THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No. 1886 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed against the order dated 17.03.2004 in O.P.No.878 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- cum-I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District. According to the claim petition, the petitioner, who is a boy, aged about 3 years, is said to have received injuries in a motor accident on 14.04.1998 at about 7.00 p.m. while he was going along with his mother, a tipper bearing No.ABT 9821 came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the boy and a claim was made for Rs.3,13,500/-. The 1st respondent is said to be the owner of the vehicle, remained ex parte and the 2nd respondent, who is the insurance company, filed counter denying the petition averments, nature of injuries of the petitioner and its liability. The lower Tribunal after considering the evidence on record granted a compensation of Rs.1,56,000/-. Being not satisfied with it, the appeal is filed. The insurance company has not challenged the award or the quantum of compensation. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the lower Tribunal has failed to take into consideration the fact that the petitioner was a boy, aged about 3 years and the nature of injuries suffered by him, causes inconvenience and also disability and because the doctor has not deposed it, the Tribunal should have taken into consideration the above facts. According to the evidence of P.W.2, the petitioner was treated in Kavya Nursing Home, Kukatpally, Hyderabad and the petitioner is said to have sustained disfigurement of lower limb and also scortum, groin and was operated on 17.04.1998 and 18.04.1998 and he was re- admitted on 13.05.1998 subsequently also for skin grafting. He was advised medicines and compressive garments for two or three years. In cross-examination he admitted that the injuries healed but it is a case of permanent disfigurement and the petitioner cannot carry on his daily activities in future also. The lower Tribunal, considering the nature of injuries, granted a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering and medical bills to a tune of Rs.55,331.95 paise was accepted. Evidently, though the evidence of P.W.2 does not disclose any percentage of disability, his evidence is quite clear and the fact remains that the petitioner is a child, aged about 3 years and the disfigurement of the lower limb and also other parts of the body and the operation conducted, will definitely cause restricted movements of disability to some extent. Therefore, taking into consideration the above fact, the rejection of the claim of the appellant towards disability is not proper and I feel the ends of justice would meet, if a total compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) is granted instead of Rs.1,56,000/- as granted by the lower Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J 05-09-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No. 1886 of 2011 DATE: 05-09-2011 MR