JUDGMENT :

By way of this appeal, the appellant/minor challenges the award, dated 02.08.2005, passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry, in O.P. No. 176 of 2001, whereby and whereunder the claim petition filed by the appellant, represented by his father, seeking compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident, was allowed in part and a sum of Rs.47,581-50 ps. was granted towards compensation under various heads. According to the appellant, the aforesaid compensation is not just and fair compensation, and therefore, the same has to be enhanced.

2. The case of the appellant is that he was aged about 12 years at the time of accident. On 29.09.2000 at about 10.00 a.m. he was proceeding to his house at Rampachodavaram after getting down a bus, at that time, one RTC bus bearing registration No. AP 9Z 5249 came in a rash and negligent manner and ran over his left leg resulting in grievous injuries to him. Due to the accident, he incurred heavy medical expenses, attendant charges, special diet charges, transportation charges and also sustained permanent disability. The accident has occurred due to the negligent driving on the part of the driver of the bus.

3. The 1st respondent was set ex parte. The 2nd respondent filed counter by denying the material averments made in the petition. It is contended that the accident occurred only due to negligence of the appellant and thus, the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation.

4. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of the appellant, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.8 and Exs.X.1 and X.2 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents.

5. Based on the material available on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus and accordingly, the Tribunal has partly allowed the petition and granted compensation of Rs.47,581-50 ps. to the appellant with proportionate costs and interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit against both the respondents. Aggrieved against the said order, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal for enhancement of the compensation.

6. Smt. Sudha Rayudu, learned counsel representing Mr. K. Venkatesh, learned counsel for the appellant on record, has contended that the award passed by the Tribunal is bad in the eye of law and the Tribunal has failed to consider the fact that the appellant sustained serious injuries, due to which his big toe was amputated for which the appellant has to suffer throughout his life, moreover, losing of one or more toes can effect balance and it disqualifies him from attending competitive exams. She further contended that the Tribunal disbelieved the evidence of P.W.2-doctor with regard to amputation of big toe of the appellant, which led to permanent disability, and skin grafting. The learned counsel, therefore, prays that the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards permanent disability and non-pecuniary damages may be enhanced.

7. On the other hand, Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, has submitted that the Tribunal has arrived at just and proper conclusion after taking into consideration the material on record and after appreciating the evidence in proper perspective and rightly awarded compensation of Rs. 47,581.50 ps. Therefore, no further enhancement should be made and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

8. In view of the above contentions, what is required to be seen is, whether the Tribunal while granting the aforesaid compensation properly considered the case of the appellant for his permanent disability or not, If so, to what extent ?

9. POINT: The Professor of Orthopedics, Rangaraya Medical College, Kakinada, was examined as P.W.2. In his evidence, he deposed that he conducted surgery on the appellant call