HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2681 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, claimant filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the order in O.P. No.311 of 1999 dated 06-08-2003 passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – District Judge, Ongole. 2. Claimant is appellant, respondent Nos.1 to 3, who are driver, insurer and owner of the lorry involved in the accident are respondent Nos.1 to 3, respectively, in the O.P. before the Tribunal. Since the claimant was a ten years old boy, the O.P. was filed on his behalf by his father. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the O.P. before the Tribunal. 4. The case of the claimant is that on 10-04-1999, while he was going on his bicycle towards Anjaneya statue from his house, on N.H.5 road, near the NTR statue, lorry bearing No.AP-27-T-4797 belonging to respondent No.3 being driven by its driver, respondent No.1, in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed without blowing horn, hit his bicycle, due to which he fell down and the lorry ran over his left leg, as a result, his left leg was fractured and he suffered several other injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Ongole and after first-aid, he was shifted to Venkateswara Hospital, Guntur, where he was treated as inpatient for 35 days and spent Rs.51,900/- towards hospital expenses and Doctors advised him to undergo further operation in future. He suffered partial permanent disability. He is a student of 3r d Class in St. Savior’s School, Ongole and due to the accident, he lost his bright educational career. Hence, he claimed a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. 5. Respondent No.3 remained ex parte and against respondent No.1, driver of the lorry, the O.P. was dismissed. 6. Respondent No.2, insurance company, alone filed its counter denying the case of the claimant. 7. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal for trial: “1. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry bearing No.AP-27-T-4797 ? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation ? If so, to what extent and from whom ? 3. To what relief ?” 8. To prove his case, claimant got examined PWs.1 to 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 as Ex.B-1 with consent. 9. Based on the evidence on record, Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.26,000/- to the claimant. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, claimant filed this appeal. 10. Now the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing this appeal ? 11. There is no dispute about the claimant suffering injuries in the accident and his entitlement to the compensation. The fact that the insurance company did not file any appeal indicates that its liability to pay compensation is not in dispute and obviously there is no dispute about the accident and the claimant suffering injuries in that accident. Hence, the only question that has to be decided is with regard to quantum of compensation. 12. Claimant was a minor at the time of accident, as such, his father was examined as PW.1. His evidence is not that clear with regard to accident and the injuries suffered by the claimant and he is not an eyewitness to the accident. Though the doctor, who treated the claimant, was examined as PW.2, to show the injuries suffered by the claimant and the treatement given to him, as contended by the learned counsel for the insurance company, appellant, much reliance cannot be placed on his evidence, as he is not the doctor, who initially treated the claimant. However, for the nature of injuries suffered by the claimant, we can safely rely on Ex.A-2, medical (wound) certificate issued by the Government Hospital. As per Ex.A-2, claimant suffered the following injuries: 1. Lacerated injury extending from left grain to lower third of left thigh, sheer lost and muscles and bones exposed. 2. Laceration scrotum with bleeding. 3. Lacerated injury on whole of front of left leg and foot, sheer lost, muscles and bones exposed and bleeding present. 4. Abrasion of 6” x 4” on the left shoulder and bleeding present. 5. Abrasion of 4” x 3” on the left side of lower abdomen. 6. Abrasion of variable sizes present all over front and back of chest and abdomen and bleeding present. 7. Lacerated injury 2” x 1” on the left occipital area, scalp deep and bleeding present. 13. Injury Nos.1 and 2 are substantially grievous in nature, but maybe technically they are simple. But, on account of hospitalization of the claimant for more than 30 days, those injuries could be classified as grievous, further it is not necessary that the injuries should be grievous for being entitled to higher compensation. The fact of losing complete muscle and exposing bones shows gravity of injury No.1 and injury No.2 i.e., laceration of scrotum with bleeding injury is also a serious one. Injury No.3 shows that it is also a serious injury. Further, claimant suffered abrasions on the left shoulder, lower abdomen and on the left occipital area of scalp and X-ray revealed that claimant suffered fracture of left iliac bone. Thus, claimant has suffered number of serious injuries. 14. Considering the nature of injuries suffered by the claimant, he must have spent reasonable amount for treatement, attendants’ charges, transportation and extra-nourishment etc., he must have been out of School for some time and there would be definitely permanent disfigurement of part of his body. 15. In the circumstances, I hold that the claimant is entitled to the total compensation he claimed i.e., Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only). However, on the enhanced compensation, claimant is entitled to interest at 6% per annum through out. It is further ordered that the enhanced compensation shall be kept in fixed deposit in a nationalized bank and claimant is permitted to withdraw 50% of the same after one year from today and the remaining 50% one year thereafter. 16. With the above directions, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No order as to costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J September 30, 2010. PV