Reserved on 16.03.2026

Pronounced on 08.04.2026

Uploaded on 08.04.2026

APHC010450912025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3558]

WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 819/2025

Between:

1. CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY,

REPRESENTED BY ITSMANAGER (CLAIMS), HAVING ITS OFFICE

AT SHOP NO-2, GROUND FLOOR, PSN COLONY,BESIDE HERO

SHOWROOM, VISAKHAPATNAM -16.

...APPELLANT

AND

1. DONTALA GOVINDA RAO, S/O SURYANARAYANA HINDU, AGED

28 YEARS, RESIDING AT D.NO 1 -189 BANTUPALLIVARIKALLALU,

ANANDAPURAM MANDAL VISAKHAPATNAM.

2. PARTHIBAN P, S/O PERIYASWAMY.A, DRIVER OF LORRY

BEARING REGISTRATION NO TN88 A9924, RESIDING D.NO

KARAPPUR OMALLUR, SALEM,BARKATH D.S., SALEM

TAMILNADU-636012. AT 19/101, NADAR STREET.

3. RAMASWAMY R, S/O RAMASWAMY.K, OWNER OF RESPONDENT

NO. 1,2 LORRY BEARING REGISTRATION NOTN 88 A9924,

RESIDING AT 2/1 8 WEST

THOTTIPALAYAMSAMAYASANGILI,AGRAHARAM, TIRUCHINGODE,

NAMAKKAL POST, TAMILNADU - 638008.

...RESPONDENT(S):

2

Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying that the High Court may be

pleased to allow the Appeal of Appellant / Respondent No 3 and set aside the

Judgment and Decree dated 28th January, 2025, in MVOP.No.778 of 2021

before the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - XII Additional District

and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam and Pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated

in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to

grant stay of the Judgment and Decree dt.28th January, 2025, in

M.V.O.P.No.778 OF 2021 before The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal - XII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, pending

disposal of the above MACMA and pass

IA NO: 2 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated

in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to

permit me to withdraw the amount deposited pursuant to the Order,

dt.8.9.2025 passed in I.A.No.1/20025 in M.A.C.M.A.No.819/2025 and pass

Counsel for the Appellant:

1. KORAGANTI SREENIVASARAO

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. G RAMESH BABU

The Court made the following:

3

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

&

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO. 819 OF 2025

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Tuhin Kumar Gedela)

Heard,

Sri Koraganti Sreenivasa Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, and

Sri G.Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/claimant.

1. The parties are arrayed as arrayed in the present appeal.

2. Dissatisfied with the Judgment and Decree dated 28.01.2025,

passed in M.V.O.P.No.778 of 2021, by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-

cum-XII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam (hereinafter

referred to as “the Tribunal”), wherein a sum of Rs.61,89,998/- was awarded

as compensation with subsequent interest @ 9% per annum from the date of

petition i.e., 28.04.2021, till the date of payment, the Insurance Company

preferred this appeal.

3. The facts germane to decide the issue are capsuled as

hereunder:

(i) The respondent No.3 before the Tribunal is the appellant herein; the

claimant before the Tribunal is respondent No.1 and respondent Nos.2 and 3

herein are the driver and owner of the lorry respectively.

(ii) The petition filed before the Tribunal was under Section 166 of Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988, r/w Rule 455 of A.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, claiming

compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000/- for the grievous injuries sustained in the

accident occurred on 08.12.2020 at 08.40 p.m. at Vegetable Market,

Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. The vehicle involved is a lorry

4

bearing No.TN88A9924, driven by the driver-2

nd

respondent herein and the 3

rd

respondent herein is the owner of the lorry.

(iii) The claimant is an MBA graduate residing at Anandapuram village,

aged about 28 years and unmarried. On the night of 08.12.2020, while he was

returning from his work place i.e., Rushikonda to his house at Anandapuram

on his motorcycle wearing a helmet and when he reached Vegetable Market,

Anandapuram, Visakhapatnam District, at about 08:40 p.m., a goods carrier

lorry bearing No.TN88A9924, driven by the driver in a rash and negligent

manner at high speed came from the side of Pendurthi towards Anandapuram

and dashed against the motorcycle of the petitioner from behind due to which

the accident occurred rendering the legs of the petitioner crushed besides

injuries, as a result the right leg of the petitioner above knee was amputated

and the left leg is multiply fractured and has undergone several operations

and hospitalized for 22 days.

