JUDGMENT : A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J. I. Introduction:- 1....... [i] One Vemula Sivaji [herein after referred as ‘the petitioner’] met with a road accident on 15.11.2010 at about 11.00 p.m. near Jangareddy Gudem village, within the limits of Jangareddy Gudem Police Station and suffered injuries. [ii] Claim was made for Rs.25,00,000/- vide M.V.O.P.No.566 of 2012 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru [for short “MACT”] for the injuries suffered by him in the said accident. [ii] Learned MACT awarded compensation of Rs.13,99,900/-under the impugned award and decree dated 17.09.2018. [iii] Before the learned MACT, the 1 st respondent is the owner-cum-driver of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 37 Y 4747 [hereinafter referred as the offending vehicle]. 2 nd respondent is the APSRTC/hirer. 3 rd respondent is the Insurance Company, with which the offending vehicle was insured. [iv] MACMA No.3460 of 2018 is filed by the claimant, dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, awarded by the learned MACT. [v] MACMA No.109 of 2020 and MACMA No. 1171 of 2019 are filed by the 2 nd respondent-APSRTC and 3 rd respondent-Insurance Company respectively, disputing the quantum of compensation awarded as excessive in nature and disowning the liability, in their respective appeals. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties will be herein after referred to as the petitioner and the respondents as and how they are arrayed before the learned MACT. II. Case of the claimant/petitioner in brief, is that : 3....... [i] The petitioner was hale and healthy aged ‘23’ years, working as cleaner-cum-helper in the bus, earning Rs.6000/- p.m.. [ii] On 15.11.2010 at about 11.00 p.m., while the petitioner was discharging his duties as cleaner for the offending vehicle/ hired bus. Front tire of the bus was lifted with jockey, while he was attending grease work using the grease gun, the driver of the offending vehicle viz., the 1 st respondent, negligently started the bus, on that the foot board fell on the petitioner waist, as a result, he suffered spinal card damage and facture of L1, Vertebra with altered marrow single intensity with loss of posterior element. The petitioner and others when raised cries, the offending vehicle was stopped, and the petitioner was shifted to ASRAM hospital, Eluru, where first-aid was given and the petitioner was shifted to Hyderabad for better treatment at NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad. The petitioner and others when raised cries, the offending vehicle was stopped, and the petitioner was shifted to ASRAM hospital, Eluru, where first-aid was given and the petitioner was shifted to Hyderabad for better treatment at NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad. He was referred to STAR Hospital, where he was advised to be taken to Madras APPOLLO Hospital, for further treatment. [iii] After giving treatment, on 17.11.2011 and 18.11.2010, the petitioner was shifted to APPOLLO Hospital, Chennai on 19.11.2010, where operation was conducted by Doctor N. Madan Mohan Reddy, for the fracture of L1, with parapalesia surgery for D11-L3 and the petitioner was discharged on 27.11.2010. Due to the accident, the movement of the petitioner is restricted, particularly due to spinal card fracture. [iv] He is unable to walk, squat, sit, stand and climb etc. He has incurred expenditure at around Rs.8,00,000/- for the treatment at NIMS and STAR Hospitals, Hyderabad and APPOLLO Hospitals at Chennai. He became dependent on the family. Hence, he is entitled for just and reasonable compensation for survival. Since the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle i.e., respondent No.1 is the cause for the accident, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are vicariously and contractually liable to pay compensation. 4. The 1 st respondent-cum-driver and owner of the offending vehicle remained ex parte. III. Case of the Respondent No.2/Appellant-APSRTC, in brief, is that: 5....... [i] The petitioner shall prove the pleaded accident, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, age, occupation and income of the petitioner, nature of injuries suffered, treatment undergone, expenditure incurred, disability suffered, nature, effect, and extent of disability etc. with cogent evidence. [ii] The 1 st respondent is not employed by the 2 nd respondent, the vehicle belongs to the 1 st respondent, therefore, there is no vicarious liability on the 2 nd respondent-APSRTC and the owner of the hired bus has to take the Insurance Policy and comply the conditions of the Policy. The liability if any, is that of the insurer and owner of the offending vehicle, the claim against the APSRTC is fit to be dismissed. Case of the respondent No.3-Insurance Company, in brief, is that: 6....... [i] Petition allegations are incorrect and the petitioner is put to strict proof of all the allegations. There was delay in reporting the matter to the Police. Case of the respondent No.3-Insurance Company, in brief, is that: 6....... [i] Petition allegations are incorrect and the petitioner is put to strict