Judgment : The claimant - a Mathematics teacher and a mother of two young children aged 4 and 3 years respectively, preferred this Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation of Rs.2,11,000/- awarded as against her claim of Rs.6,00,000/-. The Appellant got down from a city bus owned by the 1st respondent bearing registration No. TAY 5225, plying on route No.15 of Guntur city, at about 4-00 pm on 19-08-1996, at Vidyanagar Centre. She was walking ahead of the bus stationery and while so, the bus driven rashly and negligently by it’s driver, hit her from behind, as a result of which, she fell on to her right side. The left front and the rear wheels of the bus ran over her legs, causing bleeding injuries on her legs. When the shocked onlookers raised a hue and cry, did the errant driver realize his folly and bring the vehicle to a halt after it moved a further good distance away from the accident spot. The injured claimant-Appellant has been shifted to a hospital for receiving medical attention. She was, ultimately, admitted to a private nursing home, where one of the reputed Orthopedic Surgeons in the city, by name, Dr. Lakshmana Swamy, treated her. She remained as an inpatient for 60 days and was, ultimately, discharged from the hospital on 18-10-1996. The Appellant laid a claim seeking compensation initially for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and updated it to Rs.6,00,000/- by soliciting an amendment, subsequently on the count of mitigating factor of pain and suffering for the injuries sustained. Towards loss of amenities, she claimed a sum of Rs.40,000/- and a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of family life. She has also solicited compensation for a sum of Rs.35,000/- under the head of loss of earnings. She has claimed medical expenses of Rs.35,000/-. She also laid a further claim towards medical expenses of Rs.45,000/-, which she is liable to incur at the near future. She also claimed compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the permanent partial disability sustained by her due to the accident; and lastly, she solicited a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for securing manual assistance by engaging a permanent cook. The 1st respondent remained ex parte and the 2nd respondent – insurance Company had contested the claim. She also claimed compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the permanent partial disability sustained by her due to the accident; and lastly, she solicited a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for securing manual assistance by engaging a permanent cook. The 1st respondent remained ex parte and the 2nd respondent – insurance Company had contested the claim. The 2nd respondent had admitted that the motor vehicle in question had been insured by it. It had disputed the accident and put the claimant to prove and establish it. The Appellant has examined herself as PW-1. She has examined Dr. Lakshmana Swamy – Orthopedic Surgeon, who treated her, as PW-3. She has also examined PW2, whose services have been utilized by her for securing manual assistance. The Appellant has also got marked Exs.A-1 to A-8, as documentary evidence on her side. Ex.A-1 is a copy of the First Information Report (FIR). Ex.A-2 is the statement given by the doctor to the Police intimating about the admission of the Appellant, as it is a Medicolegal case. Ex.A-3 is the wound certificate issued by the doctor. Ex.A-4 is the medical bill issued by PW-3. Ex.A-5 is a bunch of medical bills and prescriptions. Ex.A-7 is the certificate issued by the Zonal Manager of the employer of the husband of the Appellant stating that no medical reimbursement has been claimed by him due to the injuries sustained by the Appellant herein in the accident. Ex.A-8 is the salary certificate issued by the Headmistress, Government High School for Girls, Guntur, to the Appellant indicating her salary particulars for the month of August 1996. The Appellant, as PW-1, has given complete description in great detail as to how the city bus from which she alighted at Vidyanagar Centre came from behind, hit her and caused the accident. Ex.A-1 is the FIR lodged by the Appellant herself. Ex.A-1 is registered on 19-08-1996 and the contents thereof are generally in collaboration with the deposition of PW-1. The nature of injuries as certified in Ex.A-3, would clearly vouch that they could have been sustained only due to an accident of the nature described by the Appellant. Therefore, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (henceforth referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) has no hesitation to return a finding that the accident in question had occasioned wholly due to the rash and negligent manner of diving the city bus by it’s driver. Therefore, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (henceforth referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) has no hesitation to return a finding that the accident in question had occasioned wholly due to the rash and negligent manner of diving the city bus by it’s driver. There is no evidence to the contra on record even to slightly upset the finding in this regard. Therefore, the only question that remains to be answered is, as to how to go-about compensating the Appellant for the injuries sustained by her and the resultant loss. The Appellant had examined Dr. Y.Lakshmana