JUDGMENT : The claimant in M.V.O.P.No.160 of 2012 on the file of learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-I Additional District Judge, Ongole (for short “MACT”) is before this Court, filed the present appeal invoking Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the M.V. Act”), feeling dissatisfied with the compensation of Rs.1,69,473/- with interest @ 6% per annum awarded to him as against his claim made for Rs.5,00,000/- under the impugned award and decree dated 26.07.2013, contending that the learned MACT failed in properly considering the oral and documentary evidence placed by him in proper perspective. 2. As per the observations in the impugned award and decree, all the respondents remained ex parte. Respondent No.1 is the driver of a car bearing No.AP 03 AJ 4517 (hereinafter referred to as “offending vehicle”). Respondent No.2 is the owner and respondent No.3 is the Insurance Company, with which the vehicle was insured. 3. In this appeal, for 3 rd respondent, appearance is made by the counsels. 4. Heard Advocate Ms.Sanisetty Soumya representing Sri Sanisetty Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for the appellant and Advocate Sri M.S.Bhanu Prasad Rao representing Sri V.Hemanth Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company. 5. For the sake of convenience, parties will be hereinafter referred to as claimant and respondents as and how they are arrayed in the impugned order. Case of the claimant in brief: 6. On 28.09.2011, when the claimant was present in front of Nimra Engineering College, on NH-5 road, for travelling to Ongole and waiting for an auto, the crime vehicle came in a rash and negligent manner driven by the 1 st respondent, dashed the claimant causing multiple injuries. Immediately after the accident, the claimant was shifted to RIMS Hospital, Ongole, from there to Suraksha Hospital at Vijayawada, where operation was conducted and two surgeries were done. Subsequently, he was referred to Akruthi Surgery center and plastic surgery was done there. In all, the claimant incurred expenditure of Rs.1,70,000/- towards treatment, Rs.25,000/- towards transportation, suffering disability apart from mental agony, loss of income etc. Hence, he is entitled for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. Subsequently, he was referred to Akruthi Surgery center and plastic surgery was done there. In all, the claimant incurred expenditure of Rs.1,70,000/- towards treatment, Rs.25,000/- towards transportation, suffering disability apart from mental agony, loss of income etc. Hence, he is entitled for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. Further, it is also claimed that the claimant was aged about 34 years, lorry driver by profession, used to get a salary of Rs.15,000/- per month, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of crime vehicle by the 1 st respondent and the same was owned by the 2 nd respondent and insured with the 3 rd respondent. Hence, all the respondents are liable to pay the compensation. 7. It can be seen from the record, no counter is filed for the respondents and they remained ex parte. No cross-examination is done on the witnesses examined for the claimant. Findings of the learned MACT: 8. The learned MACT formulated the following points for consideration: 1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in a road accident which took place on 28.09.2011 at 11.15 A.M. during the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Car bearing No.AP 03 AJ 4517 by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as prayed for? If so, to what amount and against whom? 3. To what relief the petitioner is entitled? 9. Relying on the evidence of claimant as P.W.1, Ex.A1-copy of FIR, Ex.A2-certified copy of charge sheet, Ex.A3-wound certificate, learned MACT believed the occurrence of accident, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, observing that there is no rebuttal evidence from the respondents side, accordingly concluded that the accident occurred due to negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. With regard to entitlement and quantification of compensation covered by point No.2, the learned MACT observed that the evidence of the petitioner shows that he sustained multiple injuries and recitals of Ex.A3-wound certificate show that the claimant sustained grievous injuries and medical bills covered by Ex.A8 are for Rs.1,19,473/-, accordingly, the claimant is entitled for Rs.10,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages, Rs.25,000/- towards grievous injury and Rs.15,000/-towards pain and suffering, in total Rs.1,69,473/-. 10. 10. Learned counsel for the claimant submitted that there is no evidence contradicting the stand of the claimant, when the evidence of claimant is clear that he has spent Rs.1,70,000/- towards medical expenses and undergone surgery and when there is evidence of the Doctor-P.W.2, as to conducting surgery, scaling down of medical expenditure and accepting only Rs.1,19,473/- only by the learned MACT is incorrect and the learned MACT should have awarded more compensation than what claimed by the petitioner/claimant in the context of the case. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submitted that the claim already awarded itself is on high side and that there are no grounds to enhance the quantum. 12. Perused the record. 13. Thoughtful consideration is given to the arguments advanced by both sides. 14. In view of absence of counter, cross-examination and rebuttal evidence from the Insurance Company, accident, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, liability of the Insurance Company can be considered as out of dispute, particularly in the context of evidence of claimant as P.W.1 being the injured and eye-witness. Further, the crime record vide FIR indicating the 1 st respondent as driver of the offending vehicle, Ex.A1-FIR, Ex.A2-charge sheet, Ex.A9-Insurance particulars indicating the 2 nd respondent/Basa Jawaharlal Nehru as owner of the offending vehicle and the 3 rd respondent as insurer and the police being in force from 26.04.2011 to 25.10.2012 (date of accident 28.09.2011). 