proof of all the allegations. There was delay in reporting the matter to the Police. The 3 rd respondent is added as party to the case, after 8 years of the accident. The petitioner shall strictly prove each and every allegation as to negligence of driver of the offending vehicle, nature and effect of the injuries, compliance of the conditions of the Insurance Policy etc., including proper driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle. [ii] Specific case of the respondent No.3 is that the Policy does not cover the risk of cleaner or helper, and it covers owner, driver of the bus and occupants. The contention of the petitioner that he was working as cleaner for the offending vehicle. When there is no provision for coverage of risk of cleaner, Insurance Company cannot be made liable. [iii] Further, specific case of the 3 rd respondent is that the offending vehicle is in total and effective control of the APSRTC. Therefore, the Insurance Company cannot be made liable to pay any compensation. [iv] It is also claimed by the 3 rd respondent- Insurance Company that the petitioner shall prove the age, occupation, and income and nature and effect of the injuries, disability suffered, loss of income, etc., with proper evidence and in any event, the quantum of compensation claimed is excessive, and the 3 rd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. 7. On the strength of pleadings, learned MACT framed the issues dated 04.01.2013 and additional issue dated 06.04.2018 for trial, which are as follows: 1) Whether the accident dated 15.11.2010 occurred due to the rash or negligent driving of APSRTC Hire bus bearing No.AP 37 X 4747 by the1 st respondent? 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, and if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? 3) To what relief? 4) Whether the 3 rd respondent has any liability to pay compensation to the petitioner as the hired bus insured with the 3 rd respondent? IV. Evidence before the learned MACT: 8. Documentary evidence:- S. No. Date Description Marked as 01. -- Attested copy of F.I.R. Ex.A1 02. 16.11.2010 Radiology Report issued by ASHRAM Hospital, Eluru Ex.A2 03. -- Prescriptions issued by ASHRAM Hospital, Eluru Ex.A3 04. IV. Evidence before the learned MACT: 8. Documentary evidence:- S. No. Date Description Marked as 01. -- Attested copy of F.I.R. Ex.A1 02. 16.11.2010 Radiology Report issued by ASHRAM Hospital, Eluru Ex.A2 03. -- Prescriptions issued by ASHRAM Hospital, Eluru Ex.A3 04. 16.11.2010 Original Outpatient Medical Report from NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad Ex.A4 05. 16.11.2010 Original Progress Report from NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad. Ex.A5 06. 17.11.2010 Original Diagnosis Report/Clinical Summary issued by STAR Hospital. Ex.A6 07. 17.11.2010 Doctors Notes issued by STAR Hospital Ex.A7 08. 26.11.2010 Discharge Summary issued by Apollo Hospitals, Chennai Ex.A8 09. 21.11.2010 Radiology Report issued by Apollo Hospitals, Chennai Ex.A9 10. 19.11.2010 Lab reports and Mounting Chart issued by Apollo Hospitals, Chennai Ex.A10 11. -- Bunch of Medical Bills by Apollo Hospitals Ex.A11 12. 04.06.2011 Original Receipt from Care Hospital Ex.A12 13. 31.01.2011 Original Medical Certificate issued by Apollo Hospital, Chennai Ex.A13 14. -- Notarized copy of disability certificate issued by Government Hospital, Eluru. Ex.A14 15. 16.11.2010 MRI Report for Lumbo Sacral Spine with screening of Dorsal and Cervical spine screening issued by ASHRAM Hospital, Eluru Ex.A15 16. 28.07.2014 Original Discharge Summary issued by ASRAM Hospital, Eluru Ex.A16 17. 20.05.2013 Original Outpatient Card issued by ASRAM Hospital, Eluru. Ex.A17 18. 28.07.2014 Original Final Bill Ex.A18 19. -- Bunch of Photos with C.D. Ex.A19 20. -- Case Sheet of the Petitioner issued by the Star Hospitals. Ex.X1 21. -- Police C.D. Ex.X2 FOR RESPONDENTS: 1. 10.04.2012 copy of Agreement Ex.B1 2. -- Policy copy along with data sheet. Ex.B2 3. 30.01.2010 Certificate issued by Banjara Hills Police Station, Hyderabad. Ex.B3 9. ORAL EVIDENCE: S. No. Name of the Witness Examined as Remarks 1. Vemula Sivaji PW.1 Petitioner/injured 2. Dr.Adnan Aziz PW.2 Doctor, at STAR Hospital. 3. Dr.A.V.R.Mohan PW.3 Doctor, who treated the petitioner 4. Vemula Subbarao PW.4 Father of the petitioner 5. K.Ramachandra Rao PW.5 ASI of Police, who conducted investigation. 6. Swarnala Dharmadas @ Dasu PW.6 Eye witness 7. Kuriyala Sivaji @ Siva Krishna PW.7 Eye witness 8. J.U. Bhaskaram RW.1 Examined on behalf of the respondents. V. Findings Of The Learned MACT:- With regard to negligence and accident:- 10....... Vemula Subbarao PW.4 Father of the petitioner 5. K.Ramachandra Rao PW.5 ASI of Police, who conducted investigation. 