JUDGMENT : (A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. One Sri Dalichad Krishna, claimant in M.V.O.P.No.27 of 2014 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Kakinada (for short “the MACT”) is before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation awarded to him under the impugned award and decree dated 26.12.2016. A claim was made for awarding compensation in a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for the injuries suffered by claimant in the Motor Vehicle accident but the learned MACT granted Rs.2,00,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum with some incidental benefits like costs. 3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the driver and owner of the lorry bearing No.AP 05 TU 5247 (hereinafter refer to as offending vehicle) and Respondent No.3 is the insurance company. Learned MACT directed all the Respondents to pay the compensation. 4. For the sake of convenience herein after parties will be referred to as and how they are referred in the impugned proceedings. Case of claimant: 5(i). On 06.08.2013 at about 12:00 Noon when the claimant along with his friend riding motor cycle bearing No.AP 5 BV 6781 near Gas Company at Ward road at Kakinada within the limits of I Town, Law and Order Police Station, Kakinada, the driver of the offending vehicle came in rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the motor cycle causing the accident. The claimant sustained head injury, fracture on right hand and pillion rider also sustained swelling injury. The claimant was shifted to Government General Hospital, Kakinada from there to Apollo Hospital, Kakinada for better treatment. 5(ii). A case in crime vide Cr.No.131 of 2013, for the offence under Sections 337 and 338 IPC, was registered against the Respondent No.1 / driver of the offending vehicle. The accident has occurred due to exclusive negligence of Respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 being the employer and Respondent No.3 being insurer for the offending vehicle liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 5(iii). The claimant was working in Tea stall and engaged business at Cinema Road, Kakinada and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. He is the sole bread winner for his family, incurred huge expenditure for the treatment. He had to visit the hospital again and again for follow up. Even after discharge two months bed rest was advised to him by the doctors. He is suffering with permanent disability on account of accident. He is the sole bread winner for his family, incurred huge expenditure for the treatment. He had to visit the hospital again and again for follow up. Even after discharge two months bed rest was advised to him by the doctors. He is suffering with permanent disability on account of accident. Hence, entitled for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. 6. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 driver and owner of the offending vehicle remained ex-parte. Respondent No.3 Insurance Company alone contested the case. Case of the Insurance Company: 7(i). The claimant shall prove all the assertions and allegations made by him like; valid and effective driving licence of Respondent No.1, valid Insurance Policy issued for the offending vehicle by Respondent No.3 / Insurance Company, compliance of conditions of policy, age, occupation, income of the Claimant, nature and effect of injuries, including disability, if any. 7(ii) Further Respondent No.3 Insurance Company has claimed that negligence on the part of the claimant in riding motor cycle cannot be ignored and contributory negligence on his part shall be considered, while quantifying the compensation. 8. On the strength of pleadings learned MACT settled the following issues for trial:- 1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing Registration No.AP 5 TU 5247 by Respondent No.1, resulting in injuries to the petitioner? 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? 3) To what relief? Evidence before the learned MACT: 9. Respondent No.3 Insurance Company did not choose to adduce any oral evidence but relied on Ex.B1 Insurance Policy. 10. Claimant was examined as P.W.-1, Dr. M.V. Kiran Kumar, who treated the claimant has examined as P.W.-2, Dr. P. P. Chatterjee of Appollo Hospital who attended and treated on behalf of the claimant was examined as P.W.-3. 11. The claimant relied on the documentary evidence; Ex.A1- FIR, Ex.A2-Wound Certificate, Ex.A3-Charge Sheet Ex.A4-Medical Bills along with prescriptions, Ex.A5-Insurance Policy, Ex.X1-Case sheet, Ex.X2-X-ray film and Ex.X3-C.T. Scan films. 