JUDGMENT : (A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. Shriram General Insurance Company Limited / Respondent No.2 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa (for short “the MACT”) in M.V.O.P.No.454 of 2013 feeling aggrieved by the Award and decree dated 31.12.2015 passed therein preferred the present appeal. 3. Respondent No.1 herein is the claimant (minor represented by next friend, his father-natural guardian). Respondent No.2 herein is the owner of the Tipper Lorry bearing No. AP 04 W 5280 (herein after refer to “the offending vehicle”). As against the claim made for Rs.15,00,000/-. Learned MACT although found entitlement of claimant for compensation in a sum of Rs.15,96,000/- awarded Rs.15,00,000/- only with interest @ 7.5% per annum. Disputing both the liability of the Insurance Company and justification in quantifying the compensation this appeal is filed and arguments are advanced touching both aspects by both sides. Case of Claimant : 4(i). Claimant Sri Karnati Narasimha Reddy alias Sri Bharath Simha Reddy aged about 12 years on the date of accident i.e. on 16.03.2013 along with other boys boarded bus No.AP 04 U 7008 to go to Rajeev High School, Yellatur. At about 07.15 A.M. when the bus was near Anjani Mines cross road on Thummaluru-Pendlimarry main road, offending vehicle came from 'Pendlimarri' side i.e. in opposite direction driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the school bus in which the claimant was travelling, whereby, the accident occurred and the claimant and others suffered injuries. Immediately after the accident, the claimant was shifted to RIMS Hospital, Kadapa, for treatment where first aid was given. In view of the serious condition and head injury, the claimant was referred to SVIMS Hospital, Tirupati on the same day and he was treated there. Surgery was done for right frontal bone as fractures are found in CT scan. Facial injuries, complications as well as attentive optic neuropathy etc. were found and the claimant was treated at SVIMS Hospital till 22.03.2013. 4(ii). Later, the claimant was taken to L.V.Prasad Hospital, Hyderabad for further follow up treatment where from the claimant was referred to NIMS Hospital-Neuro Surgeon, Hyderabad regarding benefit of surgic decompression, where it was suggested that no benefit. Father of the claimant has spent huge amount for medicines, hiring of vehicles, taking of treatment at various hospitals. 4(ii). Later, the claimant was taken to L.V.Prasad Hospital, Hyderabad for further follow up treatment where from the claimant was referred to NIMS Hospital-Neuro Surgeon, Hyderabad regarding benefit of surgic decompression, where it was suggested that no benefit. Father of the claimant has spent huge amount for medicines, hiring of vehicles, taking of treatment at various hospitals. The right eye vision is lost, frequent suffering of headache, giddiness, mental disorder, inability to speak, loss of memory power and in ability to read books are the results of the injuries suffered in the accident. 4(iii). Further case of clamant is that he was a brilliant boy in studies. The accident has worstly effected his life including loss of eye vision damaging prospects of employment, marriage and causing social stigma loss of academic year etc. Hence he is entitled for compensation of Rs.15 , 00,000/-. Case of Respondent No.1 owner of the offending vehicle: 5. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the Tipper Lorry, he has engaged driver by name Sri S. Mallikarjuna, who is having valid and effective driving licence and offending vehicle was insured with Respondent No.2 Insurance Company covering the period valid from 11.08.2012 to 10 . 08.2013 (date of accident is 16.03.2013). The policy was in force as on the date of accident. Respondent No.1 did not violate conditions of insurance policy. Respondent No.2 has to indemnity Respondent No.1 as well as the claimant. The liability, if any, shall be on the Respondent No.2, as a valid and effective Insurance Policy was in force as on the date of accident. Case of Respondent No.2 Insurance Company: 6. Claimant shall prove his age, education, prospects, nature and manner of accident, effect of injuries, valid insurance policy and its subsistence on the date of accident. Further, negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, treatment under gone, expenses incurred, effect of injuries shall be proved. The claimant is put to strict proof of all the allegations made. and the driver of the school bus was negligent but case is foisted against the driver of the tipper as driver of the bus has no valid effective driving licence and as school bus was not properly insured. 