HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A.No.3417 OF 2002 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the United India Insurance Company Limited against the judgment and decree, dated 03.12.2001, passed in O.P.No.263 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Warangal, whereby the claimant, who suffered amputation of right leg up to thigh, fracture of left leg and also other simple injuries, was granted a compensation of Rs.7,89,600/-. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 16.10.1998 at about 8.30 p.m., while the claimant was proceeding on a scooter as a pillion rider from Nayeemnagar to Hanamkonda and when he reached the bridge at Nayeemnagar, a lorry bearing No. AP 5X 415 came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner in high speed and dashed the scooter, on account of which the petitioner-claimant fell down and sustained injuries and immediately thereafter he was admitted to M.G.M. Hospital. A case in Crime No.260 of 1998 of P.S. Hanamkonda was registered against the driver of the crime lorry. The petitioner initially claimed compensation of Rs.7,86,000/-, but later enhanced to Rs.10,86,000/- contending that he was working as a Warden in a School and drawing a salary of Rs.3,000/- per month. 3. Both the respondents filed separate counter affidavits denying the petition allegations. 4. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing to the 1st respondent, by its driver or due to the negligence on the part of the petitioner himself? 2. Whether the injuries received by the petitioner in the accident resulted in any permanent disability, if so whether he is entitled for compensation, to what mount and from whom? 3. To what relief? 5. On behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A1 to A10 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.B.1 was marked. 6. On the basis of the material on record, the Tribunal, by the impugned judgment dated 03.12.2001, awarded a compensation of Rs.7,89,600/- with interest at 9% per annum on Rs.5,79,600/- from the date of petition till the date of realization, however interest was not awarded on Rs.2,10,000/-, which was granted towards artificial leg. 7. Now, the points arise for consideration are: 1. Whether the quantum of compensation awarded is on higher side? 2. Whether there are any grounds for allowing the appeal? 8. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submits that an amount of Rs.2,10,000/-, awarded by the Tribunal towards artificial leg, is on higher side. The learned counsel further submits that the claimant did not produce any receipt evidencing the cost of the artificial leg purchased by him and therefore, the Tribunal, merely on the basis of the broacher submitted by Endowlite India Limited, ought not to have awarded an amount of Rs.2,10,000/- towards artificial leg. 9. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent-claimant submits that the appellant-Insurance Company has not obtained permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act and hence, the appeal is not maintainable. He also submitted that since the first respondent- claimant suffered amputation of right leg up to thigh, fracture of left leg and other injuries, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is appropriate. 10. Admittedly, the claimant suffered amputation of right leg up to thigh. There is also no dispute about there being dislocation of right pelvis, which was later adjusted. It is also not in dispute about the petitioner suffering fracture of left leg to which rods were inserted and about skin grafting etc., being done. The trial Court, by taking into consideration the disability of the claimant at 80% as per the Disability Certificate-Ex.A4 produced by the claimant, granted a compensation of Rs.5,79,600/- towards medical expenses, loss of earning capacity etc., and also awarded Rs.2,10,000/- towards the cost of artificial leg. 11. The evidence of PW.2, who is said to be the nephew of PW.1- claimant and working as a Secretary in World Health Organization, New Delhi, shows that in response to his letters to furnish the details about the cost of the artificial leg and its other details, the Endow Lite India Limited sent their broacher quoting an amount of Rs.2,04,000/-, towards the cost of the artificial leg, with guarantee of two years, whereas the Orthopepadix India Limited quoted Rs.1,15,000/- with two years warranty, and this witness is not cross-examined. 12. It is a pathetic case where the claimant, who is a young boy of 19 years, suffered amputation of right leg up to thigh level, dislocation of pelvis, fracture of the left leg, apart from skin grafting and other injuries. He has to live with inconvenience of not having the leg and loss of several amenities associated with want of leg. There is obvious disfiguration of the other leg. This would naturally affect his marriage prospects and his living also becomes very difficult with the handicap. Thus, considering all these aspects and the requirement of periodical change of artificial leg, I find that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is appropriate, though at a glance it looks excessive. 13. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that even though permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act is not taken still the appeal is maintainable since all the contentions of the appellant are with regard to the income, percentage of disability and the quantum awarded, which can be questioned. I am not inclined to accept this contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, in view of the undisputed fact that no permission is taken by the appellant under Section 170 of the said Act. 14. Accordingly, I find no merits in this appeal and the appeal is dismissed. No costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. 29th November 2010, PNV