HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD C.M.A.No.2045 of 2001 02-08-2010 Between: Yerra Srivalli Appellant And Ainala Venkata Suryanarayana and others. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD C.M.A.No.2045 of 2001 JUDGMENT: The award in O.P.No.192 of 1995 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, East Godavari District, Rajahmundry, dated 30-04-2001, is challenged by the aggrieved petitioner in this appeal. 2. The factual background for the appeal is that the appellant then aged 13 years and studying 8th class was involved in the accident on 06-07-1994 at about 5 p.m. near Pulletikurru village, when the lorry bearing Regn. No.AP37 U 7339 driven by the 1st respondent rashly and negligently at high speed dashed against the petitioner’s cycle. The petitioner sustained severe injuries and the cycle was damaged beyond any scope for repair. She was shifted to Government Hospital, Amalapuram and from there to Government General Hospital, Kakinada, and for her suffering and consequences of the injuries, she claimed compensation of Rs.4.5 lakhs from the driver, owner and the insurer of the lorry. 3. While the driver and the owner remained ex parte, the insurer had contested the claim contending that the petitioner herself, being confused, dashed against the lorry and due to her contributory negligence, she is not entitled to any compensation. 4. The Tribunal framed appropriate issues on the manner of the accident and the quantum of compensation, and during enquiry, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-23 and Ex.B-1 were marked. 5. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award considering the rival contentions and the evidence on record and observing that the claims of P.W.1, the petitioner, were not impeached in any manner during the cross-examination. The unrebutted evidence of P.W.1 corroborated by Exs.A-1 to A-4, First Information Report, Wound Certificate, Charge Sheet and Disability Certificate, respectively, and Ex.A-8, copy of the accident register was accepted as proving the happening of the accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry. The Tribunal also noted that the Ex.B-1, copy of the insurance policy, probablises the liability of the respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally to compensate the petitioner. The Tribunal further noted that two surgeries were conducted on the right hand of the petitioner and there was also muscle and skin grafting confining the petitioner to hospital as in-patient for four months. The Tribunal further noted that there was one attendant for the petitioner throughout and the petitioner also had to undergo physiotherapy for three months in a private clinic at Kakinada. The transport of the petitioner from the scene of accident at Amalapuram to Kakinada was also noted and her further treatment at NIMS, Hyderabad, as an out-patient was also taken note of. The Tribunal noted that again a surgery was conducted at NIMS, Hyderabad on 18-01-1996 for vein transplantation, muscle transplantation, and grafting of skin. The multiple trips undertaken by the petitioner in connection with the treatment were also noted and still the petitioner was unable to fold her right hand fingers due to stiffening and restricted movements of the elbow. The disability was noted to be 55% and P.W.1 was also disabled from prosecuting her studies and the adverse effects on the prospects of her marriage were considered. Taking all these circumstances into account including the medical bills and other documents produced by the petitioner, the Tribunal considered it just and reasonable that Rs.50,000/- should be awarded towards medical expenses etc., Rs.2.00 lakhs should be awarded towards permanent disability and Rs.1.00 lakh towards pain, suffering, loss of amenities in life and loss of prospects of marriage. On the total compensation of Rs.3.50 lakhs, the Tribunal awarded proportionate costs and interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization and gave further directions about the withdrawal of the said compensation while dismissing the rest of the claim. 6. The petitioner challenged the said award in this appeal contending that the adversely affected prospects of marriage were not adequately compensated and the entire compensation as prayed may be awarded. 7. Sri M.Lakshmana Sarma, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri B.Devanand, learned standing counsel for R-3 are heard. 8. The point for consideration is the quantum of reasonable compensation to which the appellant is entitled. 9. The girl aged 13 years studying 8th class being severely injured in the accident involving the lorry driven by the 1st respondent owned by the 2nd respondent, insured with the 3rd respondent is not in dispute. None of the respondents had challenged the impugned award and therefore, the conclusion that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the 1st respondent and that the respondents 1 to 3 being the driver, owner and the insurer of the lorry are jointly and severally liable to compensate the petitioner has become final. 10. It is only the quantum of compensation that is in issue and the Tribunal in its elaborate reasoning had noted that the claims of P.W.1, on the tortuous course of prolonged treatment she had to undergo from 06-07-1994, the date of accident, till almost end of 1999, was not controverted by any contrary evidence. Suffering 55% of disability by the petitioner due to the consequences of the accident cannot be in dispute and her version is further corroborated by the medical experts as P.Ws.3 and 4. P.W.3 not only spoke about the treatment given for the severe injuries but also stated that after all the treatment also, there is full stiffness of right elbow with deformity and there is stiffness of right wrist, loss of function of right hand and diminished sensation in the right hand. The medical experts also spoke about the disability of P.W.1 to write with the right hand and her inability of holding objects normally. P.W.3 assessed the percentage of disability even at 60% and this version is corroborated fully by P.W.4, Professor of Plastic Surgery, at NIMS, Hyderabad, that P.W.1’s condition may improve to some extent after undergoing future treatment. The significant functional disability suffered by P.W.1 will not only justify grant of adequate medical expenses etc. and sufficient compensation for the permanent disability as awarded by the Tribunal, but the loss of amenities of life and loss of prospects of marriage were also to be sufficiently compensated apart from pain and suffering. While a sum of Rs.50,000/- granted towards medical expenses is in tune with the documents produced by the petitioner, and Rs.2.00 lakhs granted towards permanent disability need not be interfered with, the amount of Rs.1.00 lakh granted towards various heads of pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life and loss of prospects of marriage appears to be on the conservative side. The adverse impact of the accident on the further studies of the petitioner and the permanent disability of the right hand will have a positive adverse impact on both the amenities of life and also prospects of marriage, which cannot really be quantified in terms of money. 11. Taking into account all the facts and circumstances, awarding a further sum of Rs.50,000/- under these heads may to some extent compensate the petitioner for the loss and suffering, she had to undergo for the rest of her life due to loss of amenities and the adverse impact on prospects of marriage. Hence, the award is to be modified by increasing the compensation by another Rs.50,000/-. Interest on the enhanced amount of Rs.50,000/- can be permitted at the presently accepted rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition i.e. 19-06- 1995 till the date of payment. 12. Accordingly, the Award in O.P.No.192 of 1995 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, East Godavari District at Rajahmundry, dated 30-04-2001, is modified by enhancing the compensation by another Rs.50,000/-, making the total compensation Rs.4.00 lakhs payable with proportionate costs and interest at 9% per annum on Rs.3.50 lakhs and at 7.5% per annum on Rs.50,000/- from 19-06-1995 the date of petition till the date of realization and there need be no further directions about the disbursement of compensation at this distance of time. 13. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed without costs. _________________ 2nd August 2010 KVR