B. K. SOMASEKHARA, J.

( 1 ) THE award of the Motor accidents Claims Tribunal, Anantapur in o. P. No. 274 of 1985 dt. 5-10-1988 is putto challenge by the appellant who is the claimant in the O. P. , and said to be an injured person in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 13-6-1985 at about 3-15 p. m. , near obulesu Kona on the Ghat road due to rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing no. AAZ1899 belonging to the respondent- a. P. State Road Transport Corporation by its driver. It was one of the batch of the cases which was tried together by recording common evidence and disposed of by a common judgment. By recording the evidence of negligence as against the Driver of the bus and by recording a finding of the appellant having suffered certain injuries, in para 17 of its judgment, the Tribunal assessed the compensation at Rs. 10,000/- as a global sum to be paid to the claimant.

( 2 ) ON behalf of the appellant, it is contended that the amount of compensation awarded is inadequate and not commensurate with the injuries suffered by the appellant, the disabilities following therefrom and the loss of many human pleasures by her including the loss of prospect of marriage being a girl to be married shortly. It is also contended that the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 10,000/- arbitrarily without assessing the compensation for various items established in the case. On behalf of the respondent- corporation, the award is sought to be supported by Sri A. V. Sivaiah, the learned standing Counsel. The evidence in the case unchallengingly discloses that the appellant aged about 12 years and a student at the relevant time sustained serious injuries due to the accident. P. W. 9, her father and the guardian testified about the injuries suffered by her. He saw the claimant in the hospital at Tadpatri with injuries. P. W. 31, the Medical officer who examined the claimant in the hospital found the following injuries on her: " (1) lacerated woundof3"x l/2"onthe right parietal region scalp deep; (2) scalds on the right fore-arm. "

( 3 ) X-RAY of the right fore-arm revealed fracture of the radius of lower 1/3rd. There was deformity in the fingers of the right hand. Skin grafting was done on the right fore-arm. Exs. A-7 and A-8, the photos show the burns on the right hand. She was treated in the hospital till 19-7-1985 in the first instance and later on, she was shifted to salaja Hospital, Vijayawada where plastic surgery was done on the skin and on the hand. Although, there is deformity in the fingers of the right hand, the doctor stated that the injuries on her are simple in nature. The Tribunal has made a positive finding on all these aspects. It was also established that rs. 2,587/-were spent for medical expenses in the hospital covered by receipts, Exs. A-5 and A-6. The Tribunal also disagreed with the doctor and recorded that the claimant had suffered grievous injuries on the right hand and deformity of the fingers. Patently, the items of compensation to be awarded in injury cases are not considered and consequently, an arbitrary sum of Rs. 10,000/- was awarded in a case like this. Smt. Ratnam who argued on behalf of Sri Rangaiah has with the aid of certain rulings tried to demonstrate that the amount so awarded by the Tribunal is totally inadequate.

( 4 ) SHE is fundamentally right in postulating that in an injury claim case, compensation should be more than the death case as fortified by her vide pronouncement in a case reported in Khirod Kumar Mishra v. Ramesh Chandra Biswal and Another (1994 ACJp. 1065) and to this we may also add the case reported in Maharani Chopra and Another v. Darshan Lal and Another (1985 ACJ p. 665 ). The reasoning behind such a rule is that a person who dies in an accident is dead once and for all leaving the consequences on the surviving people as against the person injured in the accident will have to suffer physically, economically and socially. There is depravity of the fundamental pleasures, partial ly, totall

Click Here to Read the rest of this document