Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance … vs Pranay on 8 April, 2026
Author: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy
Bench: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy
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 [3558]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
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 2/18 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
4bearing No.TN88A9924, driven by the driver-2nd respondent herein and the 3rd
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
5and 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-2nd respondent and the 3rd 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/3rd 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/3rd respondent and in consonance of these infirmities, the appellant
cannot be made liable to pay the compensation.
7. The appellant/3rd 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 3rd 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 3rd 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/3rd
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/3rd respondent. The Tribunal construed the admission
by the 3rd 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/3rd 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/3rd 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/3rd 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 3rd 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 the appellant/3rd
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
14be 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
others3, 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 to3
(2021) 17 SCC 148
15future 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
