Absence of Disability Certificate Does Not Disentitle Claimant from Fair Compensation: AP High Court Enhances Award for Injured Driver in Motor Accident Case

“Surgery, screw insertion, future treatment and inability to drive heavy vehicles—these are not mere medical details but lived realities that demand judicial recognition” — In a significant judgment aimed at reinforcing a liberal and human-centric approach in compensation law, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the absence of a formal disability certificate cannot be a ground to deny just and reasonable compensation to an injured motor accident victim, particularly when clinical evidence, surgical history, and occupational impact are clearly established.

Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma enhanced the compensation from ₹36,000 to ₹90,000 in favour of a lorry driver who suffered fractures and underwent surgery after a road accident involving a bus operated by APSRTC.

Holding that “disability is not merely about documents, but about disruption to livelihood and life,” the Court ruled:

“Sustaining grievous injury, operation conducted, insertion of nails and future treatment etc. can be believed with the evidence made available. They require consideration while quantifying the compensation.”

“Compensation Is Not Mere Damage Recovery—It Is Atonement for Human Injury and Loss” – Court Rejects Narrow MACT Assessment

“The High Court and Tribunal must realize that there is a distinction between compensation and damage... Compensation is more comprehensive. It is given for the atonement of injury caused.” — quoting Yadava Kumar v. National Insurance Co.

Emphasizing that compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act must be measured not by mathematical rigidity but by judicial empathy, the High Court found that the MACT had erred in adopting a minimalist approach, ignoring important heads such as future medical treatment, transportation, attendant charges, and realistic loss of income.

The appellant, a professional lorry driver, had sustained serious fractures to his right leg and ankle, undergone surgery with screw fixation, and was advised future removal of the screws. Despite this, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Vijayawada, awarded a total of just ₹36,000, giving ₹3,000 for medical expenses and nothing for future treatment or assistance.

Justice Sarma, rejecting the narrow assessment of the MACT, stated: “The approach of the Tribunal should be liberal and holistic, particularly when the victim is a wage-earning driver, and the injuries materially affect his ability to continue in his profession.”

On 24 October 2025, the High Court ruled in favour of Puttam Rama Krishna, a lorry driver injured in a motor vehicle accident that occurred in 2007 due to the negligent driving of an APSRTC bus. He had filed a claim for compensation citing loss of income, medical expenses, and permanent disablement. The Tribunal, while holding APSRTC liable, had awarded him a paltry ₹36,000.

Dissatisfied with the quantum, the claimant appealed. The High Court revisited the evidence, medical records, and Supreme Court guidelines, and held that the quantum was wholly inadequate, warranting enhancement under multiple heads.

The accident occurred at around 3:00 AM on 3 June 2007, when the appellant, driving a lorry as part of his employment, was hit by an APSRTC bus. The collision led to multiple injuries including fractures to his right ankle. He was hospitalized and underwent surgery involving internal fixation with screws. The discharge summary and the treating doctor’s testimony confirmed the need for future surgery to remove the screws and advised six months of bed rest.

The claimant argued that he was earning ₹5,000 a month as salary along with a daily batta of ₹100, and that the injury had severely impacted his ability to continue as a heavy vehicle driver. The MACT, however, granted only ₹3,000 for medical expenses, ₹25,000 for pain and suffering, and minimal amounts for other heads.

The insurance company did not appeal the award and the question before the High Court was limited to whether the compensation was just and reasonable.

Justice Sarma referred extensively to the guiding precedents of the Supreme Court including Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad Simon, Kajal v. Jagadish Chand, Rajkumar v. Ajay Kumar, Sidram v. United India Insurance Co., and Yadava Kumar v. National Insurance Co., reiterating that the duty of courts in compensation matters is not mechanical but restorative.

Quoting from Rajkumar v. Ajay Kumar, the Court noted: “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.”

Although the claimant had not produced a formal disability certificate, the High Court was convinced that the functional disability was evident from the nature of the injury and the claimant’s profession. It observed:

“Disability, if any, of the petitioner is not established by certificate, but Dr. P.W.2 made a casual observation that the petitioner may not be in a position to drive heavy vehicles. This cannot be ignored when the claimant is a professional lorry driver whose livelihood depends on it.”

The Court also underlined that the medical evidence, including the discharge summary and doctor’s testimony, established the following facts:

• The claimant underwent surgery and had screws inserted into his ankle.

• Future surgery would cost at least ₹8,000 to ₹15,000.

• The petitioner required six months of bed rest.

• His ability to resume professional driving was compromised.

Reasoning on Enhancement: Justice Sarma ruled that the Tribunal failed to grant compensation under several key heads, including future medical expenses, transportation, attendant charges, and realistic loss of income during recovery. The Court noted that the Tribunal had wrongly restricted medical expenses to ₹3,000 when medical bills and treatment evidence supported a much higher amount.

Referring to R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control India, the Court acknowledged that some degree of conjecture is inevitable in compensation matters but such conjecture must be tempered with objectivity and human fairness.

On this basis, the Court recalculated the compensation to include:

• ₹25,000 for medical expenses based on actual bills and treatment.

• ₹25,000 for pain and suffering.

• ₹15,000 for loss of earnings during recovery.

• ₹10,000 for future medical needs (screw removal surgery).

• ₹5,000 each for transportation, attendant charges, and extra nourishment.

The total was thus enhanced to ₹90,000, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till realization.

The High Court concluded that the MACT had adopted an unduly narrow and technical approach, failing to acknowledge the broader impact of injury on the claimant’s life and livelihood. While reiterating that judicial discretion in compensation cases must be informed by human realities, the Court stated:

“In assessing damages, the Court must exclude all considerations of speculation or fancy, though some conjecture is inevitable. But objectivity, grounded in the nature of injury and the claimant’s occupation, must prevail.”

The Court accordingly modified the MACT’s award, enhancing the compensation to ₹90,000 with interest, and directed the insurance company to deposit the balance amount within two months.

Date of Decision: 24 October 2025