IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.3511 OF 2003 Between : Shaik Dilshad .... APPELLANT A N D A.P.S.R.T.C. …RESPONDENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3511 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the claimt against the order and decree, dated 07.03.2003 in M.V.O.P.No.264 of 1999, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal–cum-District Judge, Guntur, whereby a compensation of Rs.25,200/- was awarded to the claimant as against the claim of Rs.1,00,000/-, for the injuries sustained by her in the accident. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as arrayed in the O.P. before the Tribunal. 3. The case of the claimant in the O.P. before the Tribunal, in brief, is that on 10-02-1999 at about 3.20 p.m., while the claimant was proceeding by walk on the left side of the road margin at the outskirts of Sattenapalli Town, R.T.C. bus bearing No.AP-9-Z-9098 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed the claimant, due to which she sustained crush injury, fracture to left leg and other injuries. She was admitted in Government Hospital, Guntur, where she underwent skin grafting. She sustained permanent disability due to the accident. A case in Crime No.33 of 1999 was registered against the driver of the R.T.C. bus. 4. Respondent filed counter denying the averments of the O.P. 5. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal for trial: 1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the accident due to rash and negligent driving of the APSRTC bus No.AP-9-Z- 9098 by its driver? 2. To what compensation amount the petitioner is entitled to and against whom? 3. To what order? 6. To substantiate her case, the claimant examined P.Ws. 1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-4. On behalf of the respondent R.W.1 was examined and no documents were marked. 7. The contention of the learned counsel for the claimant is that the claimant suffered serious injuries, including fracture of Pelvis. As per the evidence of P.W.3, the claimant was admitted in Government Hospital, Gutur, on 10.2.1999 and discharged on 22.05.1999. As per Ex.A-2, the claimant sustained the following injuries: 1. A bleeding crush injury extending 3” below the umbilicus to the left iliac fossa, left thigh, and left knee joint muscles, tendors exposed, unable to move the limb. 2. An abrasion of 12 cm x 6 cm on the right leg below the knee on the medial aspect, red in colour. 3. An abrasion of 3 cm x 2 cm over the right ankle joint on medial aspect, red in colour. 4. An abrasion 4 cm x 2 cm on the lateral conthus of left eye, red in colour. 5. A lacerated injury of 5 cm x 2 cm x bone deep on left partial region, bleeding present. 6. An abrasion of 5 cm x 3 cm over the left shoulder joint, red in colour. There was a fracture of both hips of Pelvis. Apart from the fracture of upper part of femur, there was a fracture of scapula. 8. The Tribunal in para No.14 of its order observed that there was a wastage of muscle on account of skin-grafting. There was disfiguration of the left thigh, which would continue to exist even after removal of the swellings. Due to the injuries, the claimant suffered for five to six months. The claimant has to put up with disfiguration of left thigh and wastage of muscles, throughout. It was also observed that it is not known how long the stiffness of the joint and limping would continue. While referring to a decision reported in Haradev Kaur and others V. Rajastan State Road Transport Corporation and another[1] , wherein it was held that determination of grant of compensation must be liberal not niggardly, and also by taking all the factors into account, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.25,200/- to the claimant. Keeping in view the nature of injuries suffered by the claimant, I am of the considered view that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is grossly inadequate and the claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. 9. Accordingly, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed, awarding total compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) as claimed in the O.P. before the Tribunal. The additional amount of Rs.74,800/- (Rupees seventy four thousand eight hundred only) shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the O.P. before the Tribunal till realization. In all other aspects, the order passed by the Tribunal shall remain unaltered. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. NOVEMBER 18, 2010. YVL [1] 1992 SVLR page 353