JUDGMENT : A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J. I. Introduction:- 1.[i] The 2 nd respondent [APSRTC] before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram [for short “MACT”], in M.V.O.P.No.586 of 2015, feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 12.6.2018 passed therein, imposing liability to pay compensation of Rs.6,61,000/- with incidental relief as against the claim made for Rs.10,00,000/-, filed the present appeal, questioning the liability and quantum of compensation awarded. 2. The 1 st respondent herein is the claimant and the 2 nd respondent herein is the driver of the bus bearing No.AP 05 0044 [for short the ‘offending vehicle’]. 3. For the sake of convenience, parties will be herein after referred to as the claimant and the respondents, as and how they are arrayed, before the learned MACT. II. Case of the claimant, in brief: 4. [i] On 17.01.2015 at about 10.00 a.m., while the petitioner was travelling on a motor cycle, from Kothapeta to Rajahmundry and when reached near Choppella locks, within the limits of Alamuru Police Station, the 1 st respondent, driver of the offending vehicle came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motor cycle on which the claimant was travelling, with the result the claimant suffered crush injury to his left leg, pillion rider also suffered injuries. The claimant was shifted to Government General Hospital, Rajahmundry from there to Government General Hospital, Kakinada and left leg of the claimant was amputated above knee. [ii] The claimant was aged ‘55’ years, doing fancy business and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. But due to the accident, he has suffered in multiplefolds including permanent disability due to amputation of leg. Hence, entitled for compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. 5. The 1 st respondent-driver of the offending vehicle remained ex parte III. Case of the Respondent No.2/Appellant-APSRTC: 6. Negligence of the claimant is cause for the accident. The petitioner/claimant shall prove the negligence of the 1 st respondent. Age, occupation and income of the claimant, nature of the injuries suffered, treatment undergone, disability suffered and all other relevant aspects substantiating the claim made. 7. 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 the crime vehicle i.e., RTC bus bearing No.AP 05 Z 0044 by the first respondent and caused the accident in question? 7. 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 the crime vehicle i.e., RTC bus bearing No.AP 05 Z 0044 by the first respondent and caused the accident in question? 2) Whether the petitioner himself contributed to the accident in question? 3) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation amount, if so, to what amount from whom? 4) To what relief? IV. Evidence before the learned MACT: 8. Oral and Documentary evidence:- For the Claimant For the Respondents Exhibit No. Description Exhibit Description No. Ex.A1 Attested copy of F.I.R. in Cr.No.16 of 2015 of Alamuru Police Station - Nil- Ex.A2 Attested copy of Wound Certificate. Ex.A3 Attested copy of M.V. Inspector Report. Ex.A4 Attested copy of charge sheet. Ex.A5 Photocopy of Disability Certificate Ex.X1 X-rays Ex.X2 Case Sheet Witnesses examined Witnesses examined PW.1 M.Ananda Rao [Claimant / Petitioner] RW.1 M.V.S.S.R.Narasimha Murthy [Driver of the offending vehicle] PW.2 Dr.D.Promod Kumar [Who treated the injured] V. Findings of the learned MACT:- 9. [i] Evidence of claimant as PW.1 coupled with the crime record including charge sheet, is sufficient to believe the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. [ii] The evidence of RW.1, the driver of the offending vehicle is not of any use. [iii] The claimant suffered crush injury on left leg and fracture of right ankle. Ex.A5-Disability Certificate is issued for pensionary benefits, but the disability of one limb, contributing for functioning of entire body and causing total loss of earning capacity, when seen, it can be found that the claimant is prevented and restricted from discharging his previous activities. But he can carry out his activity in lesser scale. [iv] The income of the injured/claimant can be notionally taken at Rs.5,000/-, which comes to Rs.60,000/- p.a.. Then the loss of income comes to Rs.5,61,000/- upon application of multiplicand ‘11’ and adopting disability at 85% [(60,000x11=6,60,000 x85%]. Further, the claimant is entitled for the compensation under other heads i.e., a sum of Rs.60,000/- for pain and suffering and Rs.10,000/- for conveyance and extra nourishment, Rs.10,000/- for damages to cloths and other expenses, Rs.20,000/- for loss permanent disability. In all the claimant is entitled for Rs.6,61,000/-. VI. Grounds/Arguments in the Appeal: For the Appellant-2nd respondent-APSRTC:- 10. Further, the claimant is entitled for the compensation under other heads i.e., a sum of Rs.60,000/- for pain and suffering and Rs.10,000/- for conveyance and extra nourishment, Rs.10,000/- for damages to cloths and other expenses, Rs.20,000/- for loss permanent disability. In all the claimant is entitled for Rs.6,61,000/-. VI. Grounds/Arguments