THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No. 2207 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed against the award dated 30.10.2004 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam granting a compensation of Rs.12,000/- for the injuries received in a motor accident by the claimant, who is a minor boy aged about 7 years. According to the case of the claimant on 01.09.2000 at about 5.00 p.m. when the petitioner was crossing the road the auto bearing No.AP31 V 2753 driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant, as a result of which he received injuries to his right toe, which was amputated and he was treated in KGH, Visakhapatnam. The 1st respondent is the driver-cum-owner and the 2nd respondent is the insurance company and both of them denied the liability. After considering the material on record, the lower Tribunal came to the conclusion that the incident happened due to the fault of the 1st respondent, who was driving the vehicle. So far as the compensation is concerned, the lower Tribunal has evidently not taken a realistic view of the incident. The petitioner was said to be aged about 7 years from the material available on record. The doctor was examined the petitioner, who was said to have been in Government hospital from 01.09.2000 to 04.10.2000 and surgery was done twice to the petitioner in the hospital. The lower Tribunal found that since the entire treatment was done to the petitioner in the Government hospital only a sum of Rs.2,000/- was granted as compensation and towards the pain and suffering in spite of amputation a sum of Rs.5,000/- alone was granted and considering the evidence of P.W.2, which clearly goes to show that there was a disability, a sum of Rs.5,000/- was granted and on all counts the total compensation granted by the lower Tribunal is Rs.12,000/-. Evidently, the approach of the lower Tribunal is not proper. The fact that the petitioner, a boy aged about 7 years, was in hospital for a longer time and the amputation of right toe was also not disputed by the lower Tribunal. That being the situation, the disability of the petitioner cannot be ignored. The further fact that merely because the petitioner was treated in a Government hospital and no expenditure could have been incurred by the petitioner, is also erroneous. Definitely, there is requirement of attendance and nourishment for the petitioner, which could have been provided by the hospital. Therefore, taking into consideration the above facts and particularly the fact that the right toe is said to have been amputated for a boy aged about 7 years, I feel the ends of justice would meet, if a compensation of Rs.90,000/- is granted on all counts. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the award granted by the lower Tribunal is set aside and instead a sum of Rs.90,000/- (Rupees ninety thousand only) is granted as compensation to the appellant. Out of the said amount a sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand only) shall be kept in a fixed deposit till the petitioner attains the majority and the balance amount is permitted to be withdrawn by the guardian of the petitioner. The interest shall be @ 7.5% per annum instead of 9% per annum granted by the lower Tribunal. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J 12-09-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No. 2207 of 2011 DATE: 12-09-2011 MR