HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.681 OF 2002 JUDGMENT: Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, claimant filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the order made in M.V.O.P. No.386 of 1999 dated 31-01-2001 by the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati, whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.26,000/- to the claimant as against his claim of Rs.2,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in an accident on 24-10-1997. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they arrayed in the M.V.O.P. before the Tribunal. 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are as under: (a) On 24-10-1997 at about 2-30 AM, while the claimant was travelling in the lorry bearing No.AP03-T-8452 as Cleaner, in the return journey from Vijayawada, near Etukuru bypass road, as the driver of the lorry drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against a stationed lorry bearing No.ATK – 18, he (claimant) suffered fracture to his left thigh and fracture and crush injury to left foot. He was admitted in the Government General Hospital, Guntur and later shifted to SVRR Hospital, Tirupathi. A case in Crime No.210 of 1997 was registered against the driver of the lorry for the offence under Section 337 IPC and investigated into by the Guntur Rural Police. Hence, claimant claimed compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-. (b) Respondent Nos.1 and 2, owners of the lorries involved in the accident, remained ex parte and respondent No.3, insurance company, alone filed its counter denying the case of the claimant. 4. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal for trial: “ 1. Whether R2’s driver drove the lorry bearing No.AP03- T-8452 rashly, negligently and dashed against lorry ATK 18 causing fractures of left thigh bone, left foot of petitioner on 23- 10-97 @ 2-30 PM at Etukuru bus stop, Guntur ? 2. Whether Respondent No.2’s driver held valid driving licence to drive heavy goods vehicle ? 3. Whether petitioner is entitled for any compensation as prayed for ? 4. To what relief ? ” 5. To prove his case, claimant got examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-6. On behalf of the respondents, RW.1 was examined and Exs.B-1 and B-2 were marked. 6. Based on the evidence on record, Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.26,000/- to the claimant with interest at 9% per annum as against his claim of Rs.2,50,000/-. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, claimant filed this appeal seeking enhanced compensation. 7. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the claimant is entitled to higher compensation than the compensation awarded by the Tribunal ? 8. The Tribunal observed that though the claimant stated that he earns Rs.1,500/- per month as Cleaner, he did not file any proof to show his income, occupation and age. Further, he seems to be aged 22 years as per the age mentioned in the deposition and 19 years as per the claim petition, however, he did not speak about his age while giving evidence and he should have obtained his date of birth certificate from the authorities concerned. 9. As contended by the learned counsel for the claimant, the above observations of the Tribunal are somewhat irrelevant. At the time of filing of O.P., if the claimant was aged 19 years at the time of giving evidence, he would be aged 22 years as the claim petition came up for hearing after more than two years. Such being the case, observation of the Tribunal that age of the claimant mentioned as 19 years in the claim petition and 22 years in the deposition is irrelevant. Similarly, there was no necessity for calling of his date of birth certificate, as it is a case of injuries but not of death. 10. According to the evidence of PW.2, medical officer, he worked in SVRR Hospital, Tirupathi and he treated the claimant in that hospital. Claimant suffered fracture to his lower third of left femur and compound fracture to left ankle involving left medial malleolus. Skin grafting was done for the wound over the left ankle and foot and there was shortening of the left leg by 3 inches. 11. Ex.A-5, case sheet, shows that claimant was admitted in the hospital with fracture of shaft femur and compound fracture of left middle malleolus and that there was bone deep laceration of left ankle and he was admitted in the hospital on 24-10-1997 and discharged on 03-02-1998. Thus, for more than four (4) months he has taken treatment in the hospital. The case sheet also shows that he underwent surgery in that hospital. 12. It is a case, where claimant suffered serious injuries to his left leg and on account of the same his leg is shortened by about 3 inches. He was inpatient for four months in SVRR Hospital, Tirupathi and he was permanently disabled and he was only 18 years old at the time of accident. He must have spent substantial amount for treatment, medicines, attendants and extra nourishment etc. Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- for each grievous injury, Rs.1,000/- for all simple injuries, Rs.3,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.2,000/- for pain and suffering, in all Rs.26,000/-, which, as contended by the learned counsel for the claimant, is totally inadequate in a case of this nature, where claimant suffered serious injuries and became permanently disabled and his leg was shortened by 3 inches. As the claimant was in the hospital for about four (4) months, he can be awarded an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of income, attendants’ expenses during treatment period and extra nourishment etc. As he suffered two fractures to his left leg, he must have experienced serious pain, as such, an amount of Rs.10,000/- can be awarded towards pain and suffering. Further, as he became permanently disabled at a very young age of 18 years and on account of the same he is deprived of several amenities in life apart from losing substantial earning capacity, an amount of Rs.60,000/- can be awarded to him for the same. Thus, in all, claimant would be entitled to Rs.90,000/- towards compensation. Accordingly, compensation is enhanced to Rs.90,000/- from Rs.26,000/-. 13. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part awarding a total compensation of Rs.90,000/- to the claimant. However, rate of interest is reduced to 7.5% per annum form 9%, as per the latest pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is further ordered that the entire amount of compensation shall be kept in fixed deposit in a nationalized bank and the claimant shall be paid accrued interest thereon every month. He can withdraw 50% of the principal amount only after three (3) years from today and the remaining 50% one year thereafter. No order as to costs. __________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J July 2, 2010. NOTE: Dispatch the order within one week. (B/O) PV