JUDGMENT : (A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. The cl aimant in MVOP No.133 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Kurnool [for short 'MACT'], Y.Vijay Kumar is the appellant before this Court in MACMA No.275 of 2017 and the 2 nd respondent therein, the Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd., is the appellant before this Court, in MACMA No.300 of 2017. One Poola Nagaraju and one Masoom Basha, are the owner and driver of the vehicle i.e., Tractor and Trailor bearing Nos.AP 21 TU 8680 and AP 21 E 2691, [herein after referred as ‘offending vehicle’]. They are Respondents 1 and 3 before the MACT and they remained ex parte. 3 [i] Dissatisfied with imposing of liability and quantification and contending that it is on high side, the Insurance Company preferred the appeal. [ii] Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in a sum of Rs.6,81,500/- with interest @ 9% p.a., as against a claim made for Rs.15,00,000/-, the claimant is before this Court. 4. Both appeals are arising out of the same case, heard together and are being disposed of under a Common Judgment, as the points, contentious issues in both the appeals are substantially same, touching the core points viz., the liability of Insurance Company and entitlement of claimant for just compensation. 5. For the sake of convenience, parties will be hereinafter referred to with reference to their status before the learned MACT and as and how they are arrayed in the impugned proceedings,. Case of the Claimants:- 6. [i] On 03.01.2012 at about 10 O' clock, when the claimant was travelling on his motor cycle bearing No.AP 25 AB 2084, near Nanoor village, Tractor and Trailor bearing Nos.AP 21 TU 8680 and AP 21 E 2691, came from behind in high speed, and in a rash and negligent manner without blowing any horn, dashed the motor cycle, on which the claimant was travelling, whereby he fell in a ditch on the road side and sustained fracture and multiple injuries: 1) a lacerated wound over right leg 15 x 10 size, exposing broken bones, 2) a fracture of right Tibia and right fibula broken into six pieces at lower thigh of right leg, 3) Multiple injuries all over the body. [ii] Immediately after the accident, the claimant was admitted in Amrutha Hospitals, Gayatri Estate, Kurnool under care of Dr.K.Venkateswarlu (Ortho) and surgery was conducted, rods were fixed, further surgery was advised, apart from advising complete rest. He was further advised that he has to practice moving with support of a stick in view of multiple fractures and that he should not put weight on his right leg. [iii] A case in Crime No.4 of 2012 was registered in Orvakal Police Station against the driver of the offending vehicle. [iv] The claimant was aged about 30 years, hale and healthy and working as Lecturer in Narayana College, Nanoor and was earning Rs.34,000/- per month. [v] Due to accident, he became permanently disabled and hence, entitled for compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- under various heads. The case of the respondent Insurance Company:- 7. [i] The claimant shall prove the pleaded accident, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, injuries sustained by the claimant, effect of such injuries contributing for permanent disability. [ii] The claimant shall prove his age, occupation, income and disability contributing for loss of income, valid and effective driving license for the driver of the offending vehicle, valid insurance policy in respect of offending vehicle issued by the 2 nd respondent Insurance Company. [iii] The quantum of compensation claimed is excessive and that the 2 nd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. 8. On the strength of pleadings, learned MACT settled the following issues: 1) Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in a road accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle bearing No. AP 21 TU 8680 and AP 21 E 2691? 