12. Insurance company was permitted under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to take all available defenses vide I.A.No.858 of 2014, as the owner of the offending vehicle remained ex-parte. Findings of the Tribunal: 13(i). With regard to accident and negligence, the learned MACT believed the evidence of claimant (PW-1) and the recitals in FIR and Charge Sheet i.e. Ex-A1 and A3. Findings of the Tribunal: 13(i). With regard to accident and negligence, the learned MACT believed the evidence of claimant (PW-1) and the recitals in FIR and Charge Sheet i.e. Ex-A1 and A3. With regard to the claimant sustaining injuries in the accident relied on Ex.A2-wound certificate, Ex.A4-bunch of medical bills along with prescriptions and held the Issue No.1 in favour of the claimant concluding that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by Respondent No.1 and that the same has resulted in injuries to the claimant. 13(ii). With regard to entitlement and quantification of compensation covered by issue No.2, learned MACT relied on the evidence of Doctors PW-2 and P.W.-3 and also documentary evidence covered by Ex.A4-Medical bills along with prescription, Ex.X1-Case sheet, Ex.X2-X-ray film, Ex.X3-C.T. Scan films etc. and awarded compensation in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- in total, under various heads, while accepting the entitlement for compensation under permanent disability at Rs.40,000/- taking note of the grievous nature of injuries referred in Ex-A2-wound certificate. Arguments in appeal: 14(i). Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the quantification of compensation done by the learned MACT is irrational and empathetic concerns are missing in the judgment, important oral and documentary evidence is not taken into count. The evidence of Doctors is not properly appreciated and the appellant is entitled for just compensation which shall be more than Rs.5,00,000/- and that there is no bar for the tribunal to grant more amount than what claimed in the light of the settled position of law. 14(ii). Per contra learned counsel for the Respondent Insurance Company submitted that the claimant failed to place reliable evidence for believing the disability and the effect of injuries and quantum of compensation already granted itself is on high side and that the learned MACT ought to have taken note of contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. 15. Perused pleadings, evidence, impugned judgment and grounds urged in the memorandum of grounds of appeal.Thoughtful consideration is given to the arguments advanced by both sides. 16. Now, the points that arise for determination in this appeal are:- (1) Whether the pleaded accident dated 06.08.2013 has occurred due to exclusive negligence of Respondent No.1 driver of the offending vehicle? 15. Perused pleadings, evidence, impugned judgment and grounds urged in the memorandum of grounds of appeal.Thoughtful consideration is given to the arguments advanced by both sides. 16. Now, the points that arise for determination in this appeal are:- (1) Whether the pleaded accident dated 06.08.2013 has occurred due to exclusive negligence of Respondent No.1 driver of the offending vehicle? (2) Whether claimant is entitled for compensation, if so, at what quantum and what shall be liability of Respondent No.3 Insurance Company and whether the compensation granted by learned MACT is just and adequate or whether require any interference, if so, on what grounds and to which extent? (3) What is the result of the appeal? Point No.1: Negligence: 17. It is relevant to note that the claimant is eye witness to the accident, his evidence is clear as to occurrence of accident and negligence of Respondent No.1 driver of the offending vehicle. FIR was registered and charge sheet was laid against the Respondent No.1. There is no oath against oath. No steps are taken by Respondent No.3 / Insurance Company to place any sort of evidence diluting the evidence of the claimant side or indicating any contributory negligence on the part of the claimant in occurrence of accident except vaguely is suggesting that the clamant was negligent and he was not possessing driving license. 