HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2179 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in M.V.O.P. No.452 of 1999 vide order dated 31-05-2002 by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – cum – II Additional District Judge, Warangal, claimant preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking enhanced compensation. 2. Appellant is claimant and respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are owner of the tractor bearing No.AP36 – 2172 and its insurer respectively, are respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively in the M.V.O.P. before the Tribunal. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the M.V.O.P. before the Tribunal. 4. The case of the claimant, who claims to be an agriculturist and also working as stone cutter, before the Tribunal is that on 08-01- 1999 at about 5-00 PM, while returning to the house after attending to agricultural works, near Damera Cheruvu, Pakal road, tractor bearing No.AP36 – 2172 belonging to respondent No.1 and being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed, hit him and on account of that he fell down and the tractor ran over him causing grievous injuries to him. He was shifted to Jaya Nursing Home, Hanamkonda for treatment. A case in Crime No.5 of 1999 was registered by the police of Narsampet Police Station for the offence under Section 337 IPC and investigated into. He took treatment at Jaya Nursing Home, Hanamkonda and thereafter he was shifted to Appolo Hospital, Hyderabad for better treatement. He spent Rs.80,000/- towards medicines and extra-nourishment. Hence, he claimed a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-, but restricted his claim to Rs.2,00,000/-. 5. Respondent No.1, owner of the tractor involved in the accident, remained ex parte and respondent No.2, insurer of the above tractor, filed its counter denying the case of the claimant. 6. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial by the Tribunal: “1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the Tractor bearing No.AP36 2172 by it’s driver ? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief?” 7. To prove his case, claimant got examined himself as PW.1 and the medical officers as PWs.2 and 3, who treated him, and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-78. Exs.C-1 to C-3 were also marked. On behalf of the respondents, no evidence was adduced. 8. Based on the evidence available on record and after an elaborate consideration of the same, Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the claimant. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, claimant preferred this appeal seeking enhanced compensation. 9. Respondents have not preferred any appeal, as such, there is no dispute about the accident and liability of the respondents for payment of compensation to the claimant, as such, there is no need to go into those question. 10. Now, the only question that remains for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant is inadequate ? 11. Ex.A-3, initial medical certificate, shows that claimant sustained fracture of right side superior and inferior pubic ramie, left side superior pubic ramie and rupture of urethra. PWs.2 and 3, who are medical officers and treated the claimant, were examined to show the nature of injuries sustained by him. PW.2’s evidence is that he is an Orthopaedic Surgeon in Jaya Trauma Centre, Hanamkonda and he treated the claimant on 08-01-1999 in that hospital. According to him, claimant sustained fracture of superior and inferior pubic ramie of both sides and rupture of urethra, which are grievous. He also stated that a surgery was performed on the claimant at two stages and he was treated as inpatient from 08-01-199 to 29-01-1999. Again on 22-02-1999, claimant came to the hospital for review and he advised him to take bed rest for one more month. On 29-04-1999, Dr. Surender Reddy reviewed the case for admission. PW.2 opined that claimant sustained permanent disability of 5% - 10% of his working capacity. However, in the cross-examination, this witness has stated that claimant has no orthopaedic problem. 12. PW.3 is the Urologist who treated the claimant. According to him, claimant sustained urethral and bladder neck injury secondary to pelvis fracture. He performed laprotamy and supra pubic systostamy with endoscopic alignment of the urethra and bladder-neck and has given continuous treatment. On account of urethral injury, claimant sustained retrograde ejaculation and he became infertile. Thus, the injuries suffered by the claimant are very serious in nature. Though PW.2 stated finally that there was no orthopaedic problem to the claimant, still, considering the injuries sustained by him, there would be lot of pain and inconvenience to him and on account of rupture of bladder and consequent effects, he became infertile and suffering retrograde ejaculation. Further, claimant was below 30 years and at that young age, due to the injuries sustained by him and infertility, apart from physical discomforts, he suffers mentally as well. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the claimant is entitled to the total compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-, which he claimed. 13. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed enhancing the compensation to Rs.2,00,000/- from Rs.1,00,000/-. Claimant is entitled to interest on the enhanced compensation at 6% per annum. Claimant is permitted to withdraw 50% of the enhanced compensation soon after its deposit and the balance amount three (3) years thereafter. 14. With the above directions, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No order as to costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J November 15, 2010. PV