HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3989 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in O.P. No.204 of 1997 vide judgment dated 13-03-2002 by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – cum – I Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, claimant preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. The owner of the lorry bearing No.ABT – 1644 involved in the accident and its insurer are respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively in the O.P. before the Tribunal. 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 before the Tribunal is that on 13-02-1996 at 7-30 AM while he was returning to his residence after attending the duties at Koramandal Factory, at Chinnakodur Bypass road, lorry bearing No.ABT – 1644 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and high speed, dashed against him, as a result, he sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Siddipet and from there to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, where he was treated as inpatient for a period of one month. Due to the accident, his left leg was amputated up to knee level and thus he became permanently disabled. He took treatement in private hospitals at Hyderabad and Siddipet. He incurred Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses. Hence, he claimed a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. 5. Respondent No.1, the owner of the lorry involved in the accident, remained ex parte. 6. Respondent No.2, the insurer of the above lorry, alone filed its counter denying the case of the claimant and also its liability for payment of compensation. 7. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial by the Tribunal: “1. Whether the claimant proved the accident dt.13-2-96 committed by driver of R.1? 2. Whether the claimant is entitled for the compensation as claimed for? 3. To what relief?” 8. To prove his case, claimant got examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-8. On behalf of the insurance company, except marking the copy of the insurance policy of the offending vehicle as Ex.B-1 with the consent of the claimant, no oral evidence was adduced. 9. Based on the evidence on record and after an elaborate consideration of the same and taking into consideration amputation of left leg of the claimant up to knee level, awarded a compensation of Rs.47,170/- against both the respondents for payment of compensation jointly and severally with interest at 9% per annum. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, claimant preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 10. Since neither of the respondents preferred any appeal or cross-objections, there is no need to decide the question of proving the accident and their liability for payment of compensation. 11. Hence the only point that arises for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant is inadequate ? 12. It is a case of amputation of left leg of an 18 years old boy, who was said to be a labourer. The leg was amputated up to knee level. He took treatement as inpatient in Gandhi Hospital for a period of one month and thereafter it is the case of the claimant that he took treatment in private hospitals at Hyderabad and Secunderabad and spent Rs.50,000/- for treatment. Therefore, the compensation of Rs.47,170/- awarded by the Tribunal is grossly inadequate. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is as under: 1. Shock, pain and suffering and loss of amenities in life - Rs.15,000-00 2. Injury and disability - Rs.20,000-00 3. Medical Expenses - Rs. 1,500-00 4. Loss of earning capacity - Rs.10,670-00 In my considered opinion, the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under all the heads are grossly inadequate. 13. The claim of the claimant is that he was earning Rs.1,500/- per month by working as a labourer. Even then, the amount of Rs.47,170/- awarded by the Tribunal is absolutely inadequate. Towards pain and suffering, loss of amenities in life, permanent disability, loss of earning capacity and medical expenses, claimant is entitled to reasonable amounts. On account of amputation of left leg up to knee level, he would lose several amenities in life and his earning capacity also would come down substantially particularly when he claims to be a manual labourer. There would be difficulty for him in getting married also. The amount of Rs.1,500/- awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses is shockingly low. For a person, who has suffered amputation of leg, awarding Rs.1,500/- towards medical expenses is nothing but adding pain to suffering. He must have spent reasonable amount for medicines, extra nourishment and attendant charges and transportation to the hospital particularly in view of the fact that he sustained amputation of leg and he cannot walk even small distances also without any support. 14. Considering all these circumstances, I hold that it is a fit case for awarding the total compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) claimed by the claimant and the same is accordingly awarded to him. Thus, the compensation of Rs.47,170/- awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant is enhanced to Rs.2,00,000/-. The rate of interest on the enhanced compensation shall be at 6% per annum from the date of O.P. till realization. It is made clear that the rate of interest on the compensation of Rs.47,170/- awarded by the Tribunal shall be at the rate of 9% per annum only as granted by the Tribunal. The entire amount of enhanced compensation shall be kept in a fixed deposit in a nationalized bank for a period of five (5) years. However, he is permitted to withdraw the interest accrued on the compensation every month. 15. With the above directions, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No order as to costs. ____________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J December 30, 2010. PV