7. The claimant is put to strict proof of all the allegations made. and the driver of the school bus was negligent but case is foisted against the driver of the tipper as driver of the bus has no valid effective driving licence and as school bus was not properly insured. 7. On the strength of pleadings, the learned MACTsettled the following issues for trial: i. Whether petitioner sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tipper lorry bearing No.AP 04 W 5280? ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? iii. To what relief? Evidence before the learned MACT: 8. Father of the claimant Sri Karnati Narasimha Reddy was examined as PW1, Sri Mitta Chenna Krishna Reddy – Eye witness to the accident was examined as P.W.-2, Dr.C. Krishna Mohan – Assistant Professor Neuro-Surgeon Department, SVIMS Hospital, Tiruapti was examined as PW-3. The claimant relied on Ex.A1 to A14, documents which are as follows: Sl.No. Ex. No. Nature of document 1. Ex.A1 True copy of FIR in Cr.No.42/2013, dated 16.03.2013 of Pendlimarri P.S. 2. Ex.A2 True copy of wound certificate 3. Ex.A3 True copy of charge sheet. 4. Ex.A4 Disability certificate issued by District Medical Board, RIMS Hospital, Kadapa dated 04.03.20215 5. Ex.A5 Out patient card of SVIMS Hospital, Tirupathi dated 16.03.2013. `6. Ex.A6 Out patient card of SVRR Government General Hospital, Tirupathi (2 in numbers dated 22.03.2013 and 23.03.2013) 7. Ex.A7 Discharge summary issued by SVIMS Hospital, Tirupathi dated 23.03.2013. 8. Ex.A8 Prescription receipts of L.V.Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad (3 in numbers) 9. Ex.A9 CT Scan report issued by Lucid Diagnostics, Hyderabad referred by L.V.Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad dated 30.03.2013. 10. Ex.A10 LV Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad Doctor referred later dated 01.04.2013 to Neuro Surgeon, NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad for opinion. 11. Ex.A11 Out patient card of the NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad. 12. Ex. A12 Out patient medical record of the NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad relating to the petitioner. 13. Ex.A13 Medical bills (17 in numbers) amount of Rs.28,525/- 14. Ex.A14 Vehicle hire receipts (3 in numbers) of Rs.20,000/- 9. On behalf of the Respondents Insurance Company EX.B1 policy was marked, no oral evidence is adduced. Findings of the learned MACT: 10(i). 12. Ex. A12 Out patient medical record of the NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad relating to the petitioner. 13. Ex.A13 Medical bills (17 in numbers) amount of Rs.28,525/- 14. Ex.A14 Vehicle hire receipts (3 in numbers) of Rs.20,000/- 9. On behalf of the Respondents Insurance Company EX.B1 policy was marked, no oral evidence is adduced. Findings of the learned MACT: 10(i). Learned MACT considering the evidence of P.W.1, father of the claimant and the evidence of P.W.2 eye witness to the accident who was proceeding on motor cycle near the accident spot at relevant time and also crime record i.e. FIR, Charge Sheet etc. registered against the driver of the offending vehicle, believed the accident, negligent driving of the driver of the Tripper and claimant sustaining injuries due to accident and concluded that the claimant is entitled to compensation and both Respondent Nos.1 and 2 particularly Respondent No.2 is liable to pay compensation. 10(ii). While quantifying the compensation the learned MACT has considered the evidence of doctor PW.3, fracture resulting in paining of the optic nerve and orbit canal causing visual disability to the tune of 70% of vision, disfigurement of face, the other documents like disability certificate viz., EX-A5 and quantified the entitlement of petitioner at Rs.15,96,000. However, awarded Rs.15,00,000/- considering the claim of the claimant. Arguments in the appeal: 11(i). Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that bus is involved in the accident contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the bus cannot be ignored and the learned MACT failed in not addressing the same. Further, the petition is bad for non-joinder of the driver, owner & insurance company of the bus. Even the quantification of the compensation done by the learned MACT is not rational. 11(ii). Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent No.1 claimant submitted that, claimant was a minor by the date of the accident, for no fault, his life become dark and quantification of compensation done by the learned MACT is just but learned MACT ignored the principle that the claim made by the claimant cannot be a bar to grant more than what is claimed and having found that the claimant is entitled for more than Rs.15,00,000/- the learned MACT ought to have awarded the same amount without scaling down to what is claimed. It is also argued for the claimant that without there being an appeal the Appellate Court can enhance and award more compensation to a claimant even in an appeal filed by the Insurance Company. 