in the Appeal: For the Appellant-2nd respondent-APSRTC:- 10. [i] Learned MACT failed to appreciate that rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle is not established. [ii] Learned MACT failed to take note of the negligence of the claimant in riding the motor cycle. [iii] Learned Tribunal erred in taking the income at Rs.5000/-notionally without any basis [iv] The age of the claimant and disability adopted are also baseless. Compensation awarded under various heads and rate of interest are all excessive. For the Claimant: 11. [i] Finding of the learned MACT on the point of negligence of driver of the offending vehicle and disability of the claimant are reasonable. But the learned MACT should have taken the disability at 100%, and income at Rs.10,000/-as claimed and awarded more compensation than what claimed and erred in awarding compensation of Rs.6,61,000/-. 12. Perused the pleadings and the entire material on record. Thoughtful consideration is given to the arguments advanced by the both sides. 13. Now the points that arise for determination in this appeal are that - 1) Whether the pleaded accident dated 17.01.2015 has occurred due to the exclusive rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle viz., the 1 st respondent, before the learned MACT? 2) Whether the claimant is suffered injuries due to the pleaded accident and entitled for compensation? If so, to what quantum? And what is the liability of the 2 nd respondent-APSRTC/appellant? 3) Whether the compensation of Rs.6,61,000/- awarded by the learned MACT is just and reasonable? Or require any interference by way of reduction or enhancement? If so, to what tune? 4) What is the result of the appeal? Points No.1 Precedential Guidance: 14. 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. Points No.1 Precedential Guidance: 14. 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. 15. This Court finds it relevant to note the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court made in Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation, 2009 (13) SCC 530 which reads as under: “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 ofpreponderance 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..” Analysis Of Evidence:- Oral Evidence:- 16. [i] Claimant as PW.1 reiterated his pleadings and stated about the occurrence of accident and negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. Ex.A1 is the F.I.R. and Ex.A4 is the Charge Sheet laid against the driver of the offending vehicle. During the cross-examination of PW.1, it was suggested that the negligence of the claimant is the cause for the accident, but he has denied the same. [ii] RW.1, driver of the offending vehicle, stated that while the bus reached near Dondakayala Market, near Choppella locks, he has noticed a TVS XL vehicle with a load of four bags, hanging to the motor cycle and two plywood planks and one Iron Chair kept in between the driver of the motor cycle and the pillion rider, and Driver of the motor cycle drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, took right turn to cross the road. On seeing the same, he has slow down the bus and sounded horn. But the claimant continued rash and negligent driving and dashed the bus and fell down. During his cross examination, RW.1 has denied the suggestion that his negligence is the cause for the accident. [iii] As per the version of RW.1, the claimant has hit the bus between front and rear tyre side and fell down on the road. If that is the true, there is less chance for the crush injury. As per the charge sheet, the crime vehicle is coming from behind, and bus ran over the left leg of the claimant. Upon considering the evidence and nature of injury suffered including the manner in which the accident occurred, particularly, the offending vehicle was coming from behind and that the driver has noticed the movement of the motor cycle, it can be safely concluded and inferred that negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle is the exclusive cause for the accident and there is no material indicating either the negligence or contribution of negligence of the claimant for occurrence of the accident. Therefore, the point framed is answered accordingly, in favour of the claimant and against the respondent-APSRTC concluding that the exclusive negligence of the driver of the crime vehicle viz., RW.1 is the cause for the accident. Point No.2:- 17. With the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 and the contents of documentary evidence Ex.A1-F.I.R., Ex2-Wound Certificate and Ex.A4- Charge sheet, the occurrence of the accident and claimant sustaining the pleaded injuries stands proved and the entitlement of the claimant for the compensation is clear. Only the point that remains for consideration is what is the just and reasonable compensation to which the claimant is entitled? 18. 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. (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. (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 (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:- (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. 