JUDGMENT: The Transport Corporation which suffered an award in a sum of Rs.1,75,250 in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.2552 of 1992 filed by the respondent herein before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madras, is the appellant. In an accident involving the vehicle belonging to the appellant corporation, the respondent suffered grievous injuries and she made a claim for Rs.2 lakhs. 2. Her case was as follows: On 15.7.1992 at about 7.50 hours she was travelling by autorickshaw bearing registration No.TN-01-B-3022 along Erukkencherry High Road while the bus bearing registration NO.TML.3278 belonging to the appellant- Corporation coming from south to north driven in a rash and negligent manner attempted to overtake another vehicle and in the process, dashed against the autorickshaw in which she was travelling. The accident was entirely due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle belonging to the appellant- Corporation. The respondent suffered extensive injuries and incurred heavy expenditure for treatment and the amount was liable to be paid by the appellant- Corporation. 3. The appellant- Corporation resisted the claim contending inter alia that the accident was not due to any negligence on the part of the driver of the appellant- Corporation, that one car without prior warning came in front of the vehicle belonging to the appellant- Corporation and suddenly stopped and with a view to avoid dashing against that car, the driver of the appellant- Corporation had to take necessary steps and the autorickshaw driven in a rash and negligent manner without control came and dashed against the bus belonging to the appellant- Corporation. The accident was entirely due to the negligence of the autodriver and the appellant was not liable to pay any amount. The petition for compensation was also not maintainable in as much as the owner of the auto and the insurance company with which the auto was insured were also not made parties. The actual claim had to be established by the respondent. 4. The petition for compensation was also not maintainable in as much as the owner of the auto and the insurance company with which the auto was insured were also not made parties. The actual claim had to be established by the respondent. 4. On the basis of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the necessary points for consideration and on the oral and the documentary evidence, held that the accident was entirely due to the rash and the negligent driving of the vehicle belonging to the appellant- Corporation, that the auto driver was not at all responsible for the accident, that the non-impleading of the owner of the autorickshaw and the insurance Company with which the autorickshaw was insured would not matter and that the claimant would be entitled to be paid a sum of Rs.1,75,250 as the compensation for the injuries suffered by her. The appellant- Corporation has filed the appeal contending that the finding by the Tribunal that the accident was entirely due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle belonging to the appellant- Corporation is erroneous and that in any event, the compensation awarded is excessive. 5. Mr.M.Krishnamurthy, learned counsel for the appellant, vehemently contended that a perusal of the materials on record would clearly show that the driver of the appellant- Corporation was not responsible for the accident and that in any event, the auto driver had contributed by his negligence for the accident. The learned counsel further submitted that with regard to the quantum, the Tribunal had not taken into consideration the relevant guidelines, particularly when there were conflicting reports from the doctors examined on the side of the appellant- Corporation. The learned counsel submitted that one of the doctors has certified permanent disability at 15% and another doctor has certified it as 45% and the Tribunal had not appreciated the inherent contradictions in the reports and the oral evidence of the doctors examined on the side of the claimant. 6. As regards the negligence, a perusal of the relevant materials clearly shows that the accident was entirely due to the negligent driving of the vehicle belonging to the appellant- Corporation. Unless the vehicle belonging to the appellant- Corporation had been driven at a rash and negligent manner, the accident could very well have been averted. 6. As regards the negligence, a perusal of the relevant materials clearly shows that the accident was entirely due to the negligent driving of the vehicle belonging to the appellant- Corporation. Unless the vehicle belonging to the appellant- Corporation had been driven at a rash and negligent manner, the accident could very well have been averted. According to the driver, a car going in front of the bus suddenly stopped and to avoid dashing against that car, he had to swerve to the right and in the process, he hit against the autorickshaw. His own evidence is to the effect that the Erukkencherry High Road was a straight and wide road and at the time of the accident there was not much of traffic. If only he had come at a slow pace, as pointed out by the Tribunal, he could have stopped the vehicle by applying the brakes. The First Information Report also points only to the negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle belonging to the appellant- Corporation. I do not think a contrary view can be taken on the materials. The finding by the Tribunal that the accident was only due to the rash and the negligent driving of the vehicle belonging to the appellant- Corporation is confirmed. 7. As regards the quantum , the Tribunal has awarded the following amounts under the various heads: (1) Transport: Rs. 1,250 (2) Extra nourishment: Rs. 1,500 (3) Medical expenses: Rs. 50,000 (4) Reduction in marital prospects: Rs. 20,000 (5) Pain and suffering: Rs. 12,500 (6) Disability: Rs. 90,000 Total -------------- Rs. 1,75,250 -------------- Ex.P-1 is the discharge summary issued by the Aysha Hospital Private Ltd. The claimant was admitted in the said hospital on 5.7.1992 and was discharged on 29.7.1992. At the time she was admitted in the hospital she was unconscious. The details are found in Ex.A-1. "O/E Patient unconscious ,Dyspnoeic, Restless, Pulse-86/mt., regular, BP-120/80 mm. of Hg, CVS- s1 s2 +, Rs-Bileral rales and Rhonchi + Abd- soft. CNS- PERLA 2mm DTR+plantar L/E: Upper lip lacerated. Ecchymosis right eye +.left eye sub conjustival haemorrage." 8. It is also seen that she was initially taken to Government Stanley Hospital where E.T. tube was put; C.T. scan done and Blood was transfused. She was restless and struggling for breathing and the C.T. scan showed right maxillary and mandihilar fracture with ecchymosis and SCH. Ecchymosis right eye +.left eye sub conjustival haemorrage." 