IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.4882 of 2004 Between: Kancherla Ramesh .. Appellant AND Melam Bhagya Rao & another .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.4882 of 2004 JUDGMENT: The civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the award, in M.V.O.P.No.899 of 2000, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Guntur, dated 14.09.2004. 2. The appellant, aged 9 years, was hit by tractor No.AP 7T 6736 on 08.03.1999 at about 9.00 p.m. at Venkatakrishnapuram and the tractor was driven rashly and negligently. The appellant who suffered injuries on the head and other parts of the body was treated at Government Hospital, Guntur, and the tractor driver was prosecuted by the Police in Crime No.30/1999. The appellant, therefore, claimed a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- under various heads due to the agony, suffering and the consequences of the injuries. 3. While the owner of the tractor remained ex parte before the Tribunal, the insurer contested the claim denying the allegations and further contending that the tractor was driven without a valid licence and a valid permit. The negligence was also attributed to the appellant himself. 4. The Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident and the entitlement of the claimant to compensation and examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and R.W.1 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-5, X-1 and B-1 to B-3 during the enquiry. 5. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award firstly holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor based on the evidence of the injured P.W.2, corroborated by the contents of the First Information Report-Ex.A-1 and the Charge Sheet-Ex.A-2. The Tribunal further noted Ex.A-3- Wound Certificate to be disclosing a grievous injury and the injury leading to nasal bleeding was corroborated by the evidence of the Doctor as P.W.3, who spoke about the fracture of occipital bone and air in the brain. The doctor was of the opinion that there will be difficulty in reading for long time due to the adverse impact on the brain due to presence of air and the injured P.W.2 was also noted to have stated about experiencing difficulty in reading and playing. The Tribunal, accordingly, granted Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering as claimed by the claimant and granted Rs.5,800/- towards medicines, attendant charges, etc., in the light of Exs.A-4 and A-5-X-rays to a tune of Rs.1,400/-, the cost of CT Scan for Rs.2,800/-, etc. In respect of damages for the permanent disability and loss of earning power, the Tribunal restricted the amount to Rs.5,000/- as against the claim of Rs.75,000/- and the Tribunal, with reference to the inter se liability between the insurer and the owner, concluded that the insurer has to pay and recover from the owner. The total compensation of Rs.25,800/- was directed to carry interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit. 6. The injured appellant claimed that he ought to have been granted the entire compensation claimed in the light of the evidence of P.W.3, the doctor, and the documentary evidence placed before the Tribunal. The loss of future amenities of life were not adequately compensated and, hence, the appeal. 7. Sri Challa Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Nisaruddin Ahmed Jeddy, learned standing counsel for the second respondent are heard and the first respondent is unrepresented before this Court. 8. The findings of the Tribunal about the responsibility of the tractor driver for the accident, the joint and several liability of the owner and insurer of the tractor and the entitlement of the claimant to just and adequate compensation for the injuries suffered and the consequences of the injuries due to the accident are not challenged by the respondents and have become final. 9. The only question is the adequacy and justness of the compensation awarded. 10. Insofar as the compensation for pain and suffering is concerned, there was only one grievous injury and the amount claimed and granted was Rs.15,000/- which, therefore, needed no variation. Similarly, the amount granted towards the attendant charges, medicines, etc., at Rs.5,800/- was based on the expenses incurred as per the evidence of P.W.3 and the estimate cannot be considered conservative or low. However, coming to the damages claimed towards the permanent disability/the loss of earning power, the award of only Rs.5,000/- towards loss of future amenities of life and the likely future complications as against the claim of Rs.75,000/- is grossly low. The Medical Expert-P.W.3 positively stated about the fracture of the occipital bone and the presence of air in the brain leading to difficulty in reading for long time and even in playing games. The possible adverse impact on the brain, as spoken to by P.W.3, was also reiterated by P.W.2, the injured minor, who stated that he was finding it difficult to read or play as earlier. Though an element of guess and estimate becomes inevitable in assessing the compensation under such head of damages, grant of a further sum of Rs.10,000/- would have met the needs of justice and, therefore, the compensation should be enhanced by such an amount. The enhanced portion of the compensation can carry interest at 6% per annum in the light of the length of time for which such interest has to be paid by the insurer, a custodian of public funds, from the date of the petition till the date of realization. It is needless to state that the principle of pay and recover which was adopted by the Tribunal applies to the enhanced portion of the compensation also. 1 1 . Accordingly, the award, dated 14.09.2004, in M.V.O.P.No.899 of 2000, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Guntur, is modified by granting a further compensation of Rs.10,000/- payable with interest thereon at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit or payment in addition to the compensation already granted by the impugned award and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed, accordingly, in part without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 20th September, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.4882 of 2004 Date: 20th September, 2011 KL