(iv) The claimant further asserts that academically he stood in first

division in the year 2016 and has bright academic record throughout and is in

search of job. He attempted the State Service Examinations. The claimant is

running a business of his own under a proprietary concern in the name and

style of VIZAG BEACH BIKES, and in tune to the same, he purchased 10

motorcycles on loan and his monthly earning is Rs.1,50,000/-. To substantiate

this, he filed the bank statement and he repaid the loan amount within a short

period.

(v) The claimant states that he is the sole breadwinner in the family

consisting of aged parents and a younger sister who is mentally challenged

and the claimant is taking care of the sister. Due to the accident, the dreams

of the petitioner are nipped off at the budding stage because of the negligent

driving of the driver and he lost his future on the economic front and also the

dreams of having a beautiful wife and children and a family is eternally lost

5

and has to live alone. A confirmed marriage alliance was also broken due to

the accident and the claimant is having no other properties to support himself

or his family and the father of the claimant is an agricultural coolie.

(vi) The claimant further specifically pleaded that the pain and suffering

endured by him cannot be explained in words and unable to sleep for an hour

a day during his days at hospital. Though he was administered with

medication and sedation, suffered from pain and mental trauma. In

consonance to the above facts and circumstances, claimed a sum of

Rs.1,00,00,000/- as compensation.

(vii) The claimant took treatment as inpatient in Q1 Hospitals,

Visakhapatnam from 09.12.2020 to 31.12.2020 and underwent operation to

his both legs. He spent Rs.16,00,000/- towards treatment and requires future

medical expenses of Rs.5,00,000/-. He spent Rs.36,000/- towards

physiotherapy charges, Rs.60,000/- to purchase a wheel chair, Rs.2,00,000/-

for hiring a personal attendant, Rs.20,000/- towards transportation and in total,

claimed compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000/- as stated supra.

4. Crime No.562 of 2020 was registered by the Anandapuram Police

Station under Section 338 of IPC and a charge sheet is also filed against the

driver of the lorry-2

nd

respondent and the 3

rd

respondent being the owner of

the lorry is vicariously liable for the wrongful act done by his servant and the

appellant, who is the insurer of the lorry, are jointly and severally liable to pay

compensation sought.

5. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein though received notices,

remained ex parte before the Tribunal by an order dated 10.12.2021.

6. In oppugnation, the appellant/3

rd

respondent-Insurance

Company, while refuting the contentions, filed counter contending that no

Income Tax returns are filed to establish the pleading of income of

Rs.1,50,000/- per month and mere registering a police case cannot

6

automatically entitle the claimant to claim compensation and has to

independently prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry.

The owner of the lorry is duty-bound to intimate the accident to the

appellant/3

rd

respondent and in consonance of these infirmities, the appellant

cannot be made liable to pay the compensation.

7. The appellant/3

rd

respondent further asserted that the policy is

not done with the appellant-Insurance Company and even if the policy is

confirmed, he has no liability under Section 64V(B) of the Insurance Act.

Regarding the amount of compensation claimed, the 3

rd

respondent

categorically states that the claim is exorbitant and highly exaggerated and

need not pay the compensation in view of the facts narrated above and the

claimant is put to strict proof.

8. Considering the adversaries of both the parties, the Tribunal

framed the following issues:

i. Whether the petitioner is entitled for Rs.1,00,00,000/- as

prayed for?

ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled for subsequent interest

at 12% per annum on the claim?

iii. Whether the 3

rd

respondent is entitled for provisions

under Sections 147, 149 and 170 of M.V. Act? And

iv. To what relief, if any, is the petitioner is entitled for?

9. During the course of trial, on behalf of the claimant, PWs.1 to 5

were examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A35. On behalf of the appellant/3

rd

respondent, RW1 was examined and got marked Ex.B1, copy of the insurance

policy.

10. Answering issue Nos.1 and 2 together, the Tribunal cautiously

taken note of the pleadings and also the examination adduced by the claimant

as well as the appellant/3

rd

respondent. The Tribunal construed the admission

by the 3

rd

respondent that except the quantum of compensation, the other

7

expenditure incurred by the claimant towards partial loss of earnings to a tune

of Rs.3,00,000/-, Rs.15,00,000/- spent towards medicines and extra

nourishment, Rs.20,00,000/- for pain and suffering and Rs.40,00,000/-

towards mental disability and Rs.21,80,000/- for loss of earnings. As seen

from the above, the appellant/3

rd

respondent while admitting the expenditure

incurred under the heads referred above, cannot take shelter that the accident

has not occurred due to rash and negligent driving.