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and against whom? 3) To what relief? Evidence before the Tribunal :- 9. [i] The claimant as PW.1, reiterated his stand as to the occurrence of accident while he was traveling on his motor cycle, negligence of driver of the offending vehicle, claimant sustaining injuries, treatment undergone including surgery, fixation of iron rods, advice of Doctor as to bed rest, expenditure incurred etc., while referring to the documents covered by Exs.A1 to A10 and Ex.X1/Case Sheet. [ii] Further the claimant, got examined one Dr.K.Venkateswarlu as PW.2, who stated about the treatment given to the claimant and also Ex.X1 case sheet, disability assessed by the medical Board @ 20%, difficulty of the claimant to sit and squat. [iii] On behalf of the Insurance Company, one Leela Kumar said to be an authorized person was examined and the Insurance Company relied on Ex.B1 – letter sent to owner and the driver of the vehicle, demanding to cause production of driving license of the driver of the offending vehicle. Ex.B2/Attested copy of Policy and Ex.X2 letter authorizing one Naziruddin, examined as RW.2, to give evidence on behalf of the RTA. Ex.A3 and Ex.X4- Registration particulars of the vehicle. Ex.X5 and Ex.X6- permit history of the offending vehicle. Findings of the learned MACT:- 10. On issue No.1 :- [i] Learned MACT found that the evidence of PW.1/claimant and Ex.A1-FIR and absence of contest by the driver and owner of the Tractor are sufficient to believe the accident and negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. [ii] With regard to the entitlement and quantification of compensation, learned MACT found that, the age of the claimant as per the record is around 30 years, Ex.A10-Salary Certificate is issued for gross salary claimed by the claimant at Rs.34,000/-, but the same cannot be the sole basis. However, his income can be accepted at Rs.30,000/- per month. During the period of treatment etc. for 4 months, the loss of income to claimant can be believed. Further, even after joining to duty, he may not become normal, the income may become less and disability is assessed by the Board @ 20%. Therefore, the claimant is entitled under the head of loss of income etc., in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, for the inconvenience caused in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, for pain and suffering etc. at Rs.1,50,000/- and for the medical expenditure at Rs.75,000/-, for the services of household members at Rs.3,000/- per month, loss of earnings for 7 months at Rs.21,000/-, for extra nourishment Rs.25,500/- and in all, the claimant is entitled for Rs.6,81,500/-with interest @ 9% per annum. Arguments of claimant in MACMA No.275 of 2017:- 11. at Rs.1,50,000/- and for the medical expenditure at Rs.75,000/-, for the services of household members at Rs.3,000/- per month, loss of earnings for 7 months at Rs.21,000/-, for extra nourishment Rs.25,500/- and in all, the claimant is entitled for Rs.6,81,500/-with interest @ 9% per annum. Arguments of claimant in MACMA No.275 of 2017:- 11. The amount of compensation awarded is meager and the claimant is entitled for more than of Rs.15,00,000/-, the disability of 20% and necessity to remove implants, is not taken note properly by the learned MACT and the difficulty of the claimant to sit and squat should have been considered. Granting of medical expenditure for Rs.75,000/- only is also unjustified. Hence, the claimant is entitled for the compensation more than what is claimed. Arguments in MACMA No.300 of 2017 by the Insruance Company:- 12. [i] Want of driving license to the driver of the offending vehicle, is the defense taken by the Insurance Company, both the driver and the owner of the Insurance Company remained ex parte; notices issued to owner and driver of the offending vehicle were served and there is no reply. Therefore, defense of Insurance Company shall be accepted. [ii] RW.1, the authorized person from the Insurance Company stated about the absence of driving license. Therefore, the MACT should have considered the absence of driving license and dismissed the claim against the Insurance Company. [iii] Further, the negligence on the part of the injured/claimant cannot be ignored and in any event, quantum of compensation awarded shall be considered as excessive and the same is liable to be scaled down in view of the absence of proper evidence as to income and loss of income to the claimant. 13. Perused the record. 14. Thoughtful consideration is given to the arguments advanced by both sides, now the points that arise for consideration in these appeals are: 1) Whether the pleaded accident dated 03.01.2012 has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle? 2) Whether the claimant has sustained injuries in the pleaded accident and whether he is entitled for compensation? If so, to what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents? 3) What is the result of the appeal in M.A.C.M.A. No.275 of 2017? 4) What is the result of the appeal in M.A.C.M.A. No.300 of 2017? Point No.1:- 15[i]. 2) Whether the claimant has sustained injuries in the pleaded accident and whether he is entitled for compensation? If so, to what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents? 3) What is the result of the appeal in M.A.C.M.A. No.275 of 2017? 