UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO Vs. B BHASKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal preferred by the Insurance Company against the order dated 21st March, 1989 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sangareddy in O.P.No.1134 of 1987 awarding a total compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner for the injuries sustained by him on account of the dash given by the 1st respondent in O.P.due to his rash and negligent driving of the vehicle.

(2.) P.W.1 is the father of the injured, who is a minor aged about 9 years. P.W.2 is an eye witness and P.W.3 is the minor boy himself. Their evidence clearly establishes that the accident occured due to the rash and negligent driving of the van by its driver, and that the injured P.W.3 received grievous injuries. His right foot was crushed completely fracturing all the bones of the foot, toe and second finger were completely damaged and the third finger of the foot also was damaged and later on the toe and second finger were amputated. So far as the accident is concerned and the claimant P.W.3 receiving injuried there is no dispute. Whether the quantum of compensation granted is reasonable or not is the only question to the decided in this appeal. At certain times certain disabilities suffered by the injured may not find place from the medical record but that can be seen by visual observation. It is observed by the trial court after seeing the injured who had an opportunity to see him and who was examined as P.W.3 that a mere look at the photoes Ex.A-12 go to show that how much disability was permanent. It was also observed that the right leg of the injured was getting thinner and thinner from the right knee cap downwards and still big patch is there which cannot be cured, and that the frontal photo indicates how the fingures were fractured and jigjagged and the boy even cannot wear a chapper even. When the lower court had an opportunity to examine the boy and observe as above, it can be said that it will have an impact on the health of the boy. We have to take into consideration the over all impact on account of the injuries. He has lost his bright future. Even though the medical office has not been examined, the lower tribunal on examination of the injured fully satisfied that he has to lead a crippled life. No doubt, as is contended by Mr. I.A.Naidu, the disability may result in an advantageous position to the injured as it will facilitate him to get a seat in professional colleges and there is every chance of the injured getting a job. Such remote probabilities cannot be taken into consideration. However, the fact remains, that on account of the accident the injured boy handicapped in all respects. He has lost his marriage prospects also. He is only at the age of about 9 years at the time of filing of the petition. That means he has to spend his entire life as a crippled person with agony. Taking into consideration all these facts, I hold that the compensation of Rupees one lakh as awarded by the lower tribunal cannot be said to be on high side, warranting interference by this court.

(3.) The CM.A. is therefore dismissed. No cocts.