11. The Tribunal meticulously considered the documents marked by

the claimant, which are as follows:

Ex.A1: Certified copy of FIR.No.562/2020, dated 09.12.2020, of

Anandapuram Police Station, Visakhapatnam District.

Ex.A2: Certified copy of Wound Certificate issued by M/s.Q-1 Hospitals,

Arilova, Visakhapatnam.

Ex.A3: Certified copy of Accident Report issued by Motor Vehicle

Inspector, Visakhapatnam, dated 22.12.2020.

Ex.A4: Original Discharge Summary, dated 31.12.2020 issued by

M/s.Q-1 Hospitals, Arilova, Visakhapatnam.

Ex.A5: Essentiality Certificate issued by M/s.Q-1 Hospitals, Arilova,

Visakhapatnam.

Ex.A6: Bunch of receipts issued by M/s.Q-1 Hospitals, Arilova,

Visakhapatnam, for purchase of pharmacy items from

03.12.2020 to 31.12.2020.

Ex.A7: Pharmacy purchase bills for purchase of pharmacy items issued

by M/s.Q-1 Hospitals, Arilova, Visakhapatnam, for the month of

December, 2020.

Ex.A8: Certified copy of the driving license of Respondent, P.Partiban.

Ex.A9: Certified copy of bank statement from 01.01.2019 to 31.12.2019,

issued by State Bank of India, Vellanki branch.

Ex.A10: Certified copy of the bank statement issued by State Bank of

India, Vellanki branch from 01.01.2020 to 31.12.2020.

Ex.A11: Certified copy of the bank statement issued by Bank of Baroda,

Verilavalasa Branch from 01.01.2019 to 31.12.2020.

Ex.A12: Certified copy of the bank statement issued by Bank of Baroda,

Vemulavalasa branch from 01.01.2020 to 31.12.2020.

8

Ex.A13: Provisional Certificate of the petitioner issued by Jawaharlal

Nehru Technological University, Kakinada.

Ex.A14: Original Disability certificate of the dependent sister of the

petitioner.

Ex.A15: Certified copy of the Insurance Policy belonging to Truck

No.TN88A9924 in the name of Ramaswamy.

Ex.A16: Estimation copy of the Implant and removal cost issued by

M/s.Q-1 Hospitals, Arilova, Visakhapatnam.

Ex.A17: Certified copy of the Transport Permit of Truck No.TN88A9924,

issued by Department of Transport, Tamilnadu State, valid

from 13.10.2020 to 12.10.2021.

Ex.A18: Registration Certificate of Truck No.TN88A9924, certified copy

with tax paid up to 31.12.2021.

Ex.A19: Bunch of pharmacy bills issued by M/s.Q-1 Hospitals from

03.03.2021 to 14.12.2021.

Ex.A20: Bunch of dressing bills issued by Dr.Ramkumar Boyapalem,

Visakhapatnam on various dates from 02.01.2021 to

01.03.2021.

Ex.A21: Estimation/Invoice for proposed purchase of the prosthetic

artificial limb issued by M/s.Ottoback, dated 18.02.2021 for

Rs.7,02,825/-.

Ex.A22: Cash Invoice of wheel chair issued by M/s.United Surgicals,

dated 08.01.2021.

Ex.A23: Certified copy of the Account Statement issued by State Bank

of India, Vellanki branch from 02.12.2020 to 31.12.2020.

Ex.A24: Certified copy of Medico Legal issued by M/s.Q-1 Hospitals,

Arilova, Visakhapatnam.

Ex.A25: Original Disability Certificate of the petitioner issued by

Chairman, Medical Board, King George Hospitals,

Visakhapatnam.

Ex.A26: Certified copy of the charge sheet filed by Sub-Inspector of

Police, Anandapuram.

Ex.A27: The purchase, invoice of artificial limb M/s.Hobert, dated

18.03.2021 for Rs.2,69,850/-.

Ex.A28: The Implant Certificate of the petitioner issued by M/s.Q-1

Hospitals, dated 11.06.2022.

