HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA C.M.A. No.3594 OF 2002 Dated 23-7-2010 Between: D.K.Masthan. …Appellant. And: V.Vasanth and another. …Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA C.M.A. No.3594 OF 2002 JUDGMENT: This C.M.A. is filed aggrieved by the award dated 27/9/2001 in O.P.550/96 passed by the learned Chairman-cum-Additional District Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Court, Nizamabad. 2. The appellant herein, who is the claimant-injured, is the petitioner and the respondents herein are the owner of the lorry and the Insurance Company respectively before the Tribunal. The status of the parties will hereinafter be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience. 3. The facts of the case in brief are as follows: On 15-3-1996, at about 5.30 P.M., a lorry bearing No. AAT: 3707, driven by its driver with a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, came from opposite direction and dashed against the petitioner, who was driving the motor cycle, as a result, the front wheels of the lorry ran over the left and right legs of the petitioner and cycle motor, due to which, the right leg was fractured, 4 upper teeth were lost and the other teeth became loosened and the petitioner received injuries all over his body. He was admitted to Government Hospital, Nizamabad for treatment. Still he is taking treatment from private doctors and in this regard, he incurred an amount of Rs.40,000/- and spent to a tune of Rs.10,000/- towards damages to the motor cycle. In this connection, a complaint was lodged before the Police, Banswada Police Station, based on which, a case in Crime No.60 of 1996 was registered for the offence under Section 338 I.P.C. against the driver of the lorry bearing NO.AAT 3707. 1st respondent remained exparte. 2nd respondent filed written statement denying all the material allegations made in the petition. The respondent company is not aware of the criminal proceedings launched in the matter and the accident is not reported by the insured-1st respondent in collusion with the petitioner with a view to causing loss to this respondent-company, as such, this respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. The claim of the petitioner is highly excessive and arbitrary. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for consideration: 1. Whether the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No. AAT: 3707 by its driver? 2, Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation. If so, to what amount and against which of the respondents? 3. To what relief? The petitioner examined himself as P.W.1 and two others as P.Ws.2 and 3 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.12 on his behalf. On behalf of respondents, no oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.B.1 was marked besides marking of Ex.C1. 9. Heard the learned counsel and perused the material available on record. The petitioner is a Constable, aged about 36 years. At the time of the accident, he was earning Rs.3,610/- per month. The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 coupled with Ex.A.1- injury certificate proves that the petitioner lost two lower and two upper teeth, from which, it can be inferred that the other teeth are also affected. Both the jaws are badly affected as they got loosened and the same also resulted in disfiguration of his facial features. Further, Ex.C.1-Disability Certificate discloses that the petitioner suffered 30% disability. Exs.A.4 to A.7-prescriptions, Ex.A.8-Medical Bill, Ex.A.11-Medical Certificate, Ex.A.12-doctor’s prescriptions also show that the petitioner had to spend huge amounts towards his treatment as well as the purchase of costly medicines. In that view of the matter, as contended on behalf of the petitioner, the amount of Rs.85,000/- awarded towards loss of four teeth appears to be on the lower side. Therefore, this Court is of the view that another amount of Rs.15,000/- may be awarded under the said head i.e., loss of four teeth, making in all, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.85,000/- + Rs.15,000/-). It is further contended that the injuries suffered by the petitioner in the accident also resulted in his facial disfiguration. He is aged only 36 years at the time of the accident. However, no amount was awarded by the Tribunal towards the disfiguration. Hence, this Court is of the view that an amount of Rs.6,000/- may be awarded towards disfiguration. It is further contended that in view of the fact that some of the medical bills are not preserved by the petitioner, he should not be penalized therefor. Therefore, an amount of Rs.8,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. It is also stated that the facial injuries as well as loss of teeth also affected the sight of the petitioner. Considering the plea raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that an amount of Rs.2,000/- may be added to Rs.8,000/- awarded towards medicines. It is further contended that though the appellant had to take treatment for more than a month, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.3,000/- towards conveyance and extra nourishment. Therefore, this Court is of the view that an amount of Rs.2,000/- may be added to the amount of Rs.3,000/- awarded under this head. Thus, a sum of Rs.25,000/- is enhanced to the compensation amount of Rs.1,01,000/- awarded by the Tribunal which comes to a total of Rs.1,26,000/-. However, the interest awarded by the Tribunal at 12% p.a., is reduced to 6% p.a., in view of the decision reported in SARALA VARMA v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION OF INDIA ([1]), in so far as the enhanced amount of Rs.25,000/- is concerned, from the date of the petition. Subject to the above enhancement of compensation amount and reduction of rate of interest, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. ___________________________ Justice B.N.RAO NALLA Dated 23-7-2010. Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA C.M.A. No.3594 OF 2002 Dated 23-7-2010 [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121