JUDGMENT : A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J 1. Respondents in M.V.O.P.No.390 of 2011 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge-cum-Judge, Family Court, Guntur (for short “the learned MACT”), feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2011 filed the present appeal. Under the impugned award, against a claim made by the claimant for Rs.3,00,000/-, the learned MACT awarded compensation of Rs.4,86,500/- for the injuries sustained by him. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as the claimant and the respondent, as and how they are arrayed before the learned MACT. Case of the claimant: 3. On 23.02.2011, when the claimant was proceeding on a motorcycle near Cumbum Bus Stand Centre in Markapur Town, A.P.S.R.T.C Bus bearing AP 28 Z 898 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”), driven by its driver came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant. Thereby, the claimant fell on the road and the bus tyre ran over his right hand, resulting in amputation at the right hand shoulder joint. The claimant was hospitalized for 20 days and took follow up treatment for about two months as outpatient. The claimant suffered severe mental agony and suffering disability. Negligent driving of the offending vehicle is the cause for the accident. Hence the claimant is entitled for just and reasonable compensation. 4. Claim was resisted by Respondent/A.P.S.R.T.C disowning negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and attributing negligence to the claimant. 5. On the strength of evidence covered by Ex.A1-FIR, Ex.A2-Wound Certificate, Ex.A3-Charge Sheet, Ex.A4-Discharge summary, Ex.A5-Disability Certificate issued by the Medical Board, Government General Hospital, Guntur and oral evidence of PW.1-the claimant, P.W.2-the doctor and after referring to the evidence of R.W.1-the driver of the offending vehicle learned MACT found that the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle is the cause for the accident and that the claimant suffered 75% disability and awarded a compensation Rs.4,86,500/- with the brake up of Rs.4,32,000/- under the head of permanent disability, Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.4,500/- towards actual loss of earnings for 45 days at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month with incidental directions as to interest, costs, disbursement etc. Arguments of the appellant: 6(i). When the claim is made for Rs.3,00,000/-, arriving and granting of compensation at Rs.4,86,500/- is not correct. 6(ii). Negligence of the claimant in riding the motorcycle is ignored. Arguments of the appellant: 6(i). When the claim is made for Rs.3,00,000/-, arriving and granting of compensation at Rs.4,86,500/- is not correct. 6(ii). Negligence of the claimant in riding the motorcycle is ignored. 6(iii). There is no rationality in acceptance of income and disability by the learned MACT. Arguments in the appeal: For the claimant: 7(i). Compensation awarded is insufficient. 7(ii). Although the disability is 75%, it shall be taken as 100%. 7(iii). There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned decree and judgment, except for enhancement of the compensation already awarded. 7(iv). The income taken at Rs.3,000/- is very low and the compensation should have been awarded under various heads, which the learned MACT has missed. 7(v). There are good grounds to enhance the compensation. 8. Perused the record. Thoughtful consideration is given to the arguments advanced by both sides. 9. Now the points that arise for determination in this appeal are: 1) Whether the claimant suffered injuries due to the pleaded accident and whether the accident has occurred due to negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing No.AP 28 Z 898 by its driver? 2) Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation? If so, to what quantum? And whether the compensation of Rs.4,86,500/- awarded by the learned MACT is just and reasonable or requires any interference? if so to what extent? 3) What is the result of the appeal? Point No.1: 10. The evidence of P.W.1/ the claimant as to negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver when seen along with Ex.A1-FIR, Ex.A3-charge sheet in the light of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 476 of the A.P. Motor vehicles Rules and with the aid of observations made by the Hon?ble Supreme Court in Bimla Devi and others vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation , 2009 Supreme (AP) 136; 2010 (2) ALD 403 ; 2009 (3) ALT 260 vide para No.15, the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle found fit to be accepted. 11. The evidence of R.W.1, the driver of the offending vehicle, indicates that a case was registered against him and the same was filed by the date of his evidence. 12. The attribution of the drunken state of the claimant, spoken by R.W.1, was denied during cross-examination and there is no other evidence. 13. 11. The evidence of R.W.1, the driver of the offending vehicle, indicates that a case was registered against him and the same was filed by the date of his evidence. 