9

Ex.A29: Essentiality Certificate of the petitioner issued by M/s.Q-1

Hospitals, dated 11.06.2022.

Ex.A30: Essentiality Certificate of the petitioner issued by M/s.Q-1

Hospitals, dated 25.06.2022.

Ex.A31: Driving License Xerox Copy, verified with original

AP03100305542018 issued by RTO, Visakhapatnam on

05.12.2018 valid up to 05.02.2038, belonging to the petitioner.

Ex.A32: PAN of the petitioner with No.CAYPD9541F, verified with

original.

Ex.A33: Attested copy of the Registration Certificate of Vizag Beach

Bikes issued by Labour Department, Government of Andhra

Pradesh.

Ex.A34: Bunch of Scan Reports and Lab Test Reports of the petitioner.

Ex.A35: Case Sheet.

12. The Tribunal further observed that the claimant purchased

calcium injections at Rs.6,000/- per month, but could not file the bills. While

adverting to the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 on behalf of the claimant, the Tribunal

categorically stated that nothing is elucidated from the cross-examination of

PWs.1 and 2 regarding the accident and the other related questions regarding

the accident. The entire evidence on behalf of the claimant was taken in toto

and considered.

13. With regard to the evidence of RW1/appellant/3

rd

respondent in

his cross-examination, he categorically admitted that the quantum of

compensation is seriously disputed and admitted the amputation of right leg of

the petitioner and also admitted that the personal verification of the vehicles is

not possible as the petitioner/claimant sustained amputation of his right leg. In

totality, the arguments of the appellant/3

rd

respondent before the Tribunal

were elucidated threadbare.

14. The appellant vehemently argued that, as per the disability

certificate, it is observed that the petitioner/claimant can stand and walk and

can perform his duties by running business of bike rentals. So, the loss of

10

earning capacity cannot be said to be lost and the earning capacity depends

upon the nature of profession or occupation or job, age, education and other

factors and sought for interference of this Court regarding the compensation.

15. The arguments of the 3

rd

respondent before the Tribunal to fortify

his stance taken in the counter that the business which is carried on by the

claimant can be done by sitting and there will not be any hindrance due to the

disability and the disability cannot be equated with the loss of earning capacity

and both cannot run concurrently. The claim regarding the medical expenses

of Rs.15,00,000/- is exorbitant and the bills furnished by the claimant are only

for Rs.7,63,000/- and therefore argued to confine the medical bills to

Rs.7,63,000/- only.

16. In reply to the arguments advanced by t he appellant/3

rd

respondent, the claimant admitted that Income Tax returns are not filed and

reiterated his stand regarding the expenditure incurred towards the other

heads as mentioned in the claim petition. The claimant further amplified his

stance that the disability certificate assessed his disability at 80% though he

can do his day to day activities for running the bike business and denied that

the disability now occurred will not hamper his income.

17. Issue No.3, as dealt by the Tribunal, deserves no interference.

18. Heard Sri Koraganti Sreenivasa Rao, learned counsel for the

appellant and Sri G.Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the claimant.

19. To strengthen his arguments, Sri G.Ramesh Babu, learned

counsel for the claimant relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay

Sethi

1

, dated 31.10.2017, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that

“Though the discretion vested in the tribunal is quite wide, yet it is obligatory

on the part of the tribunal to be guided by the expression, that is, “just

1

(2017) 16 SCC 680

11

compensation”. The tribunal and the Courts have to bear in mind that the

basic principle lies in pragmatic computation which is in proximity to reality”.

20. Another judgment relied upon by Sri G.Ramesh Babu, learned

counsel for the claimant before the Tribunal and reiterating the same before

this Court, is Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and another

2

, wherein, at

paragraph Nos.5 to 9 and 13, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:

“5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in

personal injury cases are the following:

Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)

(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines,

transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.

(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would

have made had he not been injured, comprising:

(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;

(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.

(iii) Future medical expenses.

Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages)

(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a

consequence of the injuries.

(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage)

(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).