6. Swarnala Dharmadas @ Dasu PW.6 Eye witness 7. Kuriyala Sivaji @ Siva Krishna PW.7 Eye witness 8. J.U. Bhaskaram RW.1 Examined on behalf of the respondents. V. Findings Of The Learned MACT:- With regard to negligence and accident:- 10....... [i] Oral evidence of the petitioner as PW.1, as to manner of accident and the documentary evidence particularly Ex.A1-F.I.R. and the evidence of PW.5-ASI of Police, and Ex.X2-Case Diary discloses that the offending vehicle was stationed at the time of accident, the Jackey was fixed by the petitioner and the same has slipped. Bus foot rest fell on him, the involvement of the driver of the bus is not specific, therefore, no charge sheet could be filed. The evidence of PW.5 suggests that there is defect in investigation done. Ex.X2-Case Diary is disclosing nonfatal accident. The petitioner was discharging his duties at the time of accident. [ii] PW.6 and PW.7 are third party eye witnesses. Their evidence is also disclosing that the petitioner was applying greese as assistant for the bus, and all of sudden the Jackey slipped and foot board of the bus fell down on the petitioner, causing injuries to back bone etc.. [iii] The 1 st respondent-driver of the bus should have been more careful and he could have avoided the accident. Therefore, there is negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and contention contra of the 2 nd and 3 rd respondents cannot be accepted. On quantum of compensation:- 11....... [i] The evidence of Doctors- PW.2, PW.3, and father of the injured, PW.4 disclosing the nature of injuries, disability suffered at 90%, treatment undergone, income of the petitioner is claimed at 60,000/-. But, income of the petitioner is fit to be taken at Rs.3000/- per month, age at ‘23’, future prospects are to be added at 50%, multiplier applicable is ‘18’, and claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.11,66,400/- under loss of income due to permanent disability, and Rs.5000/- toward the loss of cloths, Rs.25,000/- towards transportation, Rs.1,03,500/- under medical expenditure. In all claimant is entitled to Rs.13,99,900/-. With regard to Liability:- [ii] Non-filing of charge sheet in a properly registered crime is not relevant, when negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle shown before the Court. In all claimant is entitled to Rs.13,99,900/-. With regard to Liability:- [ii] Non-filing of charge sheet in a properly registered crime is not relevant, when negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle shown before the Court. The contention as to non-payment of premium for the cleaner is fit to be ignored as the premium of Rs.25/- is collected. The seating capacity is 56+1, i.e., 56 passengers and one driver and also the Insurance Policy was in force as on the date of accident. It is a comprehensive Policy. IMT 40 is also shown, premium is collected under IMT 40. It is not specifically mentioned in the Policy that it covers owner, driver, alone. Further, APSRTC is vicariously liable. In view of the Insurance Policy, 3 rd respondent is also liable. All the respondents are liable for the compensation. VI. Arguments in the appeal:- For the Petitioner:- 12....... [i] Petitioner sustained severe injuries. The effect of injuries is permanent. Disability is 90%. There is clear evidence indicating the nature and effect of injuries suffered. [ii] As per the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in a case 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, where the disability is shown at 75% in respect of mental retardation, the same was considered at 100% for the purpose of disability considering the loss of earning capacity, likewise, the compensation to be awarded under different heads are not considered by the learned MACT. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for compensation under all the heads. [iii] Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rushi Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and another , 2024 ACJ 2518 , while assessing the quantum of compensation in respect of the Hemiparesis taken the disability at 75%, awarded the compensation of Rs.34,00,000/- and in another case the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Simla, in Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Deep Kumar and another , 2021 ACJ 2310 , while considering the Paraplegia of injured taken the disability at 100%. [iv] There is no bar for awarding more compensation than what claimed. Even in the appeals of Insurance Company and owner of the offending vehicle, the compensation can be enhanced in favour of the claimant. On behalf of the 2nd respondent-APSRTC:- 13. [iv] There is no bar for awarding more compensation than what claimed. Even in the appeals of Insurance Company and owner of the offending vehicle, the compensation can be enhanced in favour of the claimant. On behalf of the 2nd respondent-APSRTC:- 13. The vehicle is hired bus, no liability can be fastened on APSRTC in respect of the hired vehicle. The Insurance Company cannot avoid the liability. Compensation awarded by the learned MACT is excessive and there is no basis for taking the income and adding of future prospects. The learned MACT ought to have dismissed the claim against 2 nd respondent-RTC. On behalf of the Insurance Company -Respondent No.3: 14. Policy covers the risk of 56 passengers + one, the driver. Cleaner is not covered as per the Policy conditions. The offending vehicle at relevant time was under the control of APSRTC. Further, the routes are also designed by RTC only, the vehicle was not in use at relevant time. Therefore, the negligence of the driver of the bus does not arise. The quantification of compensation done is neither rational nor in tune with the evidence. The compensation awarded is excessive and in any event the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation, as the risk is not covered by Insurance Policy and that the driver did not possess valid driving licence. 