THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1275 of 2003 ORAL JUDGMENT: Heard both sides. Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by II Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kadapa (for brevity “the Tribunal”), in M.V.O.P.No.508 of 1999, by the order, dated 03.09.2002, wherein and whereunder a sum of Rs.1,40,000/-, was awarded as compensation for the injuries sustained by the petitioner therein, in a road accident that occurred on 18.10.1998, the United India Insurance Company Limited filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. The particulars of the accident i.e., the method and manner in which it occurred and the aspect of negligence etc., are not in dispute and hence, they are not referred to. However, there is controversy about the nature of injuries suffered by the claimant, the estimation of disability and the quantum of compensation. In the said accident, the claimant sustained two injuries viz., two teeth on upper jaw were broken and two teeth on the lower jaw were loosened. These are the only injuries suffered by the claimant as a result of the said accident. From the medical evidence on record, it is obvious that the injured-claimant was initially admitted in Government Hospital and subsequently, was shifted to a private hospital and got implanted new teeth in place of the lost teeth. The evidence of the doctor-P.W-2 is to the effect that the extent of disability suffered by the claimant is 30%. It is rather incomprehensible as to how loss of two teeth amounts to permanent disability to an extent of 30%, particularly when the claimant was a Carpenter by profession. The loss of teeth does not in any way affect his occupation nor his efficiency in the occupation. At any rate, the compensation fixed by the Tribunal, in my considered view, is highly excessive and absolutely disproportionate to the injuries sustained by the claimant. It is represented that pursuant to the order, dated 25.09.2003, passed by this Court in C.M.P.No.21437 of 2003, half of the awarded amount i.e., a sum of Rs.70,000/- has been deposited before the Tribunal. In view of the said fact, I feel it just and reasonable to confine the compensation only to the extent of the amount deposited by the appellant. In other words, the compensation is fixed and restricted to Rs.70,000/- only together with interest as directed by the Tribunal in the impugned order. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part to the extent indicated above, modifying the impugned order. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 12th August 2010 dr