THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.35 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 19.09.2002 passed in O.P.No.463 of 1996 on the file of the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Nizamabad. Appellant is the United India Insurance Company Limited. Respondent No.1 is the victim and respondent No.2 is the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as arrayed in the O.P. It appears, on 11.02.1996 at about 2.00 p.m., while the petitioner (victim) along with another person was going on a bicycle from Rudrur to Nizamabad and when they reached near Bodhan factory, a scooter bearing No.ABJ 1346, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came in high speed and dashed their bicycle, on account of which, they fell down and sustained injuries, and immediately the petitioner was shifted to Government Hospital, Bodhan. According to the petitioner, he suffered three injuries, apart from losing three incisors of upper left side, and was referred to dental surgeon for treatment. As on the date of the accident, he was aged 40 years and was earning Rs.2,500/- per month as agriculturist and vegetable vendor. On account of the accident, he incurred disability, unable to work and swallow solid food and, therefore, he claimed compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- against respondents 1 and 2. The 1st respondent remained ex parte. The 2nd respondent filed written statement denying the petition averments, putting the petitioner to strict proof of the petition averments and materially contending that as the 1st respondent did not furnish the details of the accident to the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay the compensation. It is also contended that the claim of the petitioner is highly excessive and, thus, the petition is liable to be dismissed. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial:- “1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? 3. To what relief?” In support of the claim of the petitioner, the petitioner himself was examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A4. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was let in, but Ex.B1-xerox copy of the insurance policy was marked. After detailed consideration of the entire material on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the scooter bearing No.ABJ 1346 by its driver. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company did not plead much as to the finding about the negligence of the driver of the scooter, but so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, he strenuously contends that the claim is highly exorbitant and the compensation awarded is excessive, in the facts and circumstances of the case. He also contends that, in fact, the petitioner suffered only simple injuries, besides losing three incisors of upper left side, and there was no permanent partial disability and, therefore, granting of Rs.50,000/-, apart from granting Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.10,000/- towards inevitable expenditure for medicines, transport and extra-nourishment, as compensation to the petitioner is arbitrary and illegal. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 1st respondent supported the order passed by the Tribunal. He contends that Ex.A2- Wound Certificate clearly discloses that the petitioner, besides suffering three injuries, lost three incisors of upper left side and, therefore, it cannot be said that the compensation of Rs.50,000/- granted to the petitioner for the injuries suffered by him can be either excessive or arbitrary. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions of the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. A perusal of Ex.A2-wound certificate clearly indicates the fact that the petitioner sustained three injuries and lost three incisors of upper left side. What exactly the nature of the injuries is not available either in Ex.A2 or in the oral evidence, but in his evidence, the petitioner stated that he underwent treatment as inpatient for about 20 days and continued to take treatment privately. This itself would indicate that even otherwise the other three injuries sustained by the petitioner seems to be little grievous, and therefore, he had to be in the hospital as an inpatient for about 20 days, apart from losing three incisors of upper left side. Under these circumstances, I am not inclined to disturb the findings recorded by the Tribunal in awarding Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the petitioner for loss of three incisors, besides sustaining other injuries, and further awarding an amount of Rs.10,000/- under the head of pain and suffering and Rs.10,000/- towards inevitable expenditure for medicines, transport and extra- nourishment, and the appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. However, so far as the rate of interest is concerned, having regard to the reduced market rate of interest, it is considered just and proper to award interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of appeal till the date of payment, on the balance amount to be paid. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 19.03.2010 v v