15. Perused the record and the findings of the learned MACT. 16. Thoughtful consideration given to the arguments advanced by the both sides. 17. Now the points that arise for determination in this appeal are that: 1) Whether the pleaded accident dated 15.11.2010 is attributable to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle? 2) Among the 2 nd respondent- APSRTC and 3 rd respondent-Insurance Company who is liable to pay the compensation? 3) What is the just and reasonable compensation to which the petitioner is entitled? And whether the compensation of Rs.13,99,900/- awarded by the learned MACT, is just and reasonable? Or, require any interference by this Court for enhancement or reduction? If so, to what tune? 4) What is the result of the MACMA No.109 of 2020 filed by the APSRTC? 5) What is the result of the MACMA No.1171 of 2019 filed by the Insurance Company? 6) What is the result of the MACMA No.3460 of 2018 filed by the Claimants? Point No.1:- Negligence:- 18....... If so, to what tune? 4) What is the result of the MACMA No.109 of 2020 filed by the APSRTC? 5) What is the result of the MACMA No.1171 of 2019 filed by the Insurance Company? 6) What is the result of the MACMA No.3460 of 2018 filed by the Claimants? Point No.1:- Negligence:- 18....... [i] It is relevant to note that in view of the summary nature and mode of enquiry contemplated under Motor Vehicles Act and social welfare nature of legislation the Tribunal shall have holistic view with reference to facts and circumstances of each case. It is sufficient if there is probability. The principle of standard of proof, beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied while considering a claim seeking compensation for the death or the injury on account of road accident. The touch stone of the case, the claimant shall have to establish is preponderance of probability only. The legal position to this extent is settled and consistent. In Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation , 2009 (13) SCC 530 , the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that : “15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied. For the said purpose, the High Court should have taken into consideration the respective stories set forth by both the parties.” [ii] It is relevant to note that the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 are applicable in deciding the cases by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and they are made in exercise of powers conferred under Section 176 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Section 176 of M.V. Act reads as follows: “176. Section 176 of M.V. Act reads as follows: “176. Power of State Government to make rules.— A State Government may make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of sections 165 to 174, and in particular, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:— (a) the form of application for claims for compensation and the particulars it may contain, and the fees, if any, to be paid in respect of such applications; (b) the procedure to be followed by a Claims Tribunal in holding an inquiry under this Chapter; (c) the powers vested in a Civil Court which may be exercised by a Claims Tribunal; (d) the form and the manner in which and the fees (if any) on payment of which an appeal may be preferred against an award of a Claims Tribunal; (e) any other matter which is to be, or may be, prescribed.” [iii] Chapter XI of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 deals with the Claims Tribunal and examination, consideration and disposal of the claim applications. Rules under Chapter-XI are covered under Rule 455 to 476-A. Sub-rule (7) of Rule 476, provides that the claims Tribunal shall proceed to award the claims on the basis of material contemplated under the said provisions. Rule 476 sub-Rule(7) reads as under :- “476. (7) Basis to award the claim:- The Claims Tribunal shall proceed to award the claim on the basis of;- (i) Registration Certificate of the Motor Vehicle involved in the accident; (ii) Insurance Certificate or Policy relating to the insurance of the Motor Vehicle against the Third party risk; (iii) Copy of First Information Report; (iv) Post-mortem certificate or certificate of inquiry from the Medical Officer; (v) The nature of the treatment given by the Medical Officer who has examined the victim.” Analysis of Evidence:- 19. There is no dispute about the petitioner associating with the crime vehicle at relevant time as cleaner. Evidence of PW.1, 5 and 6 is clear as to the petitioner attending the greasing work for the offending vehicle and the failure of jockey. The 1 st respondent, driver of the offending vehicle is also responsible for taking care of the greasing work and attending the works relating