IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.2371 OF 2003 Between : Sirisala Anjaiah .... APPELLANT A N D B.Bal Reddy and others … RESPONDENTS THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2371 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in O.P. No. 1158 of 1999 vide order dated 20.01.2003 by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – cum – District Judge, Nalgonda, the claimant preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. The owner of the lorry bearing No. AP9 – U - 7577 involved in the accident and its insurer are respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the O.P. before the Tribunal. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as arrayed in the O.P. before the Tribunal. The case of the claimant, who was a 6 years old boy as on the date of accident, is that on 16.10.1999 at about 9.00 A.M., while he was proceeding by walk on the left side of the road, at Kathalagudem bus stop, the lorry bearing No. AP9 – U - 7577 belonging to respondent No.1 and being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and high speed, hit him and ran over his left leg, as a result, he sustained crush injury to his left leg. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Nalgonda for treatment. Due to the crush injury, his left leg was amputated above the knee level. Hence, he claimed a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. 4. Respondent No.1, the owner of the lorry involved in the accident, remained ex parte. Respondent No.2, the insurer of the above lorry, alone filed its counter denying the case of the claimant. 5. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial by the Tribunal: “1. Whether the claimant sustained injuries in the alleged motor vehicle accident, and if so, whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.AP-9-U-7577? 2. Whether the lorry bearing No.AP-9-U-7577 belongs to the first respondent and stood insured with the second respondent on the date of the accident, and if so, whether it covers the risk of the claimant? 3. Whether the claimant is entitled to any compensation, and if so to what amount, and what is the liability of respondents? 4. To what relief?” 6. To substantiate his case, claimant got examined his father as PW.1 and also examined the doctor, who treated him, as PW.2 and an eyewitness to the incident as PW.3 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-7. On behalf of the insurance company, no oral evidence was adduced except marking a copy of the insurance policy of the offending lorry as Ex.B-1. 7. Based on the evidence on record and after an elaborate consideration of the same, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,10,640/- to the claimant as against his claim of Rs.2,00,000/- against both the respondents for payment of compensation jointly and severally with interest at 9% per annum. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, claimant preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 8. Since neither of the respondents preferred any appeal or cross- objections, there is no need to go into the question of proving the accident and their liability for payment of compensation. 9. Hence, the only point that arises for consideration is whether the compensation awarded to the claimant by the Tribunal is inadequate ? 10. It is not in dispute that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry belonging to respondent No.1 and the claimant sustained crush injury to his left leg and it was amputated above the knee level. Ex.A-7 photographs show that the claimant suffered amputation of his left leg, one or two inches above the knee. Due to the permanent disability, he cannot lead normal life and he would lose several amenities in life. Due to amputation of his leg, he cannot walk without the help of crutches or artificial leg or someone’s help even for going to small distances and to attend his personal works etc. He cannot run or play like other boys. Due to amputation, he lost his precious life of childhood. His studies also must have been disturbed, he cannot drive the vehicles like other persons and he needs special arrangements in the vehicle. 11. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the entire amount of Rs.2,00,000/- claimed by the claimant can be awarded to him towards compensation and the same is accordingly awarded. Thus, the compensation of Rs.1,10,640/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The rate of interest on the enhanced compensation shall be at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. Out of the enhanced compensation, the father of claimant is permitted to withdraw Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) soon after its deposit to meet the immediate expenditure and the balance amount shall be kept in a fixed deposit in a nationalized bank for a period of three years. However, the claimant who must be attaining majority shortly is permitted to withdraw the interest accrued on the enhanced compensation. 12. With the above enhancement in quantum of compensation and the directions, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No order as to costs. _________________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. DECEMBER 23, 2010. YVL