HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.566 OF 2000 Dated: 29.04.2010 BETWEEN: Mohammad Baji Khan .. Appellant And Shaik Khasim Saida and another .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.566 OF 2000 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the injured-claimant challenging the award, dated 01.12.1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Guntur in M.V.O.P.No.266 of 1998. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent- insurance company. 3. The appellant while proceeding on cycle from his house to his tea stall at Mangalagiri received injuries in the accident when a lorry bearing No.AP 11 T 86 driven in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn dashed him. The learned Tribunal basing on the evidence forthcoming before it held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry and the first respondent being the owner of the offending vehicle and the second respondent being the insured at relevant time are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the appellant. The said finding attained finality and it does not require any further consideration in this appeal. 4. We are only concerned with the quantum of compensation since the challenge to the award is only on the ground that the compensation granted to the appellant is grossly inadequate and not just and reasonable. Against the claim of Rs.2,00,000/-, the learned Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation under various heads. The appellant received fracture to the right temporal bone and the CT scan of the brain showed the existence of injury to the left side of the brain. Further in Ex.A.2(a)-wound certificate the opinion regarding the nature of injury is not furnished. PW.3, Neuro Surgeon in a private nursing home in the name of Vijayawada Brain Centre stated in his evidence that on 15.08.1997 PW.1 was admitted in his nursing home with head injuries, after undergoing preliminary treatment at University General Hospital, Vijayawada. According to PW.2, at the time of admission, PW.1 was drowsy, CT scan of the brain revealed injury to the left side of the brain, treatment by means of meditation did not give any result and thereupon an operation was performed in his hospital and haematoma was removed. It is the further evidence of PW.2 that the appellant who was unconscious slowly recovered and started to give response to commands at the time of discharge and was moving all four limbs and that there was mild impairing memory. Incorporating his observations and opinion, he issued Ex.A.2 certificate. Ex.A.1 is the discharge summary issued by him. The medical bills issued in his hospital which are marked as Ex.A.4 showed that the appellant incurred an expenditure of Rs.31,000/-. It is basing on the above evidence, the learned Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.35,000/- towards fracture injury on temporal region involving brain, Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses and extra nourishment and Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering, in all Rs.50,000/-. 5. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the amount awarded by the Tribunal below is low and not proportionate to the injuries sustained and operation undergone by the appellant. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent-insurance company would submit that it is not a case where there is medical evidence showing that the appellant sustained some permanent disability and therefore, the compensation granted by the Tribunal below being reasonable needs no enhancement in this appeal. 7. Though there is no medical evidence indicating that the appellant sustained any permanent disability, the fact remains that he sustained fracture to the temporal bone and also injury to the brain, he was operated upon by a neuro surgeon and there was mild impairing of memory. Therefore, for the grievous injury sustained to the temporal bone which resulted in mild impairement memory, an amount of Rs.50,000/- can be granted. An amount of Rs.10,000/- can be granted towards pain and suffering. Since, the fact that the appellant had undergone brain surgery was not in dispute, the expenditure of Rs.31,000/- being supported by Ex.A.4- medical bills issued at the hospital of PW.2, the said amount can be granted towards medical expenses. This apart, an amount of Rs.5,000/- can be granted towards extra nourishment and loss of amenities in life. In all, the appellant is entitled for compensation of Rs.50,000/- + Rs.10,000/- + Rs.31,000/- + Rs.10,000/- + Rs.5,000/- = Rs.1,06,000/-. The enhancement of compensation, therefore, would be Rs.1,06,000/- minus Rs.50,000/- = Rs.56,000/- . Since the interest granted at the rate of 12% per annum being on higher side, is reduced to 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. 8. With the above enhancement in the compensation and reduction in the rate of interest, the appeal is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ R.KANTHA RAO,J Date: 29.04.2010 kvrm