4) What is the result of the appeal in M.A.C.M.A. No.300 of 2017? Point No.1:- 15[i]. With regard to the occurrence of accident and negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, the claimant, who is an eye witness, gave evidence. On the report given by the claimant, a case in Crime No.4 of 2012 in Orvakal Police Station, was registered vide Ex.A1 and under Ex.A2, the driver of the offending vehicle was charge sheeted. [ii] No steps are taken by the Insurance Company to summon and examine the driver of the offending vehicle/respondent No.3. Therefore, mere assertion that there was contributory negligence on the part of the claimant does not serve any consideration. Therefore, the defense of want of negligence and the contributory negligence on the claimant found fit to be ignored and the findings and conclusions at Tribunal as to occurrence of accident, negligence of driver of the offending vehicle are found fit for confirmation. Accordingly, they are conferred and concurred. Point No.2: 16. Accident occurred due to negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, contributory negligence of whatsoever nature on the part of the claimant is not placed on record. The claimant sustained injuries in the accident as per his evidence and also the other oral evidence of Doctor/PW.2 and documentary evidence, like discharge summary, case sheet, medical bills etc. Therefore, entitlement of claimant for compensation is out of dispute. Hence, I conclude that claimant is entitled for compensation. 17. The other points remain for determination are what shall be the liability of the 2 nd respondent/Insurance Company and what shall be the quantum of compensation to which the claimant is entitled to. Liability of insurance Company: 18. The Insurance Company disputed its liability on the ground of absence of driving license to the driver of the offending vehicle. Burden to prove the same lies on the Insurance Company. Mere sending of legal notice to the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, does not discharge the Insurance Company from its burden of proving the stand taken by it. Burden to prove the same lies on the Insurance Company. Mere sending of legal notice to the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, does not discharge the Insurance Company from its burden of proving the stand taken by it. The other possible evidence like summoning the driver, the evidence of concerned RTI etc., are not placed on record. Even the charge sheet Ex.A2/ available on record is not indicating that the driver of the offending vehicle is charge sheeted for violation of the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, particularly Section 3, want of driving license etc.. Hence, the exemption sought by the Insurance Company from its liability on the ground of absence of driving license to the driver of the offending vehicle is fit to be discarded. Accordingly, this defense and objections is ignored. Hence, I conclude that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation. Quantum:- Precedential Guidance:- 19. Referring to certain Parameters for quantifying the compensation under various heads addressed by the Hon?ble Apex Court is found necessary, to have standards 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. , [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 . , 22020 (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 ?) 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 Nos.10, by referring to Sunil Kumar 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 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. 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 19, the 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 can claim 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 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 Rajkum ar’s case (cited 9 supra), and also various heads under which compensation can be awarded, victim of a motor vehicle accident. (v) In Si dram’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 ] , 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. Now it is necessary to examine the evidence in this case with its relevancy to award compensation under various heads referred in the judgments mentioned above. [i] Documentary evidence:- Ex.A3, X-ray Films dated 03.01.2012 and 03.08.2015. Analysis of Evidence and Material: 20. Now it is necessary to examine the evidence in this case with its relevancy to award compensation under various heads referred in the judgments