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. 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 assessedand 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…” (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. , 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 V. 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. Analysis of Evidence: Oral Evidence:- 19. [i] Claimant as PW.1 stated that he has suffered crush injury, to left leg and suffered amputation, undergone operation at Government General Hospital, Kakinada apart from fracture to right leg and disability assessed at 85%. He has added that he was doing fancy business and earning Rs.10,000/- per month and contributing the same for the family but due to accident his life is spoiled. During the cross-examination, except denying the income and disputing validity of Ex.A5, nothing more is elicited. [ii] The evidence of PW.2, Dr.Promod Kumar, Professor of Orthopedic, Rangaraya Medical College, Kakindada is as follows: “On 17.01.2015 the petitioner joined in Government General Hospital, Kakinada and I examined him and found the following injuries: 1) There is a crush injury on left leg and potts fracture of right ankle. On 17 th January, 2015, above knee amputation was conducted as the crush injury of left leg became gangrene. On 06.02.2015 the fracture on right leg was operated and fixed with plate and screws. On 16.02.2015 the patient was discharged from the Hospital. The general condition of the patient at the time of discharge was good. Four X- rays were taken at the time of admission of the petitioner and there is also case sheet. Ex.X1 contains four X-rays. Ex.X2 is case sheet of the petitioner. On 16.02.2015 the patient was discharged from the Hospital. The general condition of the patient at the time of discharge was good. Four X- rays were taken at the time of admission of the petitioner and there is also case sheet. Ex.X1 contains four X-rays. Ex.X2 is case sheet of the petitioner. I cannot say as to the percentage of disability of the petitioner due to the said injuries and the same can be stated by only the medical board constituted by three members (Superintendent of the Hospital, Professor of the Orthopedic and Assistant Professor of Orthopedic and that the said three person will decide the percentage of the disability). The disability certificate shown to the petitioner is not a valid one for medico legal purpose and that it is meant for pension benefits issued by the Government. Cross-examination: The medical board will be constituted for assessing percentage of disability on case to case basis on reference. Ex.A5 condition of the patient will be entered in the system by SADAREM. Medical Board will assess the [percentage of disability by examining the patient and conducting necessary tests.” Documentary Evidence:- 20. Ex.A2 is the wound certificate reflecting the following injuries: 1) A Laceration of size 2 x 0.5c,m. on Lateral Corner of right eye, Red Colour, no bleed. 2) A Laceration of 2x0.5c.m. above left eye brow, Red colour, No bleed. 3) A laceration of 1x0.5cm on Lateral Corner of Left eye, Red Colour, No bleed. 4) A Grazed Abarasion of 5 x 3cm over lateral corner of left eye Red colour, no bleed 5) Crush injury over lower 1/3 rd of left leg with complete amputation Except for a skin tag connecting with main par. 21. Ex.A5 is the Disability Certificate, indicating the following aspects : “Physical (Locomotor/Orthopaedic) Disability. The disability is in relation to his: Left Lower Limb. Sub-type of disability: Post Traumatic Amputation. Cause of Disability: Accident, Post Traumatic Amputation. Re-assessment of this case is not recommended. Percentage of disability in his case is 85% [Eighty Five percent] He meets the following physical requirements for discharge of his duties. F-can perform work by manipulating with fingers, PP-can perform work by pulling and pushing, L-can perform work by lifting, B-can perform work by bending, S-can perform work by sitting, RW-can perform work by reading and writing.” 22. Percentage of disability in his case is 85% [Eighty Five percent] He meets the following physical requirements for discharge of his duties. F-can perform work by manipulating with fingers, PP-can perform work by pulling and pushing, L-can perform work by lifting, B-can perform work by bending, S-can perform work by sitting, RW-can perform work by reading and writing.” 22. From the evidence of PWs.1,2 and Exs.A2 and A5 and other medical record, the following aspects are clear: 1) Claimant suffered crush injury. 2) Claimant suffered amputation of left leg. 3) Claimant suffered fracture of right left and operation was conducted, inserting plates and screws. 4) Claimant was aged ‘55’years. 5) Claimant was doing business. 23. Third party evidence is not there to indicate what was the income of the claimant. No documentary proof is available. Further, upon considering the socio-economic circumstances, his age and occupation, etc., and also the year of the accident, the income of the claimant taken by the learned MACT at Rs.5000/- per month found proper. The contention contra by the appellant APSRTC found fit to be rejected. 