THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.338 of 2003 ORAL JUDGMENT: Heard both sides. 2. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 13.10.1999, in O.P.No.52 of 1997, passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Nizamabad (for brevity “the Tribunal”), awarding a sum of Rs.75,000/- in all, as against the claim of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the appellant in a motor accident that occurred on 13.8.1996 at 2-45 p.m., in the limits of Krishnajiwadi village, Nizamabad District, due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of the bus, bearing registration No.AEK 4018, the present civil miscellaneous appeal has been preferred. 3. The appellant herein is the petitioner, first respondent is the owner of the offending bus and the second respondent is its insurer, in the O.P., before the Tribunal. 4. This is a case of injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident. While the claimant was going by walk on the road, the offending bus came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the claimant from behind, due to which the claimant sustained grievous injuries. The claimant was admitted into Hospital. As on the date of accident, the claimant was aged 50 years and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month as mason. The injuries suffered by the claimant are fracture to pelvic bone, due to which he sustained permanent disability. He is unable to pass urine in natural way and further he can neither squat nor stand properly. He has to lead the rest of his life with catheter only. Therefore, he claimed compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him. The other particulars regarding the accident and the aspect of negligence are not referred to since not in dispute. The said claim was opposed by the insurer. 5. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, awarded a sum of Rs.75,000/- towards compensation. Hence the present appeal. 6. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is proper and justified. 7. The evidence of P.W.2, the doctor, is crucial. It is his evidence that he issued Ex.A-9 disability certificate stating that the claimant sustained 60% partial disability and that the claimant was not able to pass urine through natural passage, that the claimant was also suffering from giddiness and headache occasionally. Further, it appears that the claimant was treated in hospital for the fracture of right pelvic bone with rupture of urethra. P.W.2 further deposed that the claimant has been passing urine only through urinary catheter, because of which he has been developing intermittent urinary infection which in long run may lead to kidney failure. There is no much cross- examination and the limited cross-examination is absolutely not sufficient to brush aside the evidence of the doctor. 8. Even the Tribunal also recorded very elaborately the trauma that is likely to occur to the claimant. In fact, the Tribunal expressed its deep concern about the future of the claimant, who has to lead the rest of his life only with a catheter to pass urine. Though the partial disability is noted as 60%, we have to visualize the position where the claimant was placed in. The claimant cannot continue his occupation as mason with foreign material inside his body, that too with asserted vulnerability. The very sense of future complications itself is somewhat traumatic and everlasting for the claimant. Therefore, the said disability, in medical parlance, though estimated as 60%, has to be virtually assessed in right perspective as total disability with a severe insult to the natural functioning of the vital organs of the claimant. 9. However, the Tribunal was very conservative in granting the compensation, while estimating the seriousness of the injuries sustained by the claimant and while expressing its serious concern about the future of the claimant. Therefore, in order to meet the ends of justice, I feel it appropriate to fix the compensation at Rs.1,75,000/-. 10. Accordingly, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed in part, enhancing the total amount of compensation from Rs.75,000/- to Rs.1,75,000/- (Rupees one lakh seventy five thousand only). The additional amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) shall carry interest at 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the O.P. before the Tribunal, till realization. In all other aspects and respects, the order passed by the Tribunal shall stand unaltered. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 24.06.2010 Msr. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.338 of 2003 24.06.2010 (Msr)