18. Therefore, the findings of the learned MACT on issue No.1 are confirmed and point No.1 is answered accordingly in favour of the appellant and against the Respondent Insurance company concluding that Respondent No.1 is responsible for accident. Point No.2: Entitlement of claimant for compensation: 19. The claimant is a victim of motor vehicle accident suffered injuries, the same is shown with the evidence of himself and doctors as well as the documents like wound certificate, medical bills etc. Negligence on the part of the claimant is not found to apportion the liability to himself by taking note of his contribution, if any. There is evidence probabilising the complete negligence of Respondent No.1. Therefore, the entitlement of claimant for compensation is clear. Accordingly, this Court find that the claimant is entitlement for compensation. Liability of the Insurance Company: 20. Respondent No.3 sought exemption from liability on the grounds. (i) Contributory negligence:- No evidence is placed to consider the same. Therefore, the same is not acceptable. Therefore, the entitlement of claimant for compensation is clear. Accordingly, this Court find that the claimant is entitlement for compensation. Liability of the Insurance Company: 20. Respondent No.3 sought exemption from liability on the grounds. (i) Contributory negligence:- No evidence is placed to consider the same. Therefore, the same is not acceptable. (ii) Want of driving licence to Respondent No.1, driver of the offending vehicle:- Burden to prove the same lies with the insurance company.No evidence is adduced. Therefore, the said defence does not deserve any appreciation. (iii) Coverage of Policy:- Ex-B1 policy marked on behalf of the Insurance Company is covering the period from 03.12.2012 to 02.12.2013, date of accident is 06.08.2013. Therefore, the Insurance Policy was in force. Violation of conditions of policy is not shown.Therefore, Respondent No.3 Insurance Company (appellant) is liable to pay the compensation. Quantum of compensation: 21. 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. , [12025 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 ?) 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 xxxxx Total Rs. xxxxx 22. 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. xxxxx 22. 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: 23(i). Evidence of claimant as PW.-1: (i) He sustained head injury (ii) Fracture to right hand associated with the other injuries. (iii) He was shifted to Government Hospital, Kakinada. (iv) He was shifted to Apollo Hospital, Kakinada for better treatment. (v) He was engaged in garland business. He was also working in tea stall. He was earning of Rs.15 , 000/- per month. (vi) He has to taken treatment from the date of accident to till 14.08.2013 and again he was admitted in Apollo Hospital on01.10.2013. (vii) He was advised bed rest for two months. (viii) He is suffering disability. During cross examination, it was elicited that he did not wear helmet and he is holding household supply cards. (ii) Evidence of PW.2 - Dr.M.V.Kiran Kumar: He is a Doctor, treated the claimant, deposed that the claimant was brought to emergency ward in semi conscious condition with the history of Road Traffic Accident. Claimant was found with head injury(right frontal contusion with acute sub Dural Hemotoma). Claimant was admitted in ICU. There was reveal injury hematoma. Claimant gradually improved and was discharged on 14.08.2013. Injuries where Right frontal sub dural hemotoma and Right cravetal fracture is a major surgery. Ex-X1 case sheet of Apollo hospital, Ex.X2.X-ray film and C.T. Scan films. The treatment was provided on payment of all bills which are having Apollo logo. The claimant meet work as efficiently as before. The claimant sustained loss of memory and may be mild due to injury. Ex-X1 case sheet of Apollo hospital, Ex.X2.X-ray film and C.T. Scan films. The treatment was provided on payment of all bills which are having Apollo logo. The claimant meet work as efficiently as before. The claimant sustained loss of memory and may be mild due to injury. During cross examination P.W.2 stated that he do not know whether the same treatment given to him at Apollo Hospital is available at Aarogyasri scheme of Government. (iii) Evidence of P.W.3 - Dr.P.P. Chatterjee: He is Doctor-Orthopaedic Surgeon in Apollo Hospital, Kakinada stated about treatment given to the claimant on 11.09.2013 for right color bone fracture and the claimant again visited on 15.10.2013 and he was advised to undergo plates fixation surgery as there was significant gap between the factor fegments, factor cleverly. The injuries are grievous in nature. The claimant suffered from pain while lifting heavy weight. Claimant did not come for following up for further treatment after 15.10.2013. The expenditure for fractures may be around Rs.50,000/- to Rs.60,000/-. (iv).Documentary Evidence:- Ex.A1 and A3 / FIR and Charge Sheet are referring to the injuries, Wound certificate Ex.A2 reflecting the injuries are grievous in nature, medical bills Ex.A4 are standing for Rs.1,19,696/-. Ex.X1-case sheet, Ex.X2-X-ray film and C.T. Scan films. (v). In