HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2075 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in O.P. No.840 of 1998 vide order dated 3-12-2002 by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – cum – District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B. Nagar, claimant preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. The owner of the lorry bearing No.DL-IG-4264 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 the intervening night of 9/10-3-1998, while he was going on a scooter bearing No.28 D 4979 and taking a turn near Moosapet Cross Roads to go to Erragadda, lorry bearing No.DL – 1G – 4264 belonging to respondent No.1 and being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and high speed, dashed against the scooter, as a result, he fell down, lost consciousness and sustained injuries on the head and other parts of the body. A case in Crime No.169 of 1998 was registered by the Kukatpally Police Station against the driver of the lorry. Hence, he claimed a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the accident and subsequently enhanced it to Rs.6,00,000/-. 5. The owner of the lorry, respondent No.1, remained ex parte. The insurer of the lorry, respondent No.2, alone 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 petitioner injured in the accident occurred on 9/10-3-1998 at about 11-30 p.m., near Moosapet, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry bearing No.DL-1G-4764? (2) Whether the petitioner suffered any permanent disability in the accident? (3) Whether the vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent covering the risk on the date of the accident? (4) Whether the petitioner entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount and against whom? (5) To what relief?” 7. To prove his case, claimant got examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-12. On behalf of the insurance company, neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced. 8. Based on the evidence on record and after an elaborate consideration of the same, Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.3,94,000/- to the claimant against respondent Nos.1 and 2 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. 9. Now, contention of the learned counsel for the claimant, appellant, is that Tribunal having held that claimant has become total wreck, failed to award the compensation claimed by the claimant. He contended that claimant lost sight of his left eye, right hand and right leg became deformed and he sustained head injury, he lost his memory power and is unable to continue in employment. However, there is no material to show that whether the claimant is still in employment or not. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the insurance company contends that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is sufficient as no medical practitioner was examined to show the exact nature of disability sustained by the claimant and that the claimant is still in employment. 11. Since neither of the respondents preferred any appeal or cross-objections, there is no need to go into the question of proving the accident and their liability for payment of compensation. 12. Now the point for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant is inadequate ? 13. Though no medical officer was examined, physical condition of the claimant was recorded by the learned Chairman in the order impugned. According to the order impugned, claimant has stated that he sustained fracture of his right hand, right leg and cranial bone on the backside. He was immediately shifted to K.K. hospital and from there to NIMS for treatement. He spent huge amount for treatement. He lost sight of his left eye and right hand and right leg became curvy and deformed. He is not able to do any work. 14. Learned Chairman also recorded that claimant was brought in to the Court Hall by his wife and he is not able to speak about figures and time etc. Ex.A-3 medical certificate shows that claimant sustained head injury with bleeding from both ears and other injuries. Ex.A-4 is the discharge summary of the NIMS Hospital, which shows that claimant was admitted in that hospital on 10-03-1998 and was discharged on 03-04-1998. He sustained head injury with contusion of left occipital lobe. He was unable to move his right side limbs. The C.T. scan of brain revealed fracture of left occipital bone and there was cerebral edema and obliteration of basal cisterns. The record also reveals that on account of injury to the brain, he needs help for personal and daily activities. Learned Chairman further recorded that the claimant is still continuing in his employment as Attender but he is on loss of pay and not getting any salary as on the ate of disposal of the O.P. The medical reimbursement bills submitted by the claimant were also not sanctioned by that date, that he was not having much remembering capacity and has become a total wreck. He is still suffering from head injury as well as deformity of right hand and right leg and there is no likelihood of much recovery. He lost sight of his left eye. 15. In the above circumstances, learned Chairman awarded salary of Rs.4,500/- per month for 48 months, during which time claimant was on leave, but erroneously deducted 1/3rd out of the same, towards personal expenses of the claimant and awarded Rs.1,44,000/- , whereas total salary of 48 months i.e., Rs.2,16,000/- ought to have been awarded without deducting anything since the claimant is still alive and must have been, in fact, spending more money. Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards pain and suffering and continuous disability and Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses. Thus, Tribunal ought to have awarded an amount of Rs.4,66,000/- towards compensation to the claimant without deducting 1/3rd of the amount out of the salary of 48 months. Further, the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- awarded towards loss of left eye sight, pain and suffering and continuous disability is also on lower side as he requires attendants through his life and he lost several amenities in life. Hence, another Rs.1,00,000/- can be awarded to the claimant. It is pertinent to mention here that while awarding the above compensation, the facts of claimant still being in service, his claiming medical reimbursement and salary in future are also taken into consideration. 16. Accordingly, the compensation of Rs.3,94,000/- awarded to the claimant by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.5,66,000/- (Rupees five lakhs sixty six thousand only). Claimant is entitled to interest at 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of O.P. till realization. Out of the enhanced compensation, 75% of the amount shall be kept in fixed deposit in a nationalized bank and the claimant shall be entitled to withdraw only interest on that amount every month. The balance 25% of the enhanced compensation can be withdrawn as and when the same is deposited. The claimant is permitted to withdraw the enhanced compensation as directed by the Tribunal. 17. With the above enhancement in quantum of compensation and observations, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. No order as to costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J November 24, 2010. PV