HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA C.M.A.No.554 of 2003 JUDGMENT: M.V.O.P.Nos.322 of 1998 and 319 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vijayawada were disposed of by a common order dated 28.10.2002, whereby and whereunder M.V.O.P.No.319 of 1999 was allowed in part awarding a total compensation of Rs.93,000/- in favour of the petitioner-PW.2 along with proportionate costs and interest at 9% per annum. The claimant- PW.2 has filed this appeal assailing the said order and seeking enhancement of the compensation amount for the remaining balance of Rs.1,07,000/- as she initially claimed Rs.2,00,000/-for the injuries suffered by her in the accident including loss of her left eye. 2. The facts in brief are that: On 17.08.1997 while the petitioners in both the O.Ps were proceeding on a scooter and when they reached Chuttugunta, R.1 came from the opposite direction on his scooter bearing No. AP 16H 3608 at high speed and dashed against the scooter of the claimants causing grievous injuries to both of them. The appellant-claimant was shifted to Life Hospital and fromthere to the dispensary of Dr.M.N.Raju at Vijayawada and she suffered injuries to her both eyes and that the vision of her left eye was completely affected. The II Town Police registered a case in Crime No. 97 of 1998 against the R.1-Scooterist. 3. PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked in support of the claimants’ case, whereas RWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 and X1 were marked on behalf of the respondents. 4. The lower Tribunal after framing relevant issues for trial as to the rash and negligent driving on the part of R.1-Scooterist and also the entitlement of the claimant to receive compensation and the liability of the respondents to pay the same, answered the first issue in favour of the claimant that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent handling of scooter bearing No.AP 16H 3608 by R.1 and as such she was entitled to a total compensation of Rs.93,000/- and fastened joint and several liability on the respondents to pay the same considering the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and also considering the exhibits marked on behalf of both sides. 5. The claimant aggrieved by the impugned order preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation as awarded by the lower Tribunal contending that she was aged about 10 years at the time of the accident and she lost one of her eyes and spent nearly Rs.50,000/- towards treatment. As such she claimed Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment, Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.1,20,000/- towards permanent disability, total compensation Rs.2,00,000/-. However, it is contended that the lower Tribunal erroneously awarded lesser amounts towards compensation as under: Pain and suffering: Rs.20,000/- Permanent disability Rs.50,000/- Medical Expenses Rs.20,000/- Extra-nourishment Rs. 3,000/- --------------- Total Rs. 93,000/- 6. It is contended that the lower Tribunal failed to consider the evidence of PW.3-medical witness, who has testified that the claimant had lost her left eye vision and he has also given Ex.X1 to that effect. 7. It is the case of the appellant that the lower Tribunal erred in not considering the evidence of PW.3-medical witness and Exs.X1 and A5. Had the Tribunal considered the said evidence and excerpts, it would have appreciated the case of the appellant in a better way and would have, perhaps, awarded the total amount claimed under the said head i.e., Rs.1,20,000/- 8. A perusal of Ex.X1 reveals that the claimant suffered disability of 30% of her left eye. However, from the evidence of PW.3, it is clear that she had lost her left eye vision. In Ex.X1 at Column No.6, it is recorded as under: “Extent of residual vision, if any (i) Right eye : 6/6 (ii) Left eye : NOPL” and disabilities fixed at 30% in Column No.8. 9. In Ex.A.5- disability certificate at Column 7(a), it is recorded as under: “(a) total absence of sight : in left eye ” The evidence of PW.3-medical witness coupled with Exs.X1 and A5 goes to prove that the claimant, who was aged 10 years at the time of the accident, lost her left eye vision. 10. In the circumstances, this court is of the view that the lower Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards permanent disability instead of Rs.50,000/-, Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering instead of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment, instead of Rs.3,000/-, which is just and reasonable compensation. 11. Therefore, it is to be held that the claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.1,55,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty five thousand) only i.e. (Rs.1,00,000/- towards permanent disability, Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering, 20,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment) with interest at 7.5% so far as the enhanced compensation is concerned. 12. The C.M.A. is partly allowed. No order as to costs. _______________ B.N.RAO NALLA, J Date: 3 .12.2010 Stp/Ivd