to the offending vehicle, particularly when Jockey etc. are used for lifting the tire of the bus. The 1 st respondent, driver of the offending vehicle is also responsible for taking care of the greasing work and attending the works relating to the offending vehicle, particularly when Jockey etc. are used for lifting the tire of the bus. Negligence is attributable to the driver of the offending vehicle, but he was not examined by the respondents as a witness and he remained ex parte before the learned MACT. 20. The crime record vide Exs.A1-FIR, Ex.X2-Police C.D., apart from the evidence of ASI are vindicating the involvement of the crime vehicle, in the accident. The findings of the learned MACT that the absence of Charge Sheet does not by itself sufficient to discard the negligence. The appreciation of evidence in respect of Motor Vehicle Accidents claims pursuant to social welfare legislation shall be purposive and preponderance of probability is sufficient. The findings of the Learned MACT as to fixing the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and believing the occurrence of accident found fit for concurrence. Therefore, the findings are accepted. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered against the APSRTC-2 nd respondent, and Insurance Company-3 rd respondent and in favour of the petitioner. Point No.2:- Liability : 21. Legal position as to liability of the Insurance Company, to pay compensation in respect of vehicle hired for a Corporation, is settled vide Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Kulsum and Ors. 2011 (8) SCC 142 and Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Others, 2021 (6) AWC 5583 : 2021 (0) Supreme (SC) 891. 22. In view of the legal position settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in cases cited above, the Insurance Company cannot escape its liability on the grounds of vehicle being under the control of the APSRTC. The objection as to coverage of risk of cleaner: 23. The Policy under Ex.B2, is comprehensive in nature and the occupancy contemplated under the Insurance Policy 56+1. It is not the case of the Insurance Company that there were more persons. The category of insured/petitioner, does not fall under the permitted category is the objection. Policy is disclosing the schedule of premium and the liability as follows:- 24. Conductor, cleaner, column is striked out under Ex.xB2 containing an initial. It is not the case of the Insurance Company that there were more persons. The category of insured/petitioner, does not fall under the permitted category is the objection. Policy is disclosing the schedule of premium and the liability as follows:- 24. Conductor, cleaner, column is striked out under Ex.xB2 containing an initial. Whether it is a unilateral striking out or with the consent of both sides the same was striked out is not known. As against the column meant for Additional Premium for owner driver-GR36A, Rs.100.00/- is collected and under Column Additional LL-Paid Driver, Conductor, Cleaner IMT-40, Rs.25.00/- is collected, the totaling is made at 16,570/- which shows inclusive of ‘25’ collected. Basic coverage is shown at Rs.20,422/-. The Policy is also disclosing that IMC endorsement is attached what is the effect of these heads IMT-6, IMT-36, IMT-21, IMT-22, IMT-40, IMT-44 are not placed with any specific evidence before the learned MACT. 25. The Insurance Company relied on the evidence of RW.1,Dr.J.U.Bhaskar, Assistant Manager of Respondent No.3-Insurance Company, Ex.B2 is the Policy for the offending vehicle, valid from 11.1.2010 to 10.01.2011. The accident dated is covered by this period of coverage. Registration of FIR with 22 days delay is first objection. This has been sufficiently and satisfactorily answered by the learned MACT. It is settled law that treatment of the victim shall be priority than registration of crime and the prosecution of the offender. The delay is not fatal. Additional premium for cleaner and helper is not paid is the specific evidence of RW.1. During the cross-examination, he has admitted that, Ex.B2, is comprehensive Policy and that in page No.1 of Policy, conductor, cleaner, IMT 40 is striked down by the Branch Manager. In the copy generated by the computer there is no strike, striking out is only a manual. It was suggested to him that for every bus there should be a conductor and driver.He has admitted that premium was collected under IMT 40. 26. On behalf of the APSRTC it was suggested that Ex.B2 filed before the Court is not true copy of original supplied to the 2 nd respondent and as original copy, the risk of the cleaner is also covered. 26. On behalf of the APSRTC it was suggested that Ex.B2 filed before the Court is not true copy of original supplied to the 2 nd respondent and as original copy, the risk of the cleaner is also covered. He has stated during the cross-examination on behalf of respondent No.2 that “the full form of IMT 40 is Indian Motor Tariff, IMT 40 means not only covered the risk of driver and also risk of the cleaner. It is true we did not clearly mentioned in IMT 40 in 2 nd page of the Ex.B2-Policy covers only for driver.” 