B. K. SOMASEKHARA, J.

( 1 ) THESE two appeals arise out of the awards passed in O. P. No. 99 of 1990 dated 20-12-1991 and O. P. No. 98 of 1990 dated 20-12-1991 respectively by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Addl. District Judge), Mahabubnagar. C. M. A No. 305 of 1992 arising out of the order in O. P. No. 99 of 1990 relates to the injury claim case whereas C. M. A. No. 267 of 1992 arising out of O. P. No. 98 of 1990 relates to death case. Although different awards were passed by separate orders in each of the cases, since both the appeals arise out of the same motor vehicle accident occurred on 6-11-1989 involving consideration of common questions of facts and law, they were heard together and being disposed of by this common Judgment.

( 2 ) C. M. A. NO. 305 of 1992: The appellant in this case aged 15 years and a student who suffered injuries during the motor vehicle accident on 6-11-1989 which is found to be due to the negligence of the driver of the Maruthi Car bearing No. CRL. 2727, laid a claim for compensation of Rs. l,50,000. 00from the Respondent No. 1, the owner of the vehicle and Respondent No. 2, the insurer under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the Act ). During the inquiry, it was found that the claimant had sustained head injury, injury to his left eye, fracture of the mandible bone and suffered permanent disability to his left eye, he took treatment for a long time, spent certain amounts for medical expenses and the Tribunal awarded a global compensation of Rs. 50,000. 00 without break up for different counts of items of compensation. The appellant has questioned the adequacy of the compensation.

( 3 ) SMT. Saraswathi, the learned advocate for the appellant-claimant has contended that with the clear evidence of injuries as above and permanent disability to the left eye and the evidence for medical expenses etc. , the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mahabubnagar in O. P. No. 99 of 1990 has awarded inadequate compensation of only Rs. 50,000. 00 as against Rs. 1,50,000. 00 and it requires enhancement. In support of her contentions, she has replied upon several precedents, namely P. Raju v. Managing Director, Chittoor Co-op. Sugars Ltd, 1996 (1) ALT 827, G. Jyoti v. APSRTC, 1997 (1) ALD 211, Depot Manager, APSRTC v. Rama Ramulu, 1997 (2) ALD 535, Pareshbhai v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corpn. , 1994 ACJ 1233 and Deepak Sangha v. Himachal Pradesh State Road Transport Corpn. , 1993 ACJ 299. She has contended that in whatever manner the materials on record are judged in the proper perspective, the just and reasonable compensation cannot be Rs. 50,000. 00 and it must be much more. Mr. Srinivasa Rao, the learned advocate for the Insurance Company - Respondent No. 2, has contended that with the materials, the amount of compensation awarded is adequate and, however, this Court may reassess the matter and find out if there is any scope to review the quantum of compensation already awarded.

( 4 ) IN the first place, the Tribunal has dealt with the matter in a most arbitrary manner. No fundamentals or the basis to award the compensation in an injury claim case are adverted to. A global compensation of Rs. 50,000. 00 which is awarded is totally arbitrary. Except discussing the evidence and drawing inferences, there is no assessment of compensation at all. In Joyti v. APSRTC, (supra) this Court impressed on the Tribunals that the quantum of compensation should be more in a injury claim case than the death case as there would be suffering by the victim or the injured person physically, economically and socially with depravity of the fundamental pleasures partially, totally or permanently and that the items of compensation to be awarded in a injury claim case will give a proper basis to assess the compensation and will lead to passing of a judicious award and not an arbitrary one. In Rama Ramulu s case 1997 (2) ALD 535 supra, it was pointed out that the compensation should not be niggardly and a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document