408 at the relevant time, the occurrence of the accident, claimant sustaining injuries, nature and effect of injuries contributing permanent disability, age, occupation, income, treatment, medical expenditure incurred disability, the valid and effective driving license for the drivers of both the vehicles involved in the accident. It is further contended by the respondent No.2 that the claim is exaggerated and that petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. It is further contended by the respondent No.2 that the claim is exaggerated and that petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. The contention of the respondent No.3/Insurance Company, of stationed lorry, in brief is that, respondent No.4 is not the driver of the said vehicle and that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the said vehicle and he has been implicated unnecessarily. The claimant shall prove the pleaded accident, injuries, disability, etc. and that the respondent 3 is not liable, as there is no cause of action against the Respondent 3. 7. On the strength of pleadings, learned MACT settled the following issues for trial: 1) Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the Motor Vehicle Accident dated 14.04.2006 due to his speedy driving while he was discharging his st duties on the lorry bearing No.AP TV 2408, owned by 1 respondent? 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? 3) To what relief? 8. During the trial, claimant was examined as PW1 and he got one Katarapau Suresh examined as PW2, who is said to be the cleaner at relevant point of time. 9. Respondent No. 3 and 4 did not choose to lead any oral evidence, the Insurance policy pertaining to vehicle (stationed vehicle) bearing No.AP 16 TV 6135 is marked as Ex.B1 and Insurance policy for the vehicle bearing number AP 16 TV 2408 marked as Ex.B2. Arguments in the Appeal:- 10. For the appellant: (i) Learned MACT failed to consider the case sympathetically, keeping in view of the nature of the accident and the injuries sustained. The compensation granted under heads of medical expenditure of a sum of Rs.25,000/- as against Rs.45,000/- and loss of future earnings at Rs.3,56,400/- as against Rs.7,05,000/- claimed are abysmally low. The nature and effect of injuries, particularly amputations suffered by the petitioner should have been weighed empathically and just compensation should have been awarded. The compensation granted under heads of medical expenditure of a sum of Rs.25,000/- as against Rs.45,000/- and loss of future earnings at Rs.3,56,400/- as against Rs.7,05,000/- claimed are abysmally low. The nature and effect of injuries, particularly amputations suffered by the petitioner should have been weighed empathically and just compensation should have been awarded. (ii) Learned counsel for the appellant relied on the observations of the Honourable High Court of Judicature at Calcutta in Jitu Pramanik v. National,Insurance Company Ltd. and another, 2020 ACJ 2556 and the observations of the learned single judge of this Court made in Bikyam China Venkateswarlu Vs.Potluri Vijnaya Kumar and Others , [ 2023 ACJ 1030 ] , for the purpose as to taking of earnings and disability in respect of driver and Masion, who suffered amputation; and the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court made in a case in Baby Sakshi Greola Vs. Manzoor Ahmad Simon and Anr. , [2025 AIAR (Civil) 1] , for the purpose as to awarding compensation under various heads in injury cases, and considering the disability @75% as Rs.100% for all the practical purposes, including adoption of multiplier. For the respondent Insurance Company :- 11. learned MACT has appreciated the evidence on record, age, occupation and income although not properly proved. No documentary evidence is placed in support of occupation and the income of the claimant. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is already as high side and no enhancement is necessary in the factual matrix of the matter. 12. There is neither appeal nor cross objections are preferred on behalf of the insurance company. 13. Thoughtful consideration given to the arguments advanced by the both sides. Now the points that arise for determination in this appeal are that - 1) Whether the compensation awarded by the learned MACT under Award dated 23.09.2011 in M.V.O.P. No. 146 of 2008 is just and reasonable? or Whether the appellant entitled for more compensation? If so, on what quantum and on what grounds? 