12. Perused the record. 13. Thoughtful consideration is given to the arguments advanced. 14. Points that arise for determination in this appeal in the light of the rival contentions are: i. Whether the pleaded accident dated 16.03.2013 has occurred owing to the exclusive rash and negligent driving of the driver of tipper lorry (offending vehicle) bearing No. AP 04 W 5280 and whether there was any contributory negligence on the part of the school bus in which the claimant was travelling, if so, whether the appellant Insurance Company can disown its liability? ii. Whether in an appeal filed by the Insurance Company compensation awarded by the learned MACT can be enhanced without any cross objections by the claimant. iii. Whether the compensation in a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- awarded by the learned MACT is just and adequate in the facts and circumstances of the case or whether any interference is necessary, if so, on what and which extent and what shall be the liability of Respondent No.2 (appellant Insurance Company).? iv. What is the result of the appeal? Analysis of evidence relating to point No.1: 15(i). Claimant is a minor boy travelling in a school bus. Occurrence of accident is not in dispute and it is an admitted fact. Negligence of driver of the offending vehicle is spoken by PW2. Crime record vide Ex.A1, FIR, Ex.A2 wound certificate are indicating the accident and nature of injuries suffered, Ex- A3 charge sheet is indicating that the driver Sri S. Mallikarjuna was charge sheeted for the offences under sections 337 and 338 of the IPC. Respondent No.2 Insurance Company did not choose to summon the driver of the offending vehicle nor did take any steps to adduce atleast any oral evidence disputing the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. 15(ii). Respondent No.2 Insurance Company did not choose to summon the driver of the offending vehicle nor did take any steps to adduce atleast any oral evidence disputing the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. 15(ii). Hon?ble Supreme Court in a case between Pavan Kumar and Another vs. Harkishan Dass Mohan Lal and others , [ (2014) 3 SCC 590 ] , after referring to T.O.Anthony vs. Karvarnan and others , [ (2008) 3 SCC 748 ] and Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and Another vs. K. Hemlatha and others , [ (2008) 6 SCC 767 ] addressed as to distinction between the principles of composite and contributory negligence vide para Nos.7, 8 and 9 as follows: 7. The distinction between the principles of composite and contributory negligence has been dealt with in Winfield & Jolowicz on Tort (Chapter 21) (15th Edn. 1998). It would be appropriate to notice the following passage from the said work: “Where two or more people by their independent breaches of duty to the plaintiff cause him to suffer distinct injuries, no special rules are required, for each tortfeasor is liable for the damage which he caused and only for that damage. Where, however, two or more breaches of duty by different persons cause the plaintiff to suffer a single injury the position is more complicated. The law in such a case is that the plaintiff is entitled to sue all or any of them for the full amount of his loss, and each is said to be jointly and severally liable for it. This means that special rules are necessary to deal with the possibilities of successive actions in respect of that loss and of claims for contribution or indemnity by one tortfeasor against the others. It is greatly to the plaintiff's advantage to show that he has suffered the same, indivisible harm at the hands of a number of defendants for he thereby avoids the risk, inherent in cases where there are different injuries, of finding that one defendant is insolvent (or uninsured) and being unable to execute judgment against him. The same picture is not, of course, so attractive from the point of view of the solvent defendant, who may end up carrying full responsibility for a loss in the causing of which he played only a partial, even secondary role. The same picture is not, of course, so attractive from the point of view of the solvent defendant, who may end up carrying full responsibility for a loss in the causing of which he played only a partial, even secondary role. *** The question of whether there is one injury can be a difficult one. The simplest case is that of two virtually simultaneous acts of negligence, as where two drivers behave negligently and collide, injuring a passenger in one of the cars or a pedestrian, but there is no requirement that the acts be simultaneous….” 