24. The claimant is a self-employed person and aged about ‘55’, even as per his claim. Therefore, not adding of future prospect etc., is also found proper. However, the learned MACT did not consider awarding of compensation under all relevant heads and the entitlement of the claimant for compensation requires reconsideration in this factual scenario. 25. In view of the reasons and evidence referred above, the entitlement of the 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 [Medical Expenditure] - Nil- Rs.25,000/- 2. Loss of earning capacity due to disability Rs.5,61,000/- Rs.5,61,000/- 3. Pain and suffering Rs.60,000/- Rs.60,000/- 4. Future Treatment Nil Rs.10,000/- 5. Attendant Charges Nil Rs.10,000/- 6. Loss of amenities of Life and discomfort Rs.20,000/- Rs.20,000/- 7. Conveyance and special diet Rs.10,000/- Rs.20,000/- 8. Damage to clothing and other expenses Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/- Total Rs.6,61,000/- Rs. 7,16,000/- 26. Further, whether the compensation can be enhanced in the absence of an appeal or cross appeal by the claimant is the next question. Attendant Charges Nil Rs.10,000/- 6. Loss of amenities of Life and discomfort Rs.20,000/- Rs.20,000/- 7. Conveyance and special diet Rs.10,000/- Rs.20,000/- 8. Damage to clothing and other expenses Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/- Total Rs.6,61,000/- Rs. 7,16,000/- 26. Further, whether the compensation can be enhanced in the absence of an appeal or cross appeal by the claimant is the next question. The legal position as to powers of the Appellate Court particularly while dealing with an appeal in terms of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, where the award passed by the learned MACT under challenge at the instance of the Insurance Company (Respondents) and bar or prohibition if any to enhance the quantum of compensation and awarding just and reasonable compensation, even in the absence of any appeal or cross objections was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in a case between National Insurance Company Limited vs. E. Suseelamma and others , 2023 SCC Online AP 1725 in M.A.C.M.A. No.945 of 2013, while answering point No.3 framed therein vide, para 50 of the judgment, which reads as follows: “50. In our considered view, the claimant/respondents are entitled for just compensation and if on the face of the award or even in the light of the evidence on record, and keeping in view the settled legal position regarding the claimants being entitled to just compensation and it also being the statutory duty of the Court/Tribunal to award just compensation, this Court in the exercise of the appellate powers can enhance the amount of compensation even in the absence of appeal or cross-objection by the claimants.” 27. Observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. E. Suseelamma and others case (cited 10 supra) are in compliance with the observations of Hon’ble Apex Court inSurekha and Others vs. Santosh and Others, (2021) 16 SCC 467 . 28. In Surekha and Others vs. Santosh and Others’ case [cited 11 supra], in Civil Appeal No.476 of 2020 vide judgment dated 21.01.2020, three judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that - “it is well stated that in the matter of Insurance claim compensation in reference to the motor accident, the Court should not take hyper technical approach and ensure that just compensation is awarded to the affected person or the claimants”. While addressing a case wherethe High Court has declined to grant enhancement on the ground that the claimants fail to file cross appeal above observations are made. 29. The 1 st respondent is the driver of the offending vehicle and offending vehicle is owned by APSRTC and the negligence and 1 st respondent and claimant sustaining injuries due to accident are clear from the record. Therefore, the respondents No.1 and 2 before the learned MACT are liable to pay compensation. 30. In view of the discussions made and conclusions drawn, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.7,16,000/- and the respondents are liable to pay the same jointly and severally. Point No.2 is answered accordingly. Point No.3 :- 31. In view of the reasons stated and the conclusions drawn under points 1 and 2, the compensation awarded by the learned Rs.6,61,000/- with interest @6% p.a. is fit to be modified and enhanced to Rs.7,16,000/- with interest @6% p.a.. Point No.3 is answered accordingly. Point No.4: 30. In view of the above discussion and the conclusions drawn under points 1 to 3, in the result, appeal is dismissed. [i] However, the compensation awarded by the learned MACT at Rs.6,61,000/- with interest @6% p.a. under the impugned decree and order dated 12.06.2018 is modified and enhanced to Rs.7,16,000/- with interest @6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. [ii] The claimant/petitioner shall pay the Court fee for the enhanced part of compensation, before the learned MACT. [iii] The claimant/petitioner is entitled to withdraw the amount at once, on deposit. [iv] No costs in the facts and circumstances. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.