JUDGMENT:

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 27.02.2006 in M.V.O.P. No.450 of 2000 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Chittoor (for short ‘the tribunal’), the claimant preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of quantum of compensation.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their rankings in the M.V.O.P.

3. The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for a compensation amount of Rs.2,00,000/-with interest.

4. It is the case of the claimant being represented by his father and natural guardian that the claimant was aged about eight years by the time of the accident and that on 05.12.1999 at approximately 10.30 AM while the claimant was proceeding on Kuppam Krishnaji road near substation on Kuppam, the driver of bus bearing No.TN.37.D3399 drove it rashly and negligently dashed against the petitioner causing multiple injuries over his body, and he was immediately shifted to Government Hospital, Kuppam.

5. The owner of the bus, i.e., the 1st respondent, died during the pendency of the proceedings, and his legal representatives 3 to 8 are added.

6. The 2nd respondent contended at the counter, denying the manner of an accident. In the counter, the 3rd respondent contends that the legal 1st representatives 3 to 8 are legal heirs of the deceased, the respondent. The petitioner is to put to strict proof of the nature of injuries caused and medical expenses incurred by him. Respondents 4 to 8 adopted the counter filed by the 3rd respondent.

7. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed relevant issues.

8. To prove the claimant's case, during the trial, PWs.1 to 5 got examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.10. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was let in by them, and also no documents were marked.

9. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal granted a compensation amount of Rs.60,000/-with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition, the liability 1st of respondents 3 to 8 is against the estate of the deceased respondent.

10. The learned appellant counsel contends that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that at the time of the accident, the victim was aged about eight years and suffered two fractures over his left leg above the left knee and below the left knee, and the petitioner underwent two operations in Saint Johnson Hospital at Bangalore, and steel rods were inserted and skin gratifying was done. The Tribunal failed to award the compensation amount under various heads and simply awarded the global compensation, which is against the judgment reported in 2007 (2) ALT 151, and the Tribunal failed to appreciate Ex.A5 medical certificate stating that the petitioner had suffered 30% disability and shortening leg by two inches.

11. The learned counsel for the respondent/insurance company submits that the Tribunal had granted an adequate amount of compensation by considering various heads of compensation. The enhancement sought by the appellant is exorbitant.

12. Now the point for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and requires enhancement.

POINT :

13. The Tribunal, after evaluation of the evidence, has given a finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The finding of the Tribunal that the insurance policy was in force and subsisting at the time of the accident is also not disputed by the respondent/insurance company by filing an appeal or cross-objections. The said finding has attained finality. As such, the facts relating to the manner of the accident need not be discussed in detail. The respondents have also not disputed the case of the petitioners regarding the injuries sustained by him.

14. To prove the injuries sustained by the petitioner, the petitioner relied on Ex.A4 wound certificate issued by the hospital, Ex.A5 case summary and discharge