HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO. 908 OF 2000 Dated: 18.03.2010 BETWEEN: Baby Mahitha .. Appellant And Md.Azeemuddin and others .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.908 OF 2000 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed on behalf of Baby Mahitha, who is the injured claimant represented by her father-natural guardian challenging the award dated 07.12.1999 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar in O.P.No.158 of 1992. 2. This appeal is filed on the ground that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal below is grossly inadequate, not just and reasonable and deserves to be enhanced. 3 . The accident took place on 14.11.1991, wherein the injured- claimant who was aged 1 ½ years was travelling in an RTC Bus bearing No.AEZ 1680 along with her family, and while on it’s way, the bus dashed the lorry bearing No. AAT 4526, which was coming in the opposite direction. The Tribunal recorded a finding that the accident occurred solely on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus. The said finding attained finality as the respondent corporation did not prefer any appeal. An amount of Rs.79,643/- was claimed on behalf of the injured baby by her father against which the learned Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.20,000/- as compensation on all counts. 4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the respondents 3, 5 and 6. 5. The point for determination in this appeal is whether the compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or it requires any enhancement as urged on behalf of the appellant? 6. It is borne out from the evidence of PW.1, the father of the injured baby that in the accident the injured baby fell down from the lap of grandmother and received head injuries and lost consciousness. Initially, she was referred to NIMS, Hyderabad and was treated as inpatient for 15 days. The evidence of PW.1, further discloses that due to head injury she was attacked with diphtheria and was referred to fever hospital where she was treated for 15 days and that about six months prior to filing of the petition, she was referred to psychiatrist in NIMS hospital. Despite the prolonged treatment, her behaviour became abnormal and her educational career has been affected. According to PW.1, he had spent an amount of Rs.50,000/- or Rs.60,000/- towards her treatment. 7. The evidence of PW.2-doctor A.K.Purohit, NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad is that the injured was admitted in NIMS hospital on 15.11.1991 and discharged on 30.11.1991. Subsequently she was admitted in NIMS on 12.12.1991 and discharged on 13.12.1991. The injured has higher mental function impairment and facing difficulty in walking because of the injury to the brain and due to medication, she was subjected to fits. It is also the evidence of PW.2 that the injured took medicines for three years and was treated conservatively for infra cranial injury. Exs.A.1 to A.11-medical records reveal that because of head injury she suffered multiple cranial fractures in both parietal and frontal bone, hyper dense lesions in left tempo-parietal region and right parietal regions with surrounding oedema and two hypodense lesions in both paraventricular areas of lateral ventricles were noticed. 8. There is no dispute about the fact that at a tender age, the injured baby received grievous injury to the head and subjected to lot of pain and suffering and mental agony and was under prolonged treatment. A meager amount of Rs.5,000/- was granted by the Tribunal towards the grievous injury suffered by the injured claimant as against the claimed amount of Rs.25,000/- and an amount of Rs.5,000/- was granted by the Tribunal to the injured claimant towards compensation for pain and suffering and in the opinion of this Court, the said amounts are not just and reasonable. Therefore, a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards disability/grievous injury and Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering can be awarded to the injured claimant, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Further, the Tribunal having noticed that there was a lapse as argued by the learned counsel for the appellant in marking the medical bills which were filed along with the claim petition, but only marking Ex.A.2 final bill issued by the NIMS Hospital for Rs.5,953/-, granting only an amount of Rs.2,000/- towards medical expenses which is not just and reasonable and the Tribunal ought to have granted a sum of Rs.9,000/- which was claimed by the injured towards medical expenses. Therefore, a sum of Rs.9,000/- is granted to the injured claimant towards medical expenses. Further, An amount of Rs.2,000/- granted by the Tribunal towards transport to the hospital is just and reasonable and the same cannot be interfered with in this appeal. In all, the injured claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.61,000/-. Therefore, the enhancement would be Rs.41,000/- (Rs.61,000/- minus Rs.20,000/-). Since interest awarded by the Tribunal below is on higher side, the same is reduced to 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part enhancing the compensation from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.61,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ R.KANTHA RAO,J Dated: 18.03.2010 kvrm