mentioned above. [i] Documentary evidence:- Ex.A3, X-ray Films dated 03.01.2012 and 03.08.2015. Ex.A4 Bunch of medical Bills, Ex.A5: Discharge Card of Amrutha Hospital, Ex.A6- Another Discharge Card of Amrutha Hospital, Ex.A7-Two bills issued by Amrutha Hospital, for Rs.65,144 and Rs.8,818/- and Ex.A8-Origional Disability Certificate, Ex.A9-Two Photos with C.D. and Ex.A10: Salary Certificate of the petitioner dated 28.01.2012 and Ex.X1, Case Sheet of PW.1. (ii) Oral evidence, which is relevant for awarding compensation:- PW.2/ Doctor is examined by the claimant, who stated that on03.01.2012, he has examined PW.1/claimant with compound and communited both bones of tibia and fibula of right leg at Amrutha Hospital, Kurnool said to have been sustained injuries in a road traffic accident, hit by tractor. Immediately PW.1 was operated by debridement and fixing external fixator rods. On 11.01.2012, PW.1 was discharged with a satisfactory condition and he was advised for follow up treatment as an outpatient. Ex.X1 is the case sheet of PW.1. The Doctor stated that still there is swelling and stiffness of right ankle joint with mild rotational deformity of the right leg. The Medical Board after assessment estimated the disability at 20% and PW.1 will feel difficulty in sitting down and squatting. [iii] During cross-examination, nothing elicited to disbelieve, PW.1 sustaining injuries except suggesting that the disability is not an obstacle for PW.1 for his teaching profession and that the evidence of PW.2 is aimed to help the petitioner. 21. Whether the disability for right leg causes functional disability in respect of employment of claimant as Lecturer and whether the same will result in loss of income is not proved with clinching medical evidence. However, the disability contributing for loss of income requires consideration. The learned MACT awarded Rs.2,00,000/- in lumsum towards loss of income. There is no rationality. However 20% disability of leg causing functional disability and loss of income can be taken at 10% keeping the profession of claimant in view that he is a Lecturer. 22. From the evidence, oral and documentary placed on record, the following things are clear:- 1) The claimant sustained injuries in the pleaded accident. 2) Claimant suffered fracture injury and he was operated. 3) Iron rods and plates were inserted. 22. From the evidence, oral and documentary placed on record, the following things are clear:- 1) The claimant sustained injuries in the pleaded accident. 2) Claimant suffered fracture injury and he was operated. 3) Iron rods and plates were inserted. 4) Treatment period is commencing from the date of accident on03.01.2012 to 03.05.2012. 5) 20% disability for right leg is stated by Doctor. 6) The bunch of Medical Bills covered by the Ex.A4 are standing for Rs.99,071/-. 23. The bills covered Ex.A4 are totaled and the amount covered by Ex.A7 and Ex.A8 are also shown in the total in Ex.A4. Therefore, Rs.75,000/- is taken by the learned MACT. However, considering the oral evidence of claimant and Doctor, Ex.A4 etc., the expenditure incurred by the claimant can be awarded around Rs.1,00,000/-. 24. Under the head of pain and suffering, the land MACT awarded a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-. Whether this is rational in this context is a relevant question. The claimant suffered fracture injury and he was operated. There is no wound certificate, but the Discharge Card issued by the Amrita Hospital/ Ex.A5 is indicating compound fracture and charge sheet is indicating that the claimant suffered fracture injury. The evidence of PW.2/Doctor is also indicating the fracture. In the light of the nature of injuries, etc., the compensation under the head of pain and suffering can be restricted to Rs.50,000/-. The entitlement of claimant for compensation under the other heads like loss of amenities, loss of exception of life, etc. requires consideration. Under the head of loss of earnings during the period of treatment, learned MACT has awarded compensation of Rs.2,10,000/-, observing that the claimant might have loss of earnings for 07 months @ Rs.30,000/- per month. The claimant as PW1 stated that, he was advised bed rest for 3 months, therefore, the loss of income can be for a maximum period of 4 months, including the period of treatment, etc. Hence, the compensation awarded at Rs.2,10,000/- for 7 months @ Rs.30,000/- required to be scaled down to Rs.1,20,000/- @ Rs.30,000/- per month. 