JUDGMENT :

Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the award and decree, dated 07.02.2019 made in M.V.O.P.No.1035 of 2014 on the file of the XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short “the Tribunal”), the appellant/claimant preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the minor appellant through her father, filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in a road accident that occurred on 09.02.2014. According to the appellant, on 09.02.2014 while she was returning to her house at 3rd Incline of Kothagudem Town, one Auto Trolley bearing No.AP 37 TC 3981, owned by respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.2, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, dashed the appellant, as a result of which, the appellant sustained fracture to her nasal bone and right femur. Immediately after the accident, the appellant was shifted to Mamata Hospital, Khammam and the father of the appellant had incurred Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses and she also required another amount of Rs.50,000/- for removal of the rod which was inserted to her right femur. It is further stated that due to fracture of nasal bone, the face of the appellant was disfigured and her right leg was shortened due to fracture of right leg femur, therefore, she laid the claim against the respondents, seeking compensation.

3. After considering the claim and the counter filed by respondent No.2, and on evaluation of the evidence, both oral and documentary, the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the O.P. and awarded compensation of Rs.1,37,000/- with interest at 9% per annum. Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded, the present appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant.

4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant mainly submits that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on lower side and seeks enhancement of the same. It is further submitted that the Tribunal did not award any amount under the heads of attendant charges, medical expenses, future medical expenses and also loss of amenities in life and marriage prospects.

6. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is based on evidence and the same needs no interference.

7. The finding of the Tribunal with regard to the manner in which the accident took place has become final as the same is not challenged either by the owner or insurer of the vehicle.

8. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, at the time of accident, the appellant was aged about 11 years. At the tender age of 11 years, the face of the appellant was disfigured due to fracture of nasal bone and her right leg was shortened due to fracture of right femur. No amount can compensate the loss sustained by the appellant at the very tender age. As per the evidence of P.W.2, there is a limping in the right leg and it may be 5 to 10% permanent disability and such limping was due to shortening of leg by 1 cm. and such shortening of leg may not get corrected in future. Further, the evidence of P.W.3, neuro surgeon, shows that the appellant may get headache and epilepsy (fits) due to fracture of nasal bone and that the comprehensive deformity is at 10 to 15% and there will be slur and stammering in the conversation. Considering the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, the Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of income for the disability sustained by the appellant.

9. So far as the loss of amenities and loss of expectation of life is concerned in Kavita v. Deepak and others, (2012) 9 SCC 604, the Apex Court held that victims of ac