27. It cannot be said that the cleaner is an unauthorised person. Further, it is relevant to note that he was attending the work of the offending vehicle. Merely because the offending vehicle was not in movement, one cannot say that it is not in use. For the purpose of putting the vehicle in use, the greasing was being done by the petitioner at the time of incident. Hence, the expression use of vehicle notionally extends to all relevant situations like 1) parking, 2) greasing, 3) loading, 4) unloading, any other use not prohibited under M.V. Act, which shall also includes the context of vehicle undergoing preparatory works like painting, decoration, cleaning. The owner under vicarious liability or insurer under contractual liability cannot escape the liability, on the ground that the vehicle was not in use, when the use of vehicle can be notionally extended. For considering whether vehicle was in use for the purpose of addressing claim for compensation, the above mentioned circumstances are only illustrative but not exhaustive. 28. The defence of the Insurance Company that the cleaner, who was attending certain work of the bus, do not come under the purview of IMT-40, and that the Policy does not cover the risk of such person, who is attending the work of the vehicle, is not proved and such defence found not acceptable either in principle or on evidence available on record. 29. Further, the burden to prove absence of driving licence lies on the Insurance Company but no evidence is adduced. Hence, the defences of Insurance Company is found not tenable. Accordingly, discarded. Therefore, this Court finds that the Insurance Company cannot escape from its liability. Point No.2 is answered accordingly, holding that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. Point No.3:- Precedential Guidance: 30. Hence, the defences of Insurance Company is found not tenable. Accordingly, discarded. Therefore, this Court finds that the Insurance Company cannot escape from its liability. Point No.2 is answered accordingly, holding that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. Point No.3:- Precedential Guidance: 30. 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 petitioner/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 Vs. 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 xxxxxx (ii) 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. 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 intentionbehind 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 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…” (iv) 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. (v) In Sidram’s case, reference is made to a case in R.D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd. 1995 (1) SCC 551 . From the observations made therein, it can be understood 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. (vi) The legal position with regard to awarding more compensation than what claimed has been considered and settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court holding that there is no bar for awarding more compensation than what is claimed. For the said preposition of law, this Court finds it proper to refer the following observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court made in: (1) Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and Others , (2003) 2 SCC 274 , at para 21 of the judgment, that – “..there is no restriction that the Tribunal/Court cannot award compensation amount exceeding the claimed amount. The function of the Tribunal/Court is to award “just” compensation, which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record.” (2) Kajal Vs. Jagadish Chand and Ors. 2020 (04) SCC 413 at para 33 of the judgment, as follows:- “ 33 . The function of the Tribunal/Court is to award “just” compensation, which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record.” (2) Kajal Vs. Jagadish Chand and Ors. 2020 (04) SCC 413 at para 33 of the judgment, as follows:- “ 33 . We are aware that the amount awarded by us is more than the amount claimed. However, it is well settled law that in the motor accident claim petitions, the Court must award the just compensation and, in case, the just compensation is more than the amount claimed, that must be awarded especially where the claimant is a minor.” (3) Ramla and Others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Others , (2019) 2 SCC 192 at para 5 of the judgment, as follows:- “5. Though the claimants had claimed a total compensation of Rs.25,00,000 in their claim petition filed before the Tribunal, we feel that the compensation which the claimants are entitled to is higher than the same as mentioned supra. There is no restriction that the Court cannot award compensation exceeding the claimed amount, since the function of the Tribunal or Court under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is to award “just compensation.” The Motor Vehicles Act is abeneficial and welfare legislation. A “just compensation” is one which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record. It cannot be said to have become time-barred. Further, there is no need for a new cause of action to claim an enhanced amount. The courts are duty-bound to award just compensation.” Analysis of Evidence:- Oral Evidence: 31. As per the petitioner/PW.1, foot board was fell on his waist and a) spinal card was damaged and b) fracture of L1, Vertebra with altered marrow single intensity with loss of posterior element. He has taken treatment in a) Asramam Hospital, Eluru, b) NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad, c) STAR Hospital, Hyderabad and d) Apollo Hospital, Chennai and undergone several operations. During operations, steel plates, rods, screws were fixed. He has spent Rs.12,00,000/- for the injuries, treatment, medicines etc.. Doctors i.e., Dr. A.V.R. Mohan, Dr.Jayasree, V.S.Janardhan Rao, attended his treatment, the disability assessed at 90%. 