8. Where the plaintiff/claimant himself is found to be a party to the negligence the question of joint and several liability cannot arise and the plaintiff's claim to the extent of his own negligence, as may be quantified, will have to be severed. In such a situation the plaintiff can only be held entitled to such part of damages/compensation that is not attributable to his own negligence. The above principle has been explained in T.O. Anthony [T.O. Anthony v. Karvarnan, (2008) 3 SCC 748 : (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 832 : (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 738] followed in K. Hemlatha [A.P. SRTC v. K. Hemlatha, (2008) 6 SCC 767 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 34]. 9. Paras 6 and 7 of T.O. Anthony [T.O. Anthony v. Karvarnan, (2008) 3 SCC 748 : (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 832 : (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 738] which are relevant may be extracted herein below : (SCC p. 751) “6. 'Composite negligence' refers to the negligence on the part of two or more persons. Where a person is injured as a result of negligence on the part of two or more wrongdoers, it is said that the person was injured on account of the composite negligence of those wrongdoers. In such a case, each wrongdoer is jointly and severally liable to the injured for payment of the entire damages and the injured person has the choice of proceeding against all or any of them. In such a case, the injured need not establish the extent of responsibility of each wrongdoer separately, nor is it necessary for the court to determine the extent of liability of each wrongdoer separately. In such a case, the injured need not establish the extent of responsibility of each wrongdoer separately, nor is it necessary for the court to determine the extent of liability of each wrongdoer separately. On the other hand where a person suffers injury, partly due to the negligence on the part of another person or persons, and partly as a result of his own negligence, then the negligence on the part of the injured which contributed to the accident is referred to as his contributory negligence. Where the injured is guilty of some negligence, his claim for damages is not defeated merely by reason of the negligence on his part but the damages recoverable by him in respect of the injuries stand reduced in proportion to his contributory negligence. 7. Therefore, when two vehicles are involved in an accident, and one of the drivers claims compensation from the other driver alleging negligence, and the other driver denies negligence or claims that the injured claimant himself was negligent, then it becomes necessary to consider whether the injured claimant was negligent and if so, whether he was solely or partly responsible for the accident and the extent of his responsibility, that is, his contributory negligence. Therefore where the injured is himself partly liable, the principle of 'composite negligence' will not apply nor can there be an automatic inference that the negligence was 50 : 50 as has been assumed in this case. The Tribunal ought to have examined the extent of contributory negligence of the appellant and thereby avoided confusion between composite negligence and contributory negligence. The High Court has failed to correct the said error.” It was a case of an young boy of 12 years like in our case travelling in a jeep where a truck coming in opposite direction has dashed and where the learned MACT found that the petitioner is bad for non-joinder of truck, owner and insurer of the truck and the Hon?ble High Court apportioned the negligence on the strength of the contributory negligence. 15(iii). Even if there is a any negligence on the part of the driver of the bus, it can be considered as a case of composite negligence since the claimant is not a party to negligence addressed in the light of proposition of law by the Hon?ble Apex Court in the judgment cited above i.e. T.O.Anthony vs. Karvarnan and others (2 supra). There is no material indicating any contribution of negligence from the end of the school bus or persons concerned with it, so the objections as to non-joinder of driver, owner and Insurance Company of school bus need not be considered. 