12. The attribution of the drunken state of the claimant, spoken by R.W.1, was denied during cross-examination and there is no other evidence. 13. It is pertinent to note that there is reference to Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in the claim petition. However, both parties adduced evidence on negligence also. Since, by their conduct and assertions, the parties invited the findings on the issue of negligence, the learned MACT has answered the issue relating to the negligence in favour of the claimant and against the respondent while mentioning that in terms of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, there is no need to prove the negligence. The findings of learned MACT found fit for concurrence on negligence. 14. Upon perusal of the evidence and reasons stated above, the point touching the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle is answered against the respondent and in favour of the claimant confirming the findings of the learned MACT. Point No.2: 15. The claimant suffered injuries in the accident, and the same is not in dispute. However, the evidence of claimant as P.W.1 and the evidence of P.W.2-Dr. M. Prasanth and the other medical records i.e. Ex.A2-Wound Certificate, Ex.A4-Discharge Summary, Ex.A5-Disability Certificate and Ex.X1- Case sheet are vindicating the stand of the claimant that he suffered injuries due to the accident. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for compensation. 16. It is found relevant to note the guidance of Hon?ble Supreme Court as to quantifying the compensation before analyzing the evidence. Precedential Guidance 17. 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. , [22025 AIAR (Civil) 1] , arising out of SLP(c).No.10996 of 2018 on 11.12.2024, considered the scope and powers of the Tribunal in awarding just and compensation within the meaning of Act, after marshaling entire case law, more particularly with reference to the earlier observations of the Hon?ble Supreme Court made in Kajal V. Jagadish Chand and Ors .,2020 (04) SCC 413 referred to various heads under which, compensation can be awarded, in injuries cases vide paragraph No.52, the heads are as follows:- S. No. Head Amount (In ?) 1 Medicines and Medical Treatment xxxxx 2 Loss of Earning Capacity due to Disability xxxxx 3 Pain and Suffering xxxxx 4 Future Treatment xxxxx 5 Attendant Charges xxxxx 6 Loss of Amenities of Life xxxxx 7 Loss of Future Prospect xxxxx 8 Special Education Expenditure xxxxx 9 Conveyance and Special Diet xxxxx 10 Loss of Marriage Prospects xxxxx Total xxxxx (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. 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 ] , 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. In para 19, it is observed as follows: 19. 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 the percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as the 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 to 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 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: 18. Ex.A2-Wound Certificate is reflecting the crush injury of right upper limb. Ex.A4-Discharge summary is indicating admission of the claimant to the Hospital on 24.02.2011, date of surgery on 24.02.2011 and 31.03.2011 and discharge on 09.04.2011. Ex.A5-Disability certificate is indicating nature of disability and the disability at 75%. Details mentioned in the disability certificate are as follows: Name of the candidate G. Nageswara Rao Father’s Name Alluraiah Sex(Male / Female) Male Approximate Age 35 Identification Marks 1) A mole on the right hand shoulder Mild Less than 40% and diability. Moderate 40% and above Sevare 75% and above Prefound 100% 19. The case sheet-Ex.X1 indicates the nature of investigation done and the treatment given etc. 20. The evidence of P.W.2 / Dr.M. Prasanth is as follows: Chief examination: I am working as Professor of Orthopedic GGH, Guntur since 2003. P.W.1 was admitted in the hospital on 24.02.2011 with the following injuries. 1. Crush injury of the right arm and fore-arm with multiple fractures. I have conducted operation on 24.02.2011 on 31.03.2011. The patient was disability is permanent is partial to 75%. I am one of the members of the medical discharged on 09.04.2011. There is amputation to the right arm above elbow, the board and issued disability certificate. Ex.-A4 is the discharge summary and Ex.A5 is the disability certificate issued by Medical Board (already marked). Ex.X1 is the case sheet. Cross-examination by PMB Advocate for respondent: It is not true to suggest that the disability is mentioned by me is excessive. The treatment is free of cost. Re-examination: -Nil 21. From the evidence the following aspects are clear: (i) The claimant suffered a crush injury (ii) The claimant?s right upper limb above the elbow was amputated. Cross-examination by PMB Advocate for respondent: It is not true to suggest that the disability is mentioned by me is excessive. The treatment is free of cost. Re-examination: -Nil 21. From the evidence the following aspects are clear: (i) The claimant suffered a crush injury (ii) The claimant?s right upper limb above the elbow was amputated. (iii) The disability is permanent, partial, to the extent of 75% (iv) The disability certificate was issued by the Medical Board. 