32. As per the evidence of petitioner/PW.1, during cross-examination, he has stated that he was discharged from Apollo Hospitals, after the wounds were healed. After 3 years, again he went for follow up treatment at Asramam Hospital. Doctors i.e., Dr. A.V.R. Mohan, Dr.Jayasree, V.S.Janardhan Rao, attended his treatment, the disability assessed at 90%. 32. As per the evidence of petitioner/PW.1, during cross-examination, he has stated that he was discharged from Apollo Hospitals, after the wounds were healed. After 3 years, again he went for follow up treatment at Asramam Hospital. There is no proof that he has been taking medicines between 3 years period. He has denied the suggestion that he was treated under Aarogyasri Health Card. He has not filed medical bills for Rs.12,00,000/-. Medical Bills were available for Rs.3,02,500/- and Rs.38,800/-. There is no proof that by working as cleaner he was earning Rs.6000/- per month. The Insurance Company was added after 8years of the accident. 33. The evidence of PW.2, Dr.Adnan Aziz, is as under: “Chief-examination by petitioner/s counsel:- The petitioner was admitted in our hospital on 16.11.2010. Our hospital authorities rendered treatment to the petitioner and surgery for spine fixation was advised to the petitioner. The petitioner left against the medical advice from our hospital. The petitioner sustained serious injuries as per the case sheet. Exs.A-6, and A7 were issued by our hospital. Dr.T.V.R.K. Murthy treated the petitioner. Ex.X1 is the case sheet of the petitioner. Cross-examination by counsel for the respondent-2:- I am working in STAR Hospitals, Hyderabad. Ex.A6 was not issued by me. It is true on the date of issuing Ex.A6 I was not working in STAR Hospital. It is true I have no personal knowledge about the treatment given to the petitioner. It is true on the basis of the case sheet, I am deposing evidence.” 34. The evidence of PW.3, Dr.A.V.R.Mohan, is as under: “Chief Examination:- I have been working as Medical Superintendent, District Hospital, Eluru. I am also Civil Surgeon Specialist, Orthopedic. I am also the Member of the District Medical Board, West Godavari District for assessment of orthopedic disability. On 18-10-2010 I issued Disability Certificate to PW.1 by assessing disability as 90%. Ex.A- 14 is the Disability Certificate issued by me. He is suffering with postrunatis para paresis. He is not able to move. Cross-examination by counsel for the 2 nd respondent: It is true I never treated the patient and not conducted any surgery to PW.1. it is true I did not mention the date of surgery and treatment of PW.1 under Ex.A14. He is suffering with postrunatis para paresis. He is not able to move. Cross-examination by counsel for the 2 nd respondent: It is true I never treated the patient and not conducted any surgery to PW.1. it is true I did not mention the date of surgery and treatment of PW.1 under Ex.A14. it is true I also did not mention in Ex.A-14 document that I obtained x-ray from the radiologist for assessing the disability of PW.1. I also not mentioned in Ex.A-14 about Ex.A8 i.e., discharge summary issued by Apollo Hospital, Chennai. It is true Ex.A-14 is computer generated copy and after information feeded as the information supplied by the patient record and my examination. It is not true to suggest that I did not verify the record and not examined PW.1 by the time of issuing Ex.A-14, disability certificate and also got x-ray of the patient. It is not true to suggest that the disability is not a permanent disability. It is not true to suggest that assessment of disability at 90% is not correct. It is true in colum No.5 of Ex.A14 is typed in computer. It is true I did not mention in Ex.A14 that PW.1 is not able to discharge his duties as mentioned in Column No.5. 35. PW.4, Vemula Subba Rao, father of claimant, deposed about the treatment taken by the petitioner/claimant at various hospitals and denied the suggestion that the petitioner was covered by the Aarogyasri Scheme and the claimant became normal and he can attend his duties as usual. 