HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.518 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in O.P.No.505 of 2002 vide order dated 21-06-2002 by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – cum – Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram, claimant preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. The driver of the lorry bearing No.TV67 – W – 4195 involved in the accident its owner and insurer are respondent Nos.1 to 3 respectively in the O.P. before the Tribunal. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the O.P. 4. The case of the claimant before the Tribunal is that on 09-10-1999 while he was going to Pusapatirega on the scooter bearing No.ATX – 4619 along with one Majji Satyanarayana, near Sattemma Temple, Pydi Bheemavaram, the lorry bearing No.TV67 – W – 4195 coming in the opposite direction being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed, dashed against the scooter, as a result, claimant sustained injuries and another occupant of the scooter died on the spot due to the injuries sustained by him. Immediately, claimant was admitted in Government Hospital, Srikakulam and from there he was shifted to C.D.R. Hospital, Visakhapatnam. He sustained fracture of jaw and lost seven (7) teeth apart from several minor injuries. Hence, he claimed a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. 5. Respondent Nos.1 and 2, driver and owner of the lorry involved in the accident, remained ex parte. 6. Respondent No.3, insurer of the above lorry, alone filed its counter denying the case of the claimant and also its liability for payment of compensation. 7. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial by the Tribunal: “1. Whether the accident and the injuries of the petitioner are due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.T N 67 W 4195 by its driver-R.1 herein ? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation, if so, from which of the respondents ? 3. To what relief ?” 8. To prove his case, claimant got examined himself as PW.1 and also examined the doctor, who treated him, as PW.2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-12 apart from Ex.X-1. On behalf of the respondents, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 9. Based on the evidence on record and after an elaborate consideration of the same, Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.43,500/- to the claimant against all the respondents for payment of compensation jointly and severally with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, claimant preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 10. The contention of the learned counsel for the claimant, appellant, is that apart from suffering certain minor and simple injuries, claimant sustained serious injuries to his mouth i.e., fracture of right lower jaw and losing seven (7) teeth. He also contends that claimant was hospitalized for a substantial period, suffered pain and suffering and permanent disability and developed numbness of lower lip, as such, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is totally inadequate. 11. Since neither of the respondents preferred any appeal or cross-objections, there is no need to decide the question of proving the accident and their liability for payment of compensation. 12. Hence, the only point that arises for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant is inadequate ? 13. On the date of accident, claimant was aged 29 years. According to him, he lost pay for two and half months as he was unable to do any work during that period. He was drawing a salary of Rs.2,200/- a month. So far as the injuries are concerned, he sustained fracture of right jaw and lost seven teeth. As per Ex.A-2, medical certificate, claimant sustained abrasion, lost skin on the left upper arm lateral side, laceration of 3” x ½” x 1” on the right side of lower jaw with depression and the blood was coming out from the mouth. There was fracture of right mandible. 14. The evidence of the medical officer, PW.2, is that claimant sustained fracture of right lower jaw, segments were loosened and there was depression on the face. On 13-10-1999 at 6-30 PM, under general anesthesia, open reduction was done, loose fractured segments were stabilized with the help of mine plate and ostosynthesis bone plates. Fracture segments were fixed with interarch maxillary fixation. The claimant was discharged from the hospital on 17-10-1999 with an advise to take further treatement. Further, the claimant sustained 25% partial disability and developed numbness in lower lip. 15. Thus, there is no dispute about the claimant sustaining fracture of right lower jaw, which is a serious injury causing deformity of the face also to some extent. 16. In the circumstances, I am of the view that awarding a total compensation of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand only) to the claimant towards permanent disability suffered by him due to fracture of right jaw, losing seven teeth, disfiguration of the face, pain and suffering, medicines, loss of income, transportation and extra nourishment etc., would meet the ends of justice and the same is accordingly awarded. 17. Thus, the compensation of Rs.43,500/- awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant is enhanced to Rs.75,000/-. The rate of interest on the enhanced compensation shall be at 6% per annum from the date of O.P. till realization. It is made clear that the rate of interest on the compensation of Rs.43,500/- awarded by the Tribunal shall be at 9% per annum only as ordered by the Tribunal. The claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire compensation soon after its deposit along with accrued interest. 18. With the above enhancement in the quantum of compensation and the directions, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. No order as to costs. ___________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J December 30, 2010. PV