15(iv). In view of the above stated reasons, the findings of the learned MACT as to negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and claimant sustaining injuries in the accident, liability of the Respondent No.2 appellant Insurance Company to pay the compensation does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, those findings of the learned MACT are confirmed and concurred. Point Nos.2 and 3: 16. Point No.2 and 3 are interlinked. Hence they are being discussed and answered together as follows: Precedential Guidance: 17(i). The legal position as to powers of the Appellate Court particularly while dealing with an appeal in terms of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, where the award passed by the learned MACT under challenge at the instance of the Insurance Company (Respondents) and bar or prohibition if any to enhance the quantum of compensation and awarding just and reasonable compensation, even in the absence of any appeal or cross objections was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in a case between National Insurance Company Limited vs. E. Suseelamma and others , [2023 SCC Online AP 1725] in M.A.C.M.A. No.945 of 2013, while answering point No.3 framed therein vide, para 50 of the judgment, which reads as follows: 50.In our considered view, the claimant/respondents are entitled for just compensation and if on the face of the award or even in the light of the evidence on record, and keeping in view the settled legal position regarding the claimants being entitled to just compensation and it also being the statutory duty of the Court/Tribunal to award just compensation, this Court in the exercise of the appellate powers can enhance the amount of compensation even in the absence of appeal or cross-objection by the claimants. 17(ii). 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. 17(ii). 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 17(iii). 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. 17(iv). 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. 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(v). 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. 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. (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…” 17(vi). 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. 18. 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. (emphasis added). 19. The purpose of any system of justice is to provide remedies to the victims and to restore the parties involved in litigation to their original positions to the extent possible. Therefore, the concerns of all stakeholders connected to the process of redress and reparation should focus on providing adequate compensation. The development and culture of any society will be seen from how it treats its criminals and victims. The evolution of legal system from retribution to restoration is clear in this century. If the aim of the law is to restore what is lost and to undo the wrong, then providing compensation should be considered as important as punishing or reforming the wrongdoer. With this philosophy of law in mind, the claims for compensation from victims of any crime or tort require careful consideration and appreciation. 20. If the aim of the law is to restore what is lost and to undo the wrong, then providing compensation should be considered as important as punishing or reforming the wrongdoer. With this philosophy of law in mind, the claims for compensation from victims of any crime or tort require careful consideration and appreciation. 20. Depending on the context of the case, the quantum and the heads under which compensation can be awarded may vary. But, broadly, the heads under which the compensation is awarded in personal injuries are : A) 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 earnings during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. (B) Non-pecuniary damages (General damages) : (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequences of the injuries. (v) Loss of amenities. (vi) Loss of expectation of life. Analysis of evidence relating to Point Nos.2 and 3 : 21. P.W.-1 father of the claimant stated about the injuries suffered by the claimant with reference to wound certificate issued by RIMS Hospital-Ex.A2, discharge summary issued by SVIMS Hospital, Tirupathi-Ex.A7 and also certificate issued by L.V. Prasad Institute, Hyderabad with reference to CT Scan- Ex.A9 and Ex-A.10. During cross examination of PW-1 it was suggested to him that, the treatment was done to claimant at free of cost under the Aarogyasri Scheme. It was generally suggested that certain documents are fabricated for the purpose of compensation and that the claimant is not suffering disability of any type and normally attending the school without any discomfort. 