IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.2825 OF 2004 DATED:30.11.2010 Between: Vyasi Murthy … Appellant And The Stores Officer Shar Centre, Sriharikota Nellore District … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.2825 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed against the order dt.20.11.2003 passed by the II Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nellore, in M.V.O.P. No.595 of 1998, seeking enhancement of the compensation. 2. Heard. 3. The appellant herein is the petitioner in the M.V.O.P. It is his case that on 22.1.1998 at about 5.30 p.m., when he was standing on the road side at his village Atakanithippa, a omni bus belong to SHAR Project bearing No.ATN 9066 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the petitioner and ran over his right foot, as a result of which he sustained a crush injury and other injuries all over the body. He was admitted in Government Hospital, Sullurpet, and later he took treatment at a private doctor for a period of six months. He became disabled, his right leg was disfigured and he was unable to walk freely. He also lost his studies and tailoring assistant work. Hence, he filed the M.V.O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.1,10,000/-. 4. The respondent, on the other hand, opposed the claim petition. The case of the respondent is that, a private van coming from Sullurpeta to SHAR was stopped at Atakanithippa for the purpose of passengers getting down the van, and at that moment, the omni bus reached Atakanithippa and the appellant crossed the road from behind the van and hit the bus, on account of which he sustained injuries to his right leg. The accident was reported to Shriharikota Police Station by the appellant. The driver was driving the bus cautiously and in spite of precautions, the boy failed to observe the bus coming from Sriharikota while crossing the road, and hence it cannot be said that there is rash and negligence driving on the part of the driver of the bus. Therefore, the appellant - petitioner is not entitled for any compensation and the respondent is no way liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. 5. On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal. i. “Whether the pleaded accident occurred and if so was it due to the fault of the driver of the vehicle bearing No.ATN 9066? ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation and if so to what amount? iii. To what relief?” 6. On behalf of the appellant – petitioner, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 – Certified copy of to A.6 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B.1 was marked. On the basis of the material on record, the Court below awarded a total compensation of Rs.38,000/-. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation granted, the present appeal is filed. 7. Now, the only question is whether the appellant is entitled for enhancement of compensation, and if so, to what extent. 8. There is no dispute that the appellant was injured in the accident and he sustained crush injury to his right leg, in addition to other injuries all over the body, and he became disabled. Initially he was admitted in Government Hospital, Sullurpet, and later he was referred to Government General Hospital, Madras, for further treatment. Evidence of P.W.2 - Professor R. Dhanapal, Government General Hospital, Chennai, reveals that the appellant had a compound fracture to his right leg with dislocation of ankle joint and a wound over the right foot and it was required to fix steel rods and grafting of skin. Ex.A.4, wound certificate issued by the Surgeon at Sullurpet Government Hospital, and Exs.A.2 and A.5 – Discharge Summary and photocopy of attested copy of case sheet respectively, issued by the Government General Hospital, Madras, and the evidence of P.W.2 reveal that the appellant had suffered disability and loss of earning power. The appellant was a student and also attending tailoring work. Hence, the appellant is entitled for enhancement of compensation. 9. The appellant claimed a total amount of Rs.1,10,000/- towards compensation. The Tribunal granted a total amount of Rs.38,000/- under different heads, i.e., Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs.4,000/- towards medical and incidental expenses; Rs.3,000/- towards transportation charges, extra nourishment and damages to cloths etc; and Rs.16,000/- towards compensation for loss of earning power and permanent disability. In view of the fact that the appellant was hospitalized for a period of nearly three months and spent money for treatment, attendant etc., for his fracture, and as he must have been out of work on account of the injury and as there is some permanent disability, I am of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to enhancement of compensation to Rs.75,000/- towards loss of earning power and permanent disability, as against Rs.16,000/- granted by the Tribunal. Similarly, he is also entitled to Rs.6,000/- towards medical and incidental expenses and Rs.4,000/- towards transportation charges, extra nourishment and damages to cloths etc., as against Rs.4,000/ and Rs.3,000/- respectively granted by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has rightly granted an amount of Rs.15,000/-, as claimed by the appellant, towards pain and suffering. Thus, the appellant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. 10. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed enhancing the total compensation from Rs.38,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-. Interest on the enhanced amount of compensation shall be at 6% per annum. The petitioner is entitled to withdraw the amount as and when deposited. No order as to costs. _____________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J 30.11.2010 bnr