HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI C.M.A.No. 717 of 2003 ORDER: This is an appeal filed by the appellant seeking enhancement of compensation pursuant to the Award passed in MVOP No. 325 of 2000 dated 10-06-2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-II Addl. District Court, Kadapa. 2. This is a case of injuries sustained by a six years old boy. It is the case of the claimant that on 12-12-2000 the injured along with his mother and sisters was proceeding towards Kopparthi village from Y M Palli and after getting down from an auto in the main road and while proceeding towards Kopparthi village, one bus bearing No. AP 10Z 4911 belonging to the 1st respondent driven by the driver of the bus in a rash and negligent manner, hit the claimant due to which he sustained grievous injuries over the body and fracture to his right hand. The claimant was treated in the Government Hospital, Kadapa and thereafter in a private hospital. He therefore, filed the OP claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-. The respondent contested the claim contending that the bus was proceeding slowly and the driver of the bus observed an auto and sounded the horn. The claimant came suddenly on the road and in the process sustained injuries. It was therefore, contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the claimant himself. It was also contended that the claimant did not suffer further deterioration of health and that there was no evidence to show that he required extra-nourishment. 3. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal formulated the issues whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus of the respondent and whether the claimant was entitled for compensation and if so to what amount. 4. The claimant’s mother Sd. Kamrunnisa was examined as PW-1 and also examined Dr. B.Venkata Subbaiah as PW-2. Exs.A1 to A9 were marked on behalf of the claimant. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondent. 5. On a consideration of the material, the Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the driver of the respondent’s bus. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, a sum of Rs.11,000/- was awarded towards injuries Rs.52,000/- towards permanent disability, Rs.25,000/- towards medical expenses. Rs.5,000/- transport charges, Rs.2,000/- towards damages to cloths, in all awarded Rs.1,00,000/-. Not satisfied with the said quantum, this appeal is filed. 6. Since this appeal is filed by the claimant for enhancement of compensation, the issue relating to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus need not be gone into. 7. Heard learned counsel for both the parties. 8. Learned counsel for the claimant would submit that the amount awarded is not just and adequate. The Tribunal having found that the claimant was entitled for Rs.90,000/- towards permanent disability erroneously restricted to grant only Rs.52,000/-. It is submitted that the claimant was a boy of tender age and due to the injuries to the head, he is suffering from epilepsy now and then and the disability is permanent and incurable, therefore, he is entitled for enhancement of compensation. 9. The only point for consideration that arise for consideration is whether the claimant is entitled for compensation in this appeal. 10. There is no dispute that the boy was aged about 6 years and suffered grievous injuries in the accident. He was treated in the Government Hospital, Kadapa initially and in a private hospital later. PW-1 is the mother of the claimant. In her evidence she stated that her son was treated in Government Hospital for 10 days as inpatient and later in the Nursing Home of Dr. Khaleel Basha as inpatient for one month. Even after the treatment, her son is suffering from fits periodically and due to the same, he stopped attending the school. Her son was treated by Dr. Venkata Subbaiah (PW-2). She further deposed that she spent huge amounts in the treatment. In the cross-examination she deposed that she has not filed any document to show that her son was referred to any super specialty hospital and that she has not taken the boy to any such super specialty hospital at Madras. She denied the suggestion that the injuries were simple in nature. 11. PW-2 B.Venakta Subbaiah is an Orthopedic surgeon. He examined the boy on 16-03-2002 and issued Ex.A6 disability certificate. He found deformity of lower end of arm right side and tenderness present over the lower end of the right humorous right cubitus valgus deformity right present. He also found right Arm deformity of the lower end and a lacerated scar over the scull extending anterior to posterior aspect. He also found post-traumatic epilepsy and certified the disability at 40%. He denied the suggestion that the said disability is of higher side and identified giddiness or headache. Ex.A2 is the wound certificate dated 12-2-2000 and it discloses that the claimant suffered abrasion of entire scalp of right half, abrasionof 1’ over right side of face, abrasion of 1” over upper lip below nose swelling of 2” over right upper arm. Injuries 1 to 3 were found to be simple and injury No.4 was grievous. Ex.A6 is the medical certificate dated 16-03-2002 issued by Dr.Venkata Subbaiah. It is evident from the aforesaid documentary and oral evidence, the boy suffered 40% disability. The said certificate is in conformity with the oral evidence. The Tribunal after considering the said evidence accepted that the claimant suffered 40% disability. Computing the income of the claimant as a non-earning member as per schedule II of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 at Rs.15,000/- p.a. and after applying 15 multiplier computed the loss of earning at Rs.90,000/-. However, the said compensation is restricted to Rs.52,000/- only on the ground that the claim itself towards disability was restricted to the said amount only. 12. There is no dispute that the claimant suffered 40% disability. Indisputably, the injury suffered is serious in nature and is certified by PW- 2. The claimant is suffering from epilepsy. It is therefore, to be held that the injuries are not only fatal but also permanent in nature. On account of epilepsy, the injured boy would be a dependant on parents, perhaps for the rest of the life. Compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 being beneficial in nature which provide succor to the claimants/ dependants, quantum of compensation should always be just and reasonable. It is always not necessary that the quantum should be restricted to the claim made. In the instant case, having regard to the nature of injuries, the Tribunal opined that Rs.90,000/- would be the just compensation towards permanent disability. However, there is no justification to restrict the same to Rs.50,000/-. I am therefore, of the opinion that the claimant is entitled for Rs.90,000/- towards permanent disability as against Rs.52,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. As mentioned above, the Tribunal has awarded a reasonable amount towards other counts. 13. I am therefore, of the opinion that the claimant is entitled to Rs.38,000/- towards enhancement of compensation in this appeal. The said amount shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. The award in OP No. 325 of 2000 is modified. 14. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed to the extend indicated above. There shall not no order as to costs. _____________ Mjl/* 26-08-2010 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI C.M.A.No. 717 of 2003 DATED 26-08-2010