HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELANEOUS APPEAL No.100 OF 2000 JUDGMENT: Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – I Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam in O.P. No.461 of 1996 dated 16-12-1998, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation. 2. The relevant facts, in brief, are as under: On 08-02-1996, claimant boarded a city bus at Malkapuram and got down near N.A.D. Bridge, Visakhapatnam and while he was proceeding on the road by walk, Maruti van bearing No.AP31- F – 3627, driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed him, as a result, he sustained injuries all over his body including his head. In the same Maruti van, respondent No.1 shifted him to King George Hospital, Visakhapatnam, where he was shifted to Neuro Surgery Ward as his condition was serious. He was in coma for 23 days. After recovery, he was discharged with an advise to take rest at least for one year. Because of the injuries sustained on the head, his speech was impaired and movements of left hand and left portion of the body were paralyzed and his eyesight was affected. He was suffering from lapses of memory also. He was working as Junior Assistant in the Port Trust and due to the accident, he was on sick leave for some period. Hence, he claimed compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- under various heads. 3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are driver and owner of the Maruti van, remained ex parte and respondent No.3 – United India Insurance Company Limited alone filed its counter denying the case of the claimants. 4. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal: 1. Whether the accident resulting in injuries to the petitioner (claimant) T. Balakrishna is due to rash and negligent driving of the Maruthi van bearing registration No.AP31 – F – 3627 by the first respondent ? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim any compensation, if so to what amount and from which of the respondents ? 3. To what relief ? 5. To prove his case, claimant got himself examined as PW.1 and the Doctors, who treated him, as PWs.2 and 3 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-9. On behalf of the Insurance Company, no oral evidence was adduced but Ex.B-1, copy of the insurance policy, alone was marked. 6. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded Rs.40,000/- towards loss of future earnings, Rs.35,000/- towards permanent disability, Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenses and thus in all Rs.90,000/- towards compensation to the claimant. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, claimant filed this appeal. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the claimant Sri G. Rama Gopal and learned counsel for the Insurance Company Sri Srinivas Rao Vutla and perused the material on record. 8. The contention of the learned counsel for the claimant – appellant is that claimant sustained serious head injury and though he did not lose his employment, he became permanently disabled on account of head injury, as such, awarding compensation of only Rs.35,000/- towards permanent disability and Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering are totally inadequate. 9. Now the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds for enhancement of the compensation ? 10. Evidence of PW.1, the claimant, is that after the accident, the same van driver i.e. respondent No.1 shifted him to King George Hospital, Visakhapatnam. He was in coma for one month. His left hand and left leg are not working and his eyesight is affected due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident and without assistance, he is unable to go anywhere during night. His memory and speech are affected. He did not attend the office for three months. He is not able to perform his duties properly. 11. Evidence of PW.2, the medical officer who treated the claimant, is that he treated the claimant at Government Hospital. There was contusion on the right frontal lobe of the brain resulting in paralysis of the left half of the body. There was partial recovery of the same with treatment. On 04-03-1998, he examined the claimant and assessed the disability and found him still having weakness in left half of the body with altered speech, as such, he assessed the permanent disability at 40%. 12. Thus, it is a case, where claimant sustained head injury and he was in come for about a month. He was paralysed, though there is partial recovery. He is still suffering blurred speech and other associated weaknesses. The Tribunal observed that Rs.35,000/- can be awarded to the claimant for the permanent disability sustained by him i.e. paralysis of the left half of the body and an amount of Rs.10,000/- can be awarded towards pain and suffering. Awarding of these amounts, in my opinion, are not appropriate and commensurate with the injuries sustained by the claimant. When there is finding that claimant sustained paralysis of left half of the body, as observed above, there must have been substantial sufferance by him which would be, most likely continue through out his life, as after three years of the accident also, there was no improvement in the situation. 13. As stated by PW.2, claimant would suffer any amount of inconvenience on account of partial paralysis he suffered and imperfect speech etc., as such, awarding only Rs.35,000/- and Rs.10,000/- towards permanent disability and pain and suffering respectively are totally inadequate. Therefore, I hold that under both these counts, claimant can be awarded a total amount of Rs.1,00,000/- . Accordingly, the total compensation towards permanent disability and pain and suffering is enhanced by Rs.55,000/-. Thus, the total compensation comes to Rs.1,45,000/- from Rs.90,000/-. However, the enhanced compensation of Rs.55,000/- shall bear interest at 7.5% per annum only from the date of petition. 14. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. __________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J June 23, 2010. PV