2) To what result? Point No.1:- Precedential guidance:- 14. In Jitu Pramanik v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and another, 2020 ACJ 2556 the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta, while considering the claim of 31 years old injured professional Chauffeur, taken a monthly income of Rs.6,000/-, added 40% towards future prospectus, in respect of 85% disability, awarded compensation of Rs.21,00,000/-. 15. In Jitu Pramanik v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and another, 2020 ACJ 2556 the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta, while considering the claim of 31 years old injured professional Chauffeur, taken a monthly income of Rs.6,000/-, added 40% towards future prospectus, in respect of 85% disability, awarded compensation of Rs.21,00,000/-. 15. 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. , [2025 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 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 16. Hon’ble Apex Court in Yadava Kumar Vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited and Anr., 2010 (10) SCC 341 vide para Nos.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. 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 .” 17. In Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another, 2011 (1) SCC 343 vide para 19, the Apex Court summarized principles to be followed in the process of quantifying the compensation are addressed after referring to socio economic and practical aspects from which, the claimants can claim and the practical difficulties, the parties may face in the process of getting disability assessed and getting allcertificates 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. 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…” 18. 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…” 18. In Sidram Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr., 2 023 (3) SCC 439 vide para 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 (cited supra), and also various heads under which compensation can be awarded, victim of a motor vehicle accident. 19. In Sidram’s case, it is also observed by referring to a case in R.D. Hattangadi V. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd. 1995 (1) SCC 551 , (para 12) 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. Analysis of Evidence and Material: 20. [i] As per the evidence, the claimant was a driver aged about 30 years. Admittedly, he was driving lorry, on the date of accident. He has claimed salary of Rs.4,500/- per month. When a specific suggestion was put to him, he stated that he did not file any documentary evidence to show his income @4,500/- per month, possibility in progress of income can be taken around 40%. However, his income is taken by the Tribunal at 3000/- per month. [ii] Amputation of leg suffered by him is not disputed. He was in patient, from the date of accident till 03.05.2006. He has claimed that he spent Rs.1,45,000/-. [iii] PW.2/Dr.N.Ramesh deposed that left lower limb of claimant is amputated up to the level of left knee joint. The claimant was admitted in hospital on 28.04.2006 and discharged on 03.05.2006. The injuries are grievous in nature. Prescriptions and Medical bills covered by Ex.A8, belongs to his hospital, Modular for Prosthesis suggested to the claimant, which may cost up to Rs.2,00,000/-. The claimant was admitted in hospital on 28.04.2006 and discharged on 03.05.2006. The injuries are grievous in nature. Prescriptions and Medical bills covered by Ex.A8, belongs to his hospital, Modular for Prosthesis suggested to the claimant, which may cost up to Rs.2,00,000/-. Except suggestion that the negligence of the patient caused the second amputation and that the expenditure stated is not correct, nothing more is elicited. [iv] PW.3, N. Subrahmanya Sastry, Orthopedic surgeon in General Hospital, Vijayawada stated about the disability Certificate issued and assessment of disability at 60%. Documentary Evidence:- 21. Ex.A2 is the Wound Certificate, reflecting crush injury and laceration, and injuries are mentioned as grievous in nature. Multiple fractures on both bones are shown. Ex.A5-Discharge Summary of the Vijaya Krishna Orthopedic Hospital, Vijayawada, A6-the Laboratory Report, A8-Medical Bills, A9-Prescriptions, and Ex.A10-Disability Certificate are indicating the nature of the injuries. Medical Bills are standing for Rs.7,063/- only. 22. The evidence of PW.2 shows that the petitioner has spent Rs.20,000/-, whereas the claimant as PW.1 stated that he had spent Rs.1,45,000/- for all the expenditure but there is no documentary evidence for the same. 23. From the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the following facts are clear: 1) Claimant aged about 30 years. 