Permanent disability percentage does not directly equate to loss of earning capacity; compensation must be assessed based on evidence of actual impact on earnings.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the decree and award dated 22.09.2021 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Kadapa (held by IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa in FAC)

02. The appellant is the 2^nd respondent. The 1^st respondent is the claimant. The 2^nd respondent is the 1^st respondent before the Tribunal and owner-cum-driver of Tata Ace vehicle bearing No.AP-04-Y-7417.

03. The case of the claimant is briefly as follows:

The claimant was aged about 32 years and a panchayat secretary at Rachagudi Village, Vontimitta Mandal. On 01.07.2015, while he was going on a motor cycle of Subramanyam as a pillion rider, the driver of Tata Ace vehicle coming from Kadapa side in a rash and negligent manner dashed the motor cycle resulting injuries to the claimant. A case in crime No.62 of 2015 under Sections 337 and 338 I.P.C. was registered in the Sidhout Police Station. The claimant was shifted to RIMS hospital, Kadapa and from there to Sri Ramadevi Multi Super Specialty hospital as he suffered crush injury to the right knee, crush injury of right forearm, laceration at the right eyebrow and multiple abrasions over the right upper limb and nasal bleeding. The X-ray showed type-III B compound fracture of both bones of right forearm and fracture of patella with lateral condyles right femur. A surgery was conducted to his right forearm and right thigh and screws, plates and rods were inserted. He was discharged on 11.08.2015 from the Super Specialty Hospital. The petitioner incurred Rs.5,00,000/- for his treatment, transportation and attendant charges. Due to the injuries, the claimant could not move his right arm and cannot lift weights. Due to the injury to right thigh, he cannot walk freely and sit properly. He needs support of two attendants. As a panchayat secretary, his salary was Rs.21,000/- per month. He lost his increments, promotions and salary for three months.

04. The 1^st respondent filed written statement admitting the averments in the petition, but contending that the claimant was riding the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner at the time of the accident and fell down due to which he sustained injuries and moreover he did not have driving license. He further claimed that the Tata Ace vehicle was insured by the 2^nd respondent who shall be liable to pay compensation, if any.

05. The 2^nd respondent did not filed written statement in spite of entering appearance.

06. On behalf of the claimant, he got himself as PW1 and doctor J.Nagesh who treated him was examined as PW2. On his behalf, Ex.A1 to A8 were marked. An officer of the 2^nd respondent was examined as RW1 and copy of the insurance policy was marked as Ex.B1. The 2^nd respondent filed a petition under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act in I.A.No.262 of 2021 and the same was allowed.

07. After hearing both parties, the Tribunal held that the claimant was a pillion rider of the motor cycle and was not riding it as contended by the respondents and that the accident occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the 1^st respondent.

08. The claimant sought compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- and the same amount was awarded as compensation under the following heads, though the Tribunal arrived at total amount of compensation payable to the claimant is Rs.11,64,534/- by restricting the compensation to the amount claimed. The Tribunal awarded the following amounts:

09. Aggrieved by the said award, this appeal was preferred by the insurance company mainly on the ground of excess amount of compensation being granted under the head loss of earning due to 35% permanent disability since it has not resulted in loss of earning capacity and also that the acciden