36. As per the evidence of PW.1, PW.2, PW.3 and PW.4, it is clear that the petitioner was working as cleaner and suffered injuries in the accident at90% disability and he was taken treatment at various hospitals. Documentary Evidence:- 37. Ex.A2-Radiology Report, Ex.A3 to Ex.A9, Ex.A10 are indicating the treatment taken by the petitioner at various hospitals. Ex.A11 for Rs.3,02,359.66/-, Ex.A12 for Rs.38,800/- and Ex.A18 for Rs.900/- indicating the medical expenditure incurred. Ex.A14 is indicating the disability suffered. Ex.X1 and other documents, Ex.A15, Ex.A16 and Ex.A7 and Ex.A19 are corroborating the oral evidence of the petitioner and PWs.2 to PW.4 as to nature of the injuries and the treatment undergone by the petitioner. 38. The income taken at Rs.3000/- by the learned MACT is found as low. Ex.A14 is indicating the disability suffered. Ex.X1 and other documents, Ex.A15, Ex.A16 and Ex.A7 and Ex.A19 are corroborating the oral evidence of the petitioner and PWs.2 to PW.4 as to nature of the injuries and the treatment undergone by the petitioner. 38. The income taken at Rs.3000/- by the learned MACT is found as low. Adding future prospects at 50% when the employment is private non-regular basis, though not self-employment, found to be inaccurate. Therefore, income can be taken at Rs.5000/- per month. Future prospects can be added at 40%. Then the annual income of the petitioner can be taken, [[Rs.5000/- x 12] = Rs.60,000/- Plus 40% of the same i.e., Rs.24,000/-], in total at Rs.84,000/-. Disability fit to be taken at 100%, in view of the injuries to spinal card etc., spoken by the doctors. Age of the petitioner is ‘21’ as per the medical records. Multiplier applicable is ‘18’. Therefore, the loss of income comes to [Rs.84,000/- x 18] = Rs.15,12,000/-. 39. Although the bills are valued around Rs.3,52,000/-, considering the nature of injuries and the treatment taken at various hospitals as well as doing some guess work, the entitlement of the claimant under the head of medical treatment is found at Rs.5,00,000/-. 40. In the light of precedential guidance and in view of the reasons and evidence referred above, the entitlement of the petitioner/claimant for reasonable compensation in comparison to compensation awarded by the learned MACT, is as follows: S. No. Head Granted by the learned MACT Fixed by this Appellate Court 1. Medicines and Medical Treatment Rs.1,03,500/- [including special diet and attendant charges] Rs.5,00,000/- 2. Loss of Earning Capacity due to disability Rs.11,66,400/- Rs.15,12,000/- 3. Pain and suffering and Mental agony Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.1,00,000/- 4. Future Treatment Nil Rs.1,00,000/- 5. Attendant Charges Nil Rs.50,000/- 6. Loss of amenities of Life Nil Rs.3,00,000/- 7. Loss of Future Prospects Nil Rs.2,00,000/- 8. Conveyance and Diet Nil 1,00,000/- 9. Loss of Marriage Prospects Nil 3,00,000/- 10. Damage to clothes and particulars 5000/- 5000/- 11. Transportation and General Expenses 25,000/- 5000/- Total Rs.13,99,900 /- Rs. 31,72,000/- 41. For the reasons aforesaid it is found that claimant is entitled for compensation for Rs.31,72,000/- with interest at 9% per annum. The date 3 rd respondent/Insurance Company was added on 11.12.2017. Hence, the award under challenge require modification accordingly. Damage to clothes and particulars 5000/- 5000/- 11. Transportation and General Expenses 25,000/- 5000/- Total Rs.13,99,900 /- Rs. 31,72,000/- 41. For the reasons aforesaid it is found that claimant is entitled for compensation for Rs.31,72,000/- with interest at 9% per annum. The date 3 rd respondent/Insurance Company was added on 11.12.2017. Hence, the award under challenge require modification accordingly. However, the liability of the Insurance Company is to pay the interest from the date of its adding to the petition, as it has been added belatedly. Point No.3 is answered accordingly. Points No.4 to 6:- 42. In view of the reasons stated and conclusion drawn under Point Nos. 1 to 3, in the result: [i] MACMA No.109 of 2020 filed by the APSRTC/2 nd respondent before the learned MACT is allowed and the claim petition in M.V.O.P.No.566 of 2012 is dismissed against APSRTC/the 2 nd respondent. [ii] MACMA No.1171 of 2019 filed by the Insurance Company/3 rd respondent is dismissed and the liability imposed by the learned MACT in M.V.O.P.No.566 of 2012 against the 3 rd respondent-Insurance Company is confirmed. [iii] MACMA No.3460 of 2018 filed by the claimant is allowed, as follows:- 1) The compensation awarded by the learned MACT at Rs.13,99,900/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. is modified and enhanced to Rs.31,72,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of adding of 3 rd respondent/Insurance Company viz. 11.12.2017 till the date of realization. 2) Although the respondent Nos.1 and 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation, in view of the Insurance Policy, the 3 rd respondent is liable to pay. 3) The petitioner/claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire compensation amount at once, on deposit. 4) The petitioner/claimant is liable to pay the Court fee for the enhanced part of compensation before the learned MACT within a period of six (06) weeks. 5) The 2 nd respondent-APSRTC is entitled to refund the compensation amount, if any deposited or paid earlier, out of the amount payable by the 3 rd respondent-Insurance Company. 6) There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeal shall stand closed.