Swamy, the Orthopedic Surgeon, who treated and operated upon her as PW-3. He has described the nature of injuries sustained by the Appellant as under: “She had fracture of neck of femur left, fracture of femur shaft, left leg. Fracture of pelvis, fracture of both bones of left leg. Fracture of shaft of right femur.” He had deposed that he had operated upon the Appellant at his nursing home and he had done intra-muscular nailing for setting right the fracture of the right femur and he has fixed the fracture of the left femur by implanting a plate. For fracture of the left tibia, plate and screws were fixed by him and for the fracture of the pelvis and left hip, the patient was treated conservatively with pin traction. He had also deposed that the plates, screws and nails were removed by undertaking a surgery later on. Most importantly, the Orthopedic Surgeon has deposed that there was shortening of the lower left limb by one inch and that there was also a slight restriction of the knee joint and the hip movements on either side are also slightly restricted. He opined that the patient will have difficulty to squat and she might even have a certain amount of difficulty to be a pillion rider on a scooter. It was clearly stated that the Appellant could not regain the normal gait in her walk, though she would be able to go to the school and perform her functions as a teacher. The Orthopedic Surgeon has also opined that the Appellant had suffered partial permanent disability by about 30 to 40%. This evidence of the doctor, who is, undoubtedly, a qualified and accomplished Orthopedic Surgeon in Guntur, has been believed and relied upon by the Tribunal. The Orthopedic Surgeon has also opined that the Appellant had suffered partial permanent disability by about 30 to 40%. This evidence of the doctor, who is, undoubtedly, a qualified and accomplished Orthopedic Surgeon in Guntur, has been believed and relied upon by the Tribunal. Since, the Appellant had suffered great pain from out of the five injuries sustained by her, she laid a claim in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards mitigation of the said pain and suffering. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained as well as for the agony undergone by the Appellant. On the count of medical expenses, taking into account and consideration Ex.A-4 – medical bill issued by PW-3 doctor and Ex.A-5 medical bills, a total sum of Rs.40,000/- has been awarded. Since, the insurance Company has contended that the husband of the Appellant was employed with a Public Sector Bank and he would have claimed reimbursement from his employer, to dispel such misgivings, Ex.A-7 has been marked. Ex.A-7 is a certificate issued by the Zonal Manager, Andhra Bank, where the husband of the Appellant was working, indicating that no reimbursement of the medical expenses has been solicited or paid. Subject to the undertaking that if it is held established that the husband of the Appellant had solicited any such reimbursement, the Appellant would repay a sum of Rs.9,520/- out of Rs.40,000/- awarded, the claim has been answered by the Tribunal to the extent of Rs.40,000/-. Placing reliance on Ex.A-8 – salary certificate, the Tribunal had thought it appropriate to compensate her towards loss of earnings by awarding her salary for two months. Thus, a sum of Rs.10,730/- representing the salary for two months has been awarded to her as against the claim of Rs.35,000/-. Though the Appellant has claimed a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of amenities and a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of family life due to the accident, a sum of Rs.10,000/-has been awarded. Coming to the permanent partial disability sustained by the Appellant due to the accident, the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that it would be just and proper to award a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as against Rs.2,00,000/- claimed. Thus, in all, the total amount of compensation awarded came to Rs.2,10,730/-, which has been rounded off to Rs.2,11,000/-. Coming to the permanent partial disability sustained by the Appellant due to the accident, the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that it would be just and proper to award a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as against Rs.2,00,000/- claimed. Thus, in all, the total amount of compensation awarded came to Rs.2,10,730/-, which has been rounded off to Rs.2,11,000/-. As already noticed, the Appellant is not satisfied about the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal as she feels that it is too low and not commensurate to the quantum of suffering left behind by the accident. The learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company Sri Mahender Rao has strenuously contended that the degree of proof required to establish the injuries and the resultant disability suffered, must be very strict and it should not be taken lightly. He also submits that the degree of proof that is needed for establishing the salary certificate Ex.A-8 or Ex.A-7 or the medical expenditure, having not been satisfactorily discharged by the Appellant, she is not entitled for the quantum of compensation solicited. It is not in doubt that PW-3, Dr.Y.Lakshmana Swamy possesses M.S.(Orthopedic) Degree and that he is a specialist. When he himself has examined and noted down the injuries caused to