22. As per the evidence of the claimant, he was working as a driver of the tractor. The income of the claimant during the year 2011, with reference to socio- economic circumstances of the year and also minimum wages etc., although there is no proof as to status of the claimant as a driver, considering his age around „35? years, his income can be taken notionally at Rs.3,000/- per month, as rightly adopted by the learned MACT. Rs.3,000/- per month even if considered as excessive, the same can be considered as inclusive of future prospects. Then the annual income comes to Rs.36,000/-. Multiplier applicable is „16?. Therefore, the compensation under the head of loss of earning capacity due to disability at Rs.4,32,000/- found fit for confirmation. No medical bills are produced, however, notionally Rs.5,000/- is awarded under the head of medical expenditure. However, with regard to pain and suffering, loss of amenities, transportation, expenditure, attendant charges etc., there is need to award reasonable compensation, in tune with the precedential guidance referred above. 23. In the light of the precedential guidance and in view of the reasons and evidence referred above, the entitlement of the claimant for reasonable compensation under various heads as contemplated by the Hon?ble Apex Court, in comparison to the compensation awarded by the learned MACT is found as follows: Sl. No. Head Granted by the learned MACT Fixed by this Appellate Court 1. Loss of earning capacity due to disability Rs.4,32,000/- Rs.4,32,000/- 2. Loss of earnings during the period of treatment etc. Rs.4,500/- Rs.10,000/- 3. Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/- Rs.50,000/- 4. Loss of amenities -Nil- Rs.5,000/- 5. Transportation -Nil- Rs.5,000/- 6. Attendant charges -Nil- Rs.5,000/- 7. Extra nourishment -Nil- Rs.10,000/- 8. Medical expenditure -Nil- Rs.5,000/- Total: Rs.4,86,500 /- Rs.5,22,000/- 24. Loss of earning capacity due to disability Rs.4,32,000/- Rs.4,32,000/- 2. Loss of earnings during the period of treatment etc. Rs.4,500/- Rs.10,000/- 3. Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/- Rs.50,000/- 4. Loss of amenities -Nil- Rs.5,000/- 5. Transportation -Nil- Rs.5,000/- 6. Attendant charges -Nil- Rs.5,000/- 7. Extra nourishment -Nil- Rs.10,000/- 8. Medical expenditure -Nil- Rs.5,000/- Total: Rs.4,86,500 /- Rs.5,22,000/- 24. For the reasons aforesaid and in view of the discussion made above, the point framed is answered in favour of the claimant concluding that the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.5,22,000/- and the impugned order and decree dated 29.11.2011 passed by the learned MACT in M.V.O.P.No.390 of 2011 require modification accordingly. 25. Awarding more compensation than what claimed and awarding compensation to the claimant even in the absence of any appeal or cross objections by the claimant require examination. Enhancement of compensation in the absence of appeal: 26(i). Whether the compensation can be enhanced in the absence of an appeal or cross appeal by the claimant. 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. 26(ii). 26(ii). Observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. E. Suseelamma and others (10 supra) case are in compliance with the observations of Hon?ble Apex Court in Surekha and Others vs . Santosh and Others , [ (2021) 16 SCC 467 ] 26(iii). In Surekha and Others vs . Santosh and Others (11 supra) case, 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 where the High Court has declined to grant enhancement on the ground that the claimants fail to file cross appeal above observations are made. Granting of more compensation than what claimed, if the claimant is otherwise entitled:- 27. 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 . 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 . 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 a beneficial 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.” Point No.3: 28. For the aforesaid reasons and in view of the findings and conclusions drawn under point Nos.1 and 2, point No.3 is answered as follows: In the result, (i) The appeal is dismissed. (ii) The compensation awarded by the learned MACT at Rs.4,86,500/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum is modified and enhanced to Rs.5,22,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. (iii) Time for deposit of balance compensation amount is two months. (iv) The claimant is entitled to withdraw the amount at once on deposit. (v) The claimant is liable to pay the Court fee for the enhanced part of the compensation, before the learned MACT. (vi) There shall be no order as to costs, in this appeal. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeal shall stand closed.