2) Claimant suffered severe crush injuries. 3) Claimant undergone treatment and surgery in two hospitals. 4) Claimant suffered amputation of leg. 5) Disability Certificate issued assessing the disability at 60%. 6) PW.3 stated about the disability @60%. Just and reasonable compensation to which the claimant is entitled and reasons there of: 24. [i] The claimant suffered severe crush injury. Pain and suffering and inexplicable. learned Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering, which is very low. The same requires enhancement to at least Rs.50,000/-. The petitioner undergone treatment and surgery in two hospitals. Under the head of medical expenditure, the Tribunal granted Rs.40,000/- only, but the same requires enhancement to Rs.50,000/-. [ii] PW.3, Doctor stated that the claimant may require future medical expenditure from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/-. Although the specific reasons are not stated, but in view of evidence of Doctor, the claimant is entitled for Rs.50,000/- future medical expenditure. [iii] Likewise under the heads of extra nourishment attendant charges, Transportation charges, the claimant may require reasonable amount of compensation in view of treatment and hospitalization as well as his attendants running pillar to post. [iv] The age of the claimant is 30 years. [iii] Likewise under the heads of extra nourishment attendant charges, Transportation charges, the claimant may require reasonable amount of compensation in view of treatment and hospitalization as well as his attendants running pillar to post. [iv] The age of the claimant is 30 years. He was driver. The accident is of the year 2006. Considering the socio economic circumstances etc., the learned Tribunal has accepted the income @Rs.3,000/- per month, but failed to add future prospects. Therefore, Rs.1000/- can be additionally added towards progress in income, whereby the income of the claimant can be taken @Rs.4000/- per month. [v] Total loss of income for a period of at least 5 months during treatment and rest etc., can be taken, whereby under the head of loss of earnings during treatment etc., can be awarded at Rs.20,000/- [vi] Learned Tribunal taken Rs.3000/- per month as income, disability @60% is spoken by Doctor and evidenced by Disability Certificate, accepted only55% disability without any basis. The disability @60% can be accepted in view of the oral and documentary evidence. [vii] Monthly income @Rs.4000/- comes to annual income @Rs.48,000/-, 60% of the same comes to Rs.28,800/-. For the age group of 30 years, multiplier applicable is 18, whereby the loss of income can be arrived at Rs.5,18,400/- as against Rs.3,56,400/- arrived by the learned MACT. [viii] Further under the head of loss of amenities and loss of expectation of life, the claimant is entitled for reasonable amount @Rs.25,000/- under each head. 25. In the light of the evidence available, the entitlement of claimant for compensation can be concluded as follows: Sl. No. Head Granted by MACT Found just by this Appellate Court 1. b a)Pain and suffering ) Fractures &grievous injuries c)Simple Injuries Rs.10,000/- Rs.50,000/- 3. Medical Expenditure Rs.40,000/- Rs.50,000/- 4. Future medical expenditure Nil Rs.50,000/- 5. a)Extra Nourishment Nil Rs.25,000/- b)Attendant Charges Nil Rs.20,000/- c)Transportation charges Nil Rs.15,000/- 6. Loss of earnings during treatment etc. Rs.20,000/- 7. Permanent disability Rs.3,56,400/- Rs.5,18,400/- 8. Loss of amenities Nil Rs.25,000/- 9. Loss of expectation of life. Nil Rs.25,000/- Total: Rs.4,06,400/- Rs.7,98,400/- In view of the discussions made and for the aforestated reasons, point No.1 is answered in favour of the appellant. Point No.2:- 26. Loss of earnings during treatment etc. Rs.20,000/- 7. Permanent disability Rs.3,56,400/- Rs.5,18,400/- 8. Loss of amenities Nil Rs.25,000/- 9. Loss of expectation of life. Nil Rs.25,000/- Total: Rs.4,06,400/- Rs.7,98,400/- In view of the discussions made and for the aforestated reasons, point No.1 is answered in favour of the appellant. Point No.2:- 26. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part as follows: 1) the Compensation amount awarded by the learned MACT @Rs.4,06,400/- with interest @6% per annum is enhanced to Rs.7,98,400/- with interest @9% per annum. 2) Costs etc., awarded by the MACT are confirmed. 3) Appellant is entitled for withdrawal of the amount at once, on deposit. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeal shall stand closed.