15. The other points remained for determination are: (1) Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation and what shall be the liability of respondents? (2) Whether the quantification and entitlement of compensation done by the learned MACT is sustainable? (3) What is the result of appeal? 16. Point No.1: The claimant sustained injuries in the motor vehicle accident. His evidence is clear as to accident and his sustaining injuries. P.W.2-Doctor stated about the treatment given apart from the injuries suffered by the claimant, medical bills-Ex.A8, the treatment record – Exs.A4 to A7, wound certificate-Ex.A3 are reflecting the injuries by the claimant. Further, the occurrence of the accident and negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle are very clear. Therefore, the entitlement of claim for compensation is also clear. P.W.2-Doctor stated about the treatment given apart from the injuries suffered by the claimant, medical bills-Ex.A8, the treatment record – Exs.A4 to A7, wound certificate-Ex.A3 are reflecting the injuries by the claimant. Further, the occurrence of the accident and negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle are very clear. Therefore, the entitlement of claim for compensation is also clear. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the claimant concluding that he is entitled for compensation and the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the same, more particularly, the 3 rd respondent being the Insurance Company is liable as Ex.A9-Insurance policy being in force on the date of accident and as there is no material to exempt R3. 17. Point No.2: For quantifying the compensation, this Court finds it proper to refer to certain precedential guidelines. Precedential Guidance: (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., 2020 (4) 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 xxxxx Total Rs. …xxxxxx (ii). 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. (iii). 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. (iii). Hon’ble Apex Court in Yadava Kumar Vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited and Anr. , 2010 (10) SCC 341 vide para No.10, by referring to Sunil Kumar Vs. Ram Singh Gaud , [ 2007 (14) SCC 61 ] , as to application of multiplier method in case of injuries while calculating loss of future earnings, in para 16 referring to Hardeo Kaur Vs. Rajasthan State Transport Corporation , [ 1992 (2) SCC 567 ] , as to fixing of quantum of compensation with liberal approach, valuing the life and limb of individual in generous scale in para 17 observed that :- “The High Court and the Tribunal must realize that there is a distinction between compensation and damage. The expression compensation may include a claim for damage but compensation is more comprehensive. Normally damages are given for an injury which is suffered, whereas compensation stands on a slightly higher footing. It is given for the atonement of injury caused and the intention behind grant of compensation is to put back the injured party as far as possible in the same position, as if the injury has not taken place, by way of grant of pecuniary relief. Thus, in the matter of computation of compensation, the approach will be slightly more broad based than what is done in the matter of assessment of damages. At the same time it is true that there cannot be any rigid or mathematical precision in the matter of determination of compensation.” (iv). In Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another , [ 2011 (1) SCC 343 ] vide para No.19, the Hon’ble Apex Court summarized principles to be followed in the process of quantifying the compensation after referring to socio economic and practical aspects from which, the claimants come and the practical difficulties, the parties may face in the process of getting disability assessed and getting all certificates from either the Doctors, who treated, or from the medical boards etc., it is observed that :- “…We may now summarise the principles discussed above : (i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity. (ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. (ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as percentage of permanent disability). (iii) The doctor who treated an injured-claimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety. (iv) The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors…” (v) 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. (vi) 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). 18. Ex.A3-wound certificate is reflecting the following injuries : (i) Head injury – Right frontal contusion (ii) Avulsed scalp injury - Left frontal temporal region. 19. It is mentioned in the wound certificate that the injuries are grievous in nature. The evidence of P.W.2 is relevant for considering the nature of injuries etc. (emphasis added). 18. Ex.A3-wound certificate is reflecting the following injuries : (i) Head injury – Right frontal contusion (ii) Avulsed scalp injury - Left frontal temporal region. 