In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only

under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury,

where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence

of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the

heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on

account of permanent disability, future 5 medical expenses, loss of

amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of

expectation of life. Assessment of pecuniary damages under item (i)

and under item (ii)(a) do not pose much difficulty as they involve

reimbursement of actuals and are easily ascertainable from the

evidence. Award under the head of future medical expenses - item

(iii) -- depends upon specific medical evidence regarding need for

further treatment and cost thereof. Assessment of non-pecuniary

damages - items (iv), (v) and (vi) -- involves determination of lump

sum amounts with reference to circumstances such as age, nature of

injury/deprivation/disability suffered by the claimant and the effect

thereof on the future life of the claimant. Decision of this Court and

High Courts contain necessary guidelines for award under these

heads, if necessary. What usually poses some difficulty is the

assessment of the loss of future earnings on account of permanent

disability - item (ii)(a). We are concerned with that assessment in this

case. Assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent

disability.

2

(2011) 1 SCC 343

12

6. Disability refers to any restriction or lack of ability to perform

an activity in the manner considered normal for a human-being.

Permanent disability refers to the residuary incapacity or loss of use

of some part of the body, found existing at the end of the period of

treatment and recuperation, 6 after achieving the maximum bodily

improvement or recovery which is likely to remain for the remainder

life of the injured. Temporary disability refers to the incapacity or loss

of use of some part of the body on account of the injury, which will

cease to exist at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation.

Permanent disability can be either partial or total. Partial permanent

disability refers to a person's inability to perform all the duties and

bodily functions that he could perform before the accident, though he

is able to perform some of them and is still able to engage in some

gainful activity. Total permanent disability refers to a person's inability

to perform any avocation or employment related activities as a result

of the accident. The permanent disabilities that may arise from motor

accidents injuries, are of a much wider range when compared to the

physical disabilities which are enumerated in the Persons with

Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full

Participation) Act, 1995 (`Disabilities Act' for short). But if any of the

disabilities enumerated in section 2(i) of the Disabilities Act are the

result of injuries sustained in a motor accident, they can be

permanent disabilities for the purpose of claiming compensation.

7. The percentage of permanent disability is expressed by the

Doctors with reference to the whole body, or more often than not, with

reference to a 7 particular limb. When a disability certificate states

that the injured has suffered permanent disability to an extent of 45%

of the left lower limb, it is not the same as 45% permanent disability

with reference to the whole body. The extent of disability of a limb (or

part of the body) expressed in terms of a percentage of the total

functions of that limb, obviously cannot be assumed to be the extent

of disability of the whole body. If there is 60% permanent disability of

the right hand and 80% permanent disability of left leg, it does not

mean that the extent of permanent disability with reference to the

whole body is 140% (that is 80% plus 60%). If different parts of the

body have suffered different percentages of disabilities, the sum total

thereof expressed in terms of the permanent disability with reference

to the whole body, cannot obviously exceed 100%.

8. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a

result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of

loss of future earnings, would depend upon the effect and impact of

such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal

should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability

as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In

most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is,

percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a permanent

disability will be different from the percentage of permanent 8

disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a

particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability would result in a

corresponding loss of earning capacity, and consequently, if the

13

evidence produced show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold

that there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases,

equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the

extent (percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of

either too low or too high a compensation. What requires to be

assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanently disability on

the earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of

earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be

quantified in terns of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings

(by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of

dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on

appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find that

percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of the permanent

disability, is approximately the same as the percentage of permanent

disability in which case, of course, the Tribunal will adopt the said

percentage for determination of compensation (see for example, the

decisions of this court in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India

Assurance Co.Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298 and Yadava Kumar v.

D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567).

9. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether there is

any permanent disability and if so the extent of such permanent

disability. This means that the tribunal should consider and decide

with reference to the evidence: (i) whether the disablement is

permanent or temporary; (ii) if the disablement is permanent, whether

it is permanent total disablement or permanent partial disablement,

(iii) if the disablement percentage is expressed with reference to any

specific limb, then the effect of such disablement of the limb on the

functioning of the entire body, that is the permanent disability suffered

by the person. If the Tribunal concludes that there is no permanent

disability then there is no question of proceeding further and

determining the loss of future earning capacity. But if the Tribunal

concludes that there is permanent disability then it will proceed to

ascertain its extent. After the Tribunal ascertains the actual extent of

permanent disability of the claimant based on the medical evidence, it

has to determine whether such permanent disability has affected or

will affect his earning capacity.

13. 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

14

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”.