25. Towards disability, the learned MACT granted Rs.2,00,000/- under loss of income, although 20% disability is stated. The Disability Certificate/Ex.A8 issued by the Regional Medical Board is showing as to insertion of steel plates while advising removal of implants as and when necessary, and the disability is referred @ 20%. 25. Towards disability, the learned MACT granted Rs.2,00,000/- under loss of income, although 20% disability is stated. The Disability Certificate/Ex.A8 issued by the Regional Medical Board is showing as to insertion of steel plates while advising removal of implants as and when necessary, and the disability is referred @ 20%. Doctor examined on behalf of Climate stated that Medical Board assessed the disability @ 20%. With the evidence of PW-2 and Ex.8/Disability Certificate, the disability of the claimant can be considered at 20%, but for loss of income, the same can be taken at 10%. Thus, loss of income comes to Rs.3,000/- per month, which is 10% of Rs.30,000/- per month. The same comes to Rs.36,000/- per annum. The employment is private. Even if 20% is added towards future prospects, the loss of income can be taken @ Rs.43,200/- per annum. 26. Claimant aged about 30 years. Multiplier applicable for the age group of 30 is 17'. When the same is applied, the loss of income due to permanent disability can be arrived at Rs.7,34,400/-. Hence, the claimant is entitled for the same under the head of loss of income due to permanent disability. 27. Learned MACT awarded Rs.2,00,000/-, as compensation under loss of amenities, the same is found at high sided. Hence, same is restricted to Rs.1,00,000/-. Towards future medical expenditure, no amount is awarded by the learned MACT. The claimant is entitled for the same. In view of the evidence that the removal of implants shall be done as and when necessary. Therefore, under the head of future medial expenditure, an amount of Rs.25,000/- is awarded as compensation to the claimant. Under the head of extra nourishment, an amount of Rs.20,000/- is awarded as compensation as against Rs.25,500/- awarded by the learned MACT . 28. Towards attendant charges, learned MACT has taken for 7months, @ Rs.3,000/-, the same is restricted to 4 months @ Rs.3000/-, totaling to Rs.12,000/-. Towards Transportation Charges, no amount is awarded by the learned MACT but the claimant is entitled for at least Rs.10,000/- under the said head. 29. No compensation is granted under the loss of expectation of life by learned MACT. There is no evidence indicating that the expectation of life gets affected with the injuries. Therefore, this Court finds that no compensation needs to be granted under this head. 30. 29. No compensation is granted under the loss of expectation of life by learned MACT. There is no evidence indicating that the expectation of life gets affected with the injuries. Therefore, this Court finds that no compensation needs to be granted under this head. 30. In the light of the discussion made above, the comparative chart of compensation awarded by the learned MACT found as just and reasonable by this Court, as follows: Sl. No. Head Granted by MACT Found just and reasonable by this Appellate Court 1. a) Pain and suffering b) Fractures &grievous injuries c)Simple Injuries 1,50,000 /- Rs,50,000/- 3. Medical Expenditure Rs.75,000/- Rs.1,00,000/- 4. Future medical expenditure Rs.25,000/- 5. a)Extra Nourishment Rs.25,500/- Rs.20,000/- b)Attendant Charges Rs.21,000/- @Rs.3000/- for 7m Rs.12,000/- c)Transportation charges Rs.10,000/- 6. Loss of earnings during treatment etc. Rs.2,10,000/- Rs.1,20,000/- 7. Permanent disability Rs.7,34,400/- 8. Loss of amenities Rs.2,00,000/- Rs.1,00,000/- 9. Loss of expectation of life. Nil Nil Total: Rs.6,81,500/- Rs. 11,71,400/- 31. In view of the discussion made above, point No. 2 is answered in favour of the claimant, concluding that he is entitled for compensation of Rs.11,71,400/- and the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the same. Point Nos. 3 and 4:- 32. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A.No.275 of 2017 filed by claimant is allowed-in-part and the M.A.C.M.A.No.300 of 2017 filed by the Insurance company is dismissed, with the following reliefs:- [i] Order and Decree dated 03.11.2016, passed in M.V.O.P.No.133 of 2012, on the file of the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Kurnool is modified, enhancing the compensation to Rs.11,71,400/- from Rs.6,81,500/- with interest @ 9% per annum save the dismissal period from 07.05.2013 to 03.08.2015 [ii] Costs awarded by the learned MACT are maintained. [iii] On deposit, claimant is entitled to withdraw the same at once. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeals shall stand closed.