view of complete rest advice, total loss of income for a period of three months can be accepted in the light of the evidence on record. Although there is no specific income proof, taking note of the age of the claimant and his evidence of oath, his occupation as engaging in garland business and tea business can be accepted and his income can be notionally by taking considering socio economic status and background at Rs.6,000/- per month. This shall include future prospects at 20%. Hence, for three months absolute rest period, he is entitled for Rs.18,000/- as compensation towards loss of income during the period of treatment etc. 24. The learned MACT while observing that there is no permanent disability, granted Rs.40,000/- considering the grievous nature of injuries. The expenditure for transportation to hospital was not considered by the learned MACT. But, there is no basis for the same. Under the head of medical expenditure Rs.1,20,000/- is awarded by the learned MACT may be taking medical bills Ex-A4 into consideration. Under the head of pain and suffering of Rs.20,000/- is granted by the learned MACT. The expenditure for transportation to hospital was not considered by the learned MACT. But, there is no basis for the same. Under the head of medical expenditure Rs.1,20,000/- is awarded by the learned MACT may be taking medical bills Ex-A4 into consideration. Under the head of pain and suffering of Rs.20,000/- is granted by the learned MACT. While granting Rs.40,000/- for grievous injuries considering nature of accident-Ex.A2 wound certificate why Rs.20,000/- for pain and suffering is again granted is not clear from the observation of Para16 of the judgment and award. 25. For quantifying the compensation adoption of standard parameters with reference to some precedents is found necessary. (i). 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. (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…” (ii). 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…” (ii). 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. (iii). 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) 26. In this case from the evidence the following aspects are clear: (i) claimant sustained grievous injuries. (ii) claimant was treated by PW2 and PW3. (iii)claimant incurred expenditure covered by Ex.A4 for treatment. (iv) There is no evidence indicating any disability. 27. In the light of the evidence available on record and the guidance under the authorities cited, the entitlement of claimant for compensation is concluded as follows, indicating the same in juxtaposition to the compensation awarded by learned MACT in the following comparative table: Sl. No Head Granted by MACT Granted by this Appellate Court 1. a)Pain and suffering b)Fractures and grievous injuries Rs.20,000/- Rs.50,000/- 2. Simple injuries Nil Nil 3. Medical Expenditure Rs.1,20,000/- Rs.1,20,000/- 4. Future medical expenditure Nil Rs.50,000/- 5. a)Extra Nourishment Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/- b)Attendant Charges Nil Rs.5,000/- c)Transportation charges Nil Rs.5,000/- 6. Loss of earnings during treatment etc Nil Rs.18,000/- 7. Permanent disability Rs.40,000/- -Nil- (As there is no evidence) 8. Loss of amenities Nil Rs.5,000/- 9. Disfigurement of face (social stigma) Nil Nil 10. Marriage prospects Nil Nil 11. Future medical expenditure Nil Rs.50,000/- 5. a)Extra Nourishment Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/- b)Attendant Charges Nil Rs.5,000/- c)Transportation charges Nil Rs.5,000/- 6. Loss of earnings during treatment etc Nil Rs.18,000/- 7. Permanent disability Rs.40,000/- -Nil- (As there is no evidence) 8. Loss of amenities Nil Rs.5,000/- 9. Disfigurement of face (social stigma) Nil Nil 10. Marriage prospects Nil Nil 11. Loss of expectation of life. Nil Nil 12. Mental Agony Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/- Total: Rs . 2,00,000/- Rs.2,73,000/- 28. For the reasons aforesaid, this court find that the claimant is entitled for compensation at Rs.2,73,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Respondent No.3 Insurance Company is liable to pay the same. Point No.2 is answered accordingly. Point No.3: 29. In the result: (i). The appeal is allowed-in-part. (ii). Compensation awarded by the learned MACT in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- is modified and enhanced to Rs.2,73,000/-. (iii). The rate of interest awarded by the learned MACT at 7.5% is enhanced to 9%. (iv). Rest of the relief granted as to costs by the learned MACT holds good. (v). The claimant is entitled to withdraw the amount at once on deposited.As Sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.