22. Evidence of PW-3 shows that on 16.03.2013 patient by name Sri K. Narasimha Reddy / claimant came to his Hospital with complaint of with Vomiting two Episodes, bleeding from nose and was admitted in SVIMS Hospital as an in-patient for treating right temporal bone fracture with underlining Hematoma, Right Orbit fracture and Right Optic nerve Injury and right Zygomatic arch fracture. He was admitted in ICU and was treated till discharge on 23.03.2013. At time of discharge patient was doing well. His Right eye Pupil was not reacting to light due to head injury the petitioner/patient Right eye vision lost. He was admitted in ICU and was treated till discharge on 23.03.2013. At time of discharge patient was doing well. His Right eye Pupil was not reacting to light due to head injury the petitioner/patient Right eye vision lost. Due to loss of right eye vision disability is 70%. P.W.-3 has stated that the patient face is disfigured and Chest wall is disfigured. Ex.A7 Discharge Summary Issued by the Hospital. 23. During cross examination PW-3 has stated that the patient came for follow-up on 10.04.2013 after discharge and thereafter he did not examine the patient with regard to right eye vision etc. 24. The documentary evidence that can be considered is as follows: (i) Ex.A2 wound certificate : This document is disclosing three injuries: 1. Laceration of 10x8x5 Cm., over the Right Frontal region. 2. Laceration of 5x2 Cm., Right Zygomatic region. 3. 3x1 Cm., Laceration over the Sterum. It is opined that Ex.A2 injuries are grievous in nature. (ii). Ex.A4 Disability Certificate issued by the District Medical Board, RIMS Hospital, Kadapa. Type of disability is mentioned as blindness, quantum disability is shown as disease-better eye, disease-over sight. Reassessment is not recommended, percentage of disability is 75%. It is also mentioned that he meets the physical requirements for discharge of his duties i.e. SE-can perform work by seeing. (iii). Ex.A5 :Out patient card of SVIMS Hospital, Tirupathi. (iv). Ex.A6: Out patient cards of SVRR Government General Hospital, Tirupathi. (v). Ex.A7: Discharge summary of the petitioner issued by SVIMS Hospital, Tirupathi. (vi). Ex-A8: Prescription receipts of L.V.Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad. (Vii). Ex.A9: CT Scan report of the petitioner issued by Lucid Diagnostics, Hyderabad. (viii). Ex.A10: LV Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad Doctor referred letter. (ix). Ex.A11: Out patient medical record of the NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad. (x). Ex.A12: Out patient medical record of the NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad. (xi). Ex.A13: Medical bills amount of Rs.28,525/-. (xii). Ex.A14: Vehicle hire receipts of Rs.20,000/-. 25. With regard to disability, the evidence of P.W.-3 would show that eye vision disability is 70%. During cross examination to doubt disability nothing important is elicited. During chief examination PW3 has stated justification for the disability etc. P.W.3 has stated that EX-A7 issued by the hospital where he was working. Contentions of Ex.A7, relevant are as follows: DISCUSSION: A 11 year old male patient presened to the casuality with an alleged history of RTA. During cross examination to doubt disability nothing important is elicited. During chief examination PW3 has stated justification for the disability etc. P.W.3 has stated that EX-A7 issued by the hospital where he was working. Contentions of Ex.A7, relevant are as follows: DISCUSSION: A 11 year old male patient presened to the casuality with an alleged history of RTA. On examination his GCS was 12/15(E2V4M6) and pupils rt dilated not reacting to light.lt 2mm reacting with no other deficits.CT brain plain was suggestive of Right temporal bone # with underlying thin EDH and contusion ,rt.zygomatic arch #,rt.orbital wall#. CT orbits:Rt.Orbital wall # with no evidence of spicule compressing the optic nerve. Opthalmologist consultation was taken and he was diagnosed to have right traumatic optic neuropathy with complete loss of vision in the right eye. A plastic surgeon opinion was taken regarding facial injuries. He was managed conservatively with antibiotics and analgesics. His hospital stay was uneventful. At the time of discharge his GCS was 15/15,pupils:rt. not reacting, left reacting to light and there were no fresh deficits. He was discharged with the following advice. ADVICE ON DISCHARGE: 1.Tab.Ctoin 50 mg- 1 tab- 1….1….1 to continue 1.Tab.Crocin - 1 tab- 1….1….1 for 5 days 2 Tab. Deverab - 1 tab- 1….0….0for 5days 4.Tab.EXTIL 200mg- 1 tab- 0….1….0 for 5 days Opthalmologyconsultation Plastic surgery consultation Review in NSOPD after 15 days Report immediately to the casuality in case of LOC, seizures. 