8. It is also seen that she was initially taken to Government Stanley Hospital where E.T. tube was put; C.T. scan done and Blood was transfused. She was restless and struggling for breathing and the C.T. scan showed right maxillary and mandihilar fracture with ecchymosis and SCH. The next day only she became conscious and was responding to oral commands. She had an 2-3 episode of tonic and clinic generalised seizure which lasted for about five minutes. She was given some powerful injection. C.T scan was repeated and it was found as follows: "Left frontal lobe contusion. Generalised cerebral edema. Fracture in the anterior and poster lateral bony walls of the right maxillary sinuses and the greater using of right sphenoid bone. Bilateral maxillary sinus collection of blood neurological status of the patient was the same." She was shifted from CCU to room on 26.7,1992 and on 29.7.1992 against medical advices she was discharged and at the time of her discharge, she was conscious and responding to oral commands by slightly moving her head, but there was no verbal output. The above would clearly show the very serious nature of injuries suffered by the claimant. Merely because the petition did not give details, it would not mean that she did not suffer grievous injuries. 9. After discharge from Aysha Hospital, she was admitted in Dr.Achanta Lakshmipathi Neurosurgical centre, Voluntary Health Services. She was discharged from V.H.S. She was conscious ,opening eyes spontaneously, moving all four limbs, but no vocalisation. C.T.scan of brain (plain) report dated 21.7.1992 showed diffused cerebral edema. In V.H.S. she was treated conservatively with anti-edema measures. She gradually improved in sensorium and on the date of discharge she was conscious, mildly disoriented and continent. She was advised to see a Dental surgeon for the treatment of malocclusion. These details are evident from Ex.P-2. The doctor who treated her was Dr.Arjun Srivatsa. 10. There is Ex.P-3 issued by Malar Hospitals on 21.7.1992. The report gives the following details as the impression gained by the doctor in Malar Hospital: 1. Left frontal lobe contusion 2. Generalised cerebral edema 3. Fractures of the anterior and postero-lateral bony walls of the right maxillary sinus and the greater wing of right sphenoid bone. 4. Bilateral maxillary sinus Collection (of blood). The report gives the following details as the impression gained by the doctor in Malar Hospital: 1. Left frontal lobe contusion 2. Generalised cerebral edema 3. Fractures of the anterior and postero-lateral bony walls of the right maxillary sinus and the greater wing of right sphenoid bone. 4. Bilateral maxillary sinus Collection (of blood). Ex.P-4 is the First Information Report, Ex.P-5 is the sketch and Ex.P-6 is the charge-sheet. Ex.P-7 is a batch of hemoglobin reports from Irfan X-Ray & Labs. Ex.P-8 series are the bills for purchase of medicine and also the receipt issued by Dental Surgeon for Surgical correction of mandibular deformity and lip deformity under general anesthesia. The bill is for Rs.23,653. Ex.P-9 is the disability certificate issued by Dr.N.Sai Chandran, who was examined as P.W.2. He has certified the extent of disability as 15%.He has certified the disability to be permanent. Ex.P-10 is a bunch of X-rays. Ex.P-11 is the Dental Disability Certificate issued by Dr.T.S.Kalkura examined as P.W.3. In the remarks column, he has said: (1) the patient is having less teeth and a scar in the shape of # in the upper causing disfigurement; (2) Disfunction due to mal-occlusion upper and lower teeth not occluding and the above disability is of permanent nature and is partial, 45% directly due to the road traffic accident. As the patient is having denture, the disability is restricted to 35%. The denture has to be removed every five years. Ex.P-12 is the certificate issued by Dr.S.Gopalan and in the remarks column in the said certificate, it is stated as follows: (1) Left frontal contusion generalised edema 10% (2) # Right maxilla 10% (3) # left maxilla 10% visual............ Rhinosshea facial fits, vertige and the percentage is partial permanent. 11. The doctors examined on the side of the claimant have stuck to the certificates issued by them in their oral evidence. It should not be forgotten that the claimant is a girl aged about 16 years old and because of the accident she had suffered serious injuries and facial disfigurement. She has lost several teeth-4 in the upper jaw and 3 in the lower jaw and her marriage prospects will be very seriously affected. She had been an inpatient in at least three hospitals for treatment. She must have undergone extensive pain and suffering during the treatment. She must have got shaken both mentally and physically. She has lost several teeth-4 in the upper jaw and 3 in the lower jaw and her marriage prospects will be very seriously affected. She had been an inpatient in at least three hospitals for treatment. She must have undergone extensive pain and suffering during the treatment. She must have got shaken both mentally and physically. The various exhibits marked in the case and the details already set out above would clearly show that the amount awarded by the Tribunal cannot at all be stated to be excessive. The respondent had claimed Rs.50,000 towards medical expenses and this claim is clearly supported by several documents. During the period of her treatment she must have been advised nutritious food. Under this head the Tribunal has fixed only Rs.1,500, which in my view, is grossly unadeguate. At least a sum of Rs.5,000 should have been awarded under this head. For transport, a meager Rs.1,250 has been awarded by the Tribunal. This also should have been much more. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000 towards the diminishing in her marriage prospects. The disfigurement in the face and particularly when the person is a girl, has its sad story to tell. For pain and suffering, though the claimant had restricted it to Rs.15,000, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.12,500 and much more should have been given under this head .She suffered head injuries, skull fracture, laceration and abrasions all over the body. Though there may be some excess amounts awarded under one head and less amounts under other heads, taking an overall picture, I find that the amount awarded by the Tribunal cannot at all be stated to be on the high side. In my view, much more should have been given to the claimant, at least the amount claimed by her, viz., Rs.2 lakhs. 12. I do not find any merit in the civil miscellaneous appeal and the same is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. 13. So far as the interest is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded 15%, which cannot be sustained. The award of the Tribunal shall stand modified to the extent that instead of 15% the claimant would be entitled to 12% interest.