THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA and THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.3144 of 1999 JUDGMENT:(per Hon’ble Mr Justice N.V.Ramana) This appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 26.07.1999, passed by the learned IV Additional District Judge-cum-Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Visakhapatnam in M.O.P.No.293 of 1995. The appellant is the claimant. He filed the OP claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident that occurred on 21.09.1994 due to the rash and negligent driving of the car, bearing No.AP 31 b 8118, by the first respondent. The said car is owned by the second respondent and insured with the third respondent. Before the Tribunal, the first and second respondent, being the driver and owner of the car, remained ex parte. The third respondent-Insurance Company filed its counter denying its liability and contending that the compensation sought was excessive. The Tribunal, after taking into consideration the material on record, basing on Ex.A7, Xerox copy of FIR and Ex.A8, Xerox copy of M.V.Inspector’s Report, held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the car and awarded compensation of Rs.80,000/- under all heads with interest @ 18% p.a. Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, the appellant-claimant is before this Court. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that from the date of the accident, the appellant has been suffering due to the injuries sustained. That he is still undergoing treatment, and for taking treatment, he has to go to England, which is very expensive. He also contended that there is possibility of the appellant losing eye-sight in future, despite taking treatment. Therefore, he sought enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the third respondent-Insurance Company, on the other hand, sought to sustain the impugned order and contended that the compensation awarded is just and reasonable. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the Standing Counsel for the third respondent-Insurance Company. To appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, we have gone through the evidence of PW.2, Doctor, who treated the appellant. He categorically stated in his evidence that because of existence of foreign body in the right eye of the appellant, there is fibrosis in the nasilactumduct, resulting in constant watering from the eye and there is possibility of infection also. Further, during the cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that because of the negligence on the part of the appellant in not using the antibiotics and the negligence on the part of the Doctors in not prescribing correct antibiotics, there is fibrosis in the nasilactumduct, resulting in constant outflow of water from the eye. However, he stated that there is no loss of vision. Be that as it may, though in his cross-examination, PW.2 stated that there is no loss of vision and the vision is normal, considering the fact that due to the injury sustained by him in the accident, there is constant outflow of water from the right eye of the appellant, we are of the opinion that the appellant needs further treatment of his right eye, and he may incur expenses for such treatment. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal needs to be enhanced from Rs.80,000/- to Rs.1,25,000/- to enable the appellant to meet the future medical expenses. Accordingly, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed partly enhancing the compensation from Rs.80,000/- to Rs.1,25,000/- (Rupees one lakh and twenty five thousand only). The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. No costs. _________________ N.V. Ramana, J _________________ Noushad Ali, J Date:16.02.2010 VGB