26. The compensation awarded by the learned MACT and justifications assigned thereof are: 1.There is loss of vision 70%. 2.There was disfigurement of face. 3. Petitioner sustained two grievous injuries for which he entitled for Rs.60, 000/- 4. Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering. 5. Claimant is entitled for Rs.10,000/- for extra nourishment 6. For social stigma etc. the claimant is entitled for Rs.1,00,000/-. 7. For loss of marriage prospects entitled for Rs.1,00,000/-. 8. For medicines entitled for Rs.5,000/-. 9. For Transportation, the claimant is entitled for Rs.15,000/ 10. Towards disability entitled for Rs.12,96,000/-. 11. The income of claimant is taken at Rs.10,000/- per month by the learned MACT. 27. The claimant is minor. He is aged about 11 or 12 years, had bright future and he was studying. Although it is pleaded that he was meritorious, school record etc. are not placed. Towards disability entitled for Rs.12,96,000/-. 11. The income of claimant is taken at Rs.10,000/- per month by the learned MACT. 27. The claimant is minor. He is aged about 11 or 12 years, had bright future and he was studying. Although it is pleaded that he was meritorious, school record etc. are not placed. However, it is too early to conclude at the age of 12 as to what heights he will reach in life had there been no accident, Disability etc. 70% / 75% for Right Eye is spoken, what shall be its contribution for the total body and ability to do any work is also an aspect which require consideration. However, the same will be correlative to the occupation and employment a person will indulge in. 28. Therefore, some guess work is necessary for quantification of compensation under the head of permanent disability in this situation. Taking of the income at Rs.10,000/- and assessing the disability with reference to same application of multiplier for that age group is whether justified is one aspect. However, it is relevant to note that the claimant has to live survive total life with the disability. 29. In a case between Baby Sakshi Greola vs. Manzoor Ahmad Simon & Another reported in 2025 AIAR (Civil) I equivalent to 2024 SCC Online page 3692, the Hon?ble Supreme Court while Considering a case of seven years old child suffering accident in the year 2009 while crossing road and sustaining grievous injuries and where her disability was said to be 75% mental retardation, under head of loss of earning capacity due to disability, awarded a compensation of Rs.13,18,000/-. It was a case of mental retardation to 75% contributing 100% disability. 30. In the present case before this Court, the disability is 70 % in respect of the Right Eye and the evidence is not so clear as to what shall be the disability in respect of total body and contributing for loss of income. In the present case, the disability contributing for loss of earning capacity can be taken at 70% and the compensation under the head of permanent disability can be fixed at Rs.10,00,000/-. However, upon considering the evidence as to treatment undergone, injuries suffered shifting the claimant to various hospitals, the compensation awarded by the learned MACT under various heads require modification and enhancement as tabulated here under: Sl. However, upon considering the evidence as to treatment undergone, injuries suffered shifting the claimant to various hospitals, the compensation awarded by the learned MACT under various heads require modification and enhancement as tabulated here under: Sl. No Head Granted by MACT Granted by this Appellate Court 1. a)Pain and suffering b)Fractures and grievous injuries Rs.10,000/- Rs.60,000/- Rs.1,00,000/- 2. Simple injuries Nil 3. Medical Expenditure Rs.5,000/- Rs.50,000/- 4. Future medical expenditure Nil Rs.50,000/- 5. a)Extra Nourishment Rs.10,000/- Rs.50,000/- b)Attendant Charges Nil Rs.25,000/- c)Transportation charges Rs.15,000/- Rs.25,000/- 6. Loss of earnings during treatment etc Nil Nil 7. Permanent disability Rs.12,96,000/- Rs.10,00,000/- 8. Loss of amenities Nil Rs.50,000/- 9. Disfigurement of face (social stigma) Rs.1,00,000/- Nil 10. Marriage prospects Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.1,00,000/- 11. Loss of expectation of life. Nil Nil Total: Rs . 15,96,000/- Rs.14,50,000 /- Point No.4: 31. In the result , the appeal is allowed-in-part, the compensation amount of Rs.15,00,000/- awarded by the learned MACT in M.V.O.P.No.454 of 2013, is reduced to Rs.14,50,000/- while maintaining interest and costs awarded by the learned MACT, as it is. 32. Claimant/appellant is permitted to withdraw the amount at once, if he became and declared as major. As Sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.