19. It is mentioned in the wound certificate that the injuries are grievous in nature. The evidence of P.W.2 is relevant for considering the nature of injuries etc. His evidence is as follows: “I am working in Suraksha Hospital as consultant on Neuro Surgeon since 2007. I have seen the patient J. Venkata Rao, 34 years, male on 28 th September 2011. He was admitted with alleged history sustaining injury on 28-09-2011 at 11-15 A.M. When he was traveling in a Auto and was hit by a car at Yedugundlapadu village near NIMRA College gate at Maddipadu Mandal of Prakasam District. Patient was unconscious at the time of admission. He had avulsed scalp injury in the left frontal region of skull. C.T. Scan of brain showed intracranial bleeding. Patient underwent surgery for Avulsed scalp injury. Intracranial bleeding was managed conservative. Patient gradually improved during the Hospital stay. When he was conscious, alert at the time of discharge on 12-10-2011. He was advised for the surgery for left face on below left eye y plastic surgery. He was re-admitted on 26-10-2011 and underwent plastic surgery for the face wound on 27-10-2011. Patient was in regularly follow up till he was wounds completely healed. The patient was discharged after plastic surgery on 29-10-2011. The nature of the injury is grievous in nature. As patient had intracranial bleeding and fracture of left Zygoma bone. Exhibit A-8 is the bills issued at our Hospital. The patient might have spent approximately between 1.5 to 2 lakh towards surgery and Hospital stay, Radiology and C.T. Scans and formay medicines. 3 C.T. Scans and 2 X-rays belongs to the patient while taken during the Hospital stay.” 20. Ex.A8 are bunch of medical bills standing for different amounts of different dates and they are inclusive of several medicines purchased, labotatory report, laboratory expenditure etc. They are 45 bills in number. The claimant as P.W.1 stated that he spent Rs.1,50,000/- for first surgery, Rs.20,000/- for second surgery and Rs.25,000/- for transportation charges. The learned MACT vide para No.13 of the Judgment, referred total at Rs.1,19,473/-. But the exercise taken up in totaling the amount is not clear. Anyway, there is no contest. But the claimant is stating that it is Rs.1,70,000/-. The claimant as P.W.1 stated that he spent Rs.1,50,000/- for first surgery, Rs.20,000/- for second surgery and Rs.25,000/- for transportation charges. The learned MACT vide para No.13 of the Judgment, referred total at Rs.1,19,473/-. But the exercise taken up in totaling the amount is not clear. Anyway, there is no contest. But the claimant is stating that it is Rs.1,70,000/-. There is total of 45 medical bills covered by Ex.A8. P.W.2- Doctor has referred about the treatment given and that Ex.A8 bills were issued at their hospital. His evidence is that the patient might have spent approximately Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/- towards surgery, hospital stay, rationality, CT scans, medicines etc., at the hospital. So, in view of the evidence of P.W.2, the entitlement of the claim for medical expenditure can be safely believed at Rs.1,50,000/- particularly in the context of no cross-examination of P.W.2. Hence, medical expenditure fixed at Rs.1,19,473/- by the learned MACT require enhancement. 21. Awarding compensation under the head of pain and suffering, Rs.15,000/- and Rs.25,000/- for one grievous injury, how far rational is one question. Awarding of compensation for grievous injury separately and pain and suffering separately and rationality thereof are not addressed by the learned MACT in the impugned orders. As observed in the authorities cited above, certain guess work is permissible. But that can be done in respect of non-pecuniary damages like pain and suffering, loss of amenities, nervous shock, loss of marriage prospects, loss of expectation of life etc. But in respect of loss of earning during the period of treatment, loss of earning on account of permanent disability, medical expenditure, etc., there must be some evidence. Claimant is driver by profession, aged 34 years. No disability is proved. However, loss of income for two months @ Rs.6,000/- per month can be believed under the period of rest and treatment etc. 22. In the present case, relevant material available on record indicating one grievous injury, two surgeries, treatment and evidence of P.W.2 as to treatment, documents indicating the treatment vide Exs.A4 to A8. In the light of the same, the entitlement of claimant for compensation under various heads require consideration. Comparative chart of what is award of learned MACT and what is the entitlement can be just and reasonable, is tabulated as follows: Sl. No. Head Granted by MACT Fixed as just by this Appellate Court 1. In the light of the same, the entitlement of claimant for compensation under various heads require consideration. Comparative chart of what is award of learned MACT and what is the entitlement can be just and reasonable, is tabulated as follows: Sl. No. Head Granted by MACT Fixed as just by this Appellate Court 1. a) Pain and suffering b) Fractures and grievous injuries Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 25,000/- Rs. 40,000/- Rs.30,000/- 2. Non-pecuniary damages Rs. 10,000/- Separately head wise awarded 3. Simple injuries Nil 4. Medical Expenditure Nil Rs.1,50,000/- 5. Medical Bills Rs.1,19,473/- 6. Future medical expenditure Nil Rs. 20,000/- 7. a) Extra Nourishment Nil Rs. 10,000/- b) Attendant Charges Nil Rs. 10,000/- c) Transportation charges Nil Rs. 10,000/- 8. Loss of earnings during treatment etc Nil Rs. 12,000/- 9. Permanent disability Nil Nil 10. Loss of amenities Nil Rs. 5,000/- 11. Disfigurement of face (social stigma) Nil Nil 12. Marriage prospects Nil Nil 13. Loss of expectation of life. Nil Nil 14. Mental Agony Nil Rs. 10,000/- Total: Rs.1,69,473/- Rs.2,57,000/- 23. For the reasons aforesaid, this court finds that the claimant is entitled for compensation at Rs.2,57,000/- 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. 24. Point No.3: In the result, (i) the appeal is allowed-in-part. (ii) compensation is awarded by the learned MACT in a sum of Rs.1,69,473/- is modified and enhanced to Rs.2,57,000/-. (iii) 6% interest awarded by the learned MACT is enhanced to 9% per annum. (iv) Rest of the relief granted as to costs by learned MACT holds good. (v) The claimant is entitled to withdraw the amount at once on deposited. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.