21. Sri G.Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the claimant further

draws the attention of this Court to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in the case of Smt. Meena Pawaia and others vs. Ashraf Ali and

others

3

, wherein, at paragraph No.11, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed

as follows:

“11. We see no reason why the aforesaid principle may not be

applied, which apply to the salaried person and/or deceased self

employed and/or a fixed salaried deceased, to the deceased who was

not serving and/or was not having any income at the time of

accident/death. In case of a deceased, who was not earning and/or

not doing any job and/or self employed at the time of accident/death,

as observed herein above his income is to be determined on the

guesswork looking to the circumstances narrated hereinabove. Once

such an amount is arrived at he shall be entitled to the addition over

the future prospect/future rise in income. It cannot be disputed that

the rise in cost of living would also affect such a person. As observed

by this court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), the determination of

income while computing compensation has to include future

prospects so that the method will come within the ambit and sweep of

just compensation as postulated under Section 168 of the Motor

Vehicles Act. In case of a deceased who had held a permanent job

with inbuilt grant of annual increment and/or in case of a deceased

who was on a fixed salary and /or self employed would only get the

benefit of future prospects and the legal representatives of the

deceased who was not serving at the relevant time as he died at a

young age and was studying, could not be entitled to the benefit of

the future prospects for the purpose of computation of compensation

would be inapposite. Because the price rise does affect them also

and there is always an incessant effort to enhance one's income for

sustenance. It is not expected that the deceased who was not serving

at all, his income is likely to remain static and his income would

remain stagnant. As observed in Pranay Sethi (Supra) to have the

perception that he is likely to remain static and his income to remain

stagnant is contrary to the fundamental concept of human attitude

which always intends to live with dynamism and move and change

with the time. Therefore we are of the opinion that even in case of a

deceased who was not serving at the time of death and had no

income at the time of death, their legal heirs shall also be entitled to

3

(2021) 17 SCC 148

15

future prospects by adding future rise in income as held by this court

in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) i.e. addition of 40% of the income

determined on guesswork considering the educational qualification,

family background etc., where the deceased was below the age of 40

years.”

22. Sri G.Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the claimant/respondent

No.1 emphasizes that, in light of the said judgments, the Hon’ble Supreme

Court confirmed that a person is entitled to live with dignity and Human

attitude intends to live with dynamism and move and change with the time and

he further addresses that the claimant being a first-class graduate with a

flourishing business, sustained huge loss and in view of the pronouncements,

the order of the Tribunal needs no interference and that the Tribunal has

rightly awarded the compensation after elucidating the facts and

circumstances threadbare.

23. Sri G.Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the claimant/respondent

No.1 further argues that the disability certificate or any other proof submitted

by the claimant before the Tribunal was not contravened or denied and the

Insurance Company, having graciously admitted the facts, cannot now agitate

that the order of the Tribunal is erroneous or suffers from any infirmity.

24. This Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the claimant,

finds force in the contention and holds that the compensation awarded to the

claimant is justified and needs no interference. The reasoning given by the

Tribunal for arriving to such a conclusion is well established and deserves no

interference. To be in particular, the Tribunal held that the claimant is entitled

to compensation after elaborately considering and diagnosing the entire facts,

as under:

a) Pain and Suffering : Rs.15,00,000/-

b) Loss of earnings : Rs.4,99,998/-

c) Medical expenses : Rs.15,00,000/-

d) Transportation to hospital : Rs.15,000/-

16

e) Permanent Disability : Rs.11,75,000/-

f) Loss of future earning power : Rs.15,00,000/-

------------------------

Rs.61,89,998/-

------------------------

25. With regard to the entitlement of interest, the Tribunal, after taking

note of the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Lakkamma

and others vs. Regional Manager, M/s.United India Insurance Company

Limited and another

4

, fixed the rate of interest @ 9% per annum, which

needs no interference, and, resultantly, the total compensation awarded to the

claimant was Rs.61,89,998/- with subsequent interest @ 9% per annum from

the date of petition, i.e., 28.04.2021, till the date of payment and all the

respondents are made jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount,

is upheld and confirmed, thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the Insurance

Company as totally devoid of merit.

26. In fine, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is

dismissed, confirming the Judgment and Decree of the Tribunal passed in

M.V.O.P.No.778 of 2021, dated 28.01.2025. There shall be no order as to

costs.

27. As a sequitur, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall

stand closed.

________________________________________

CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J

___________________________

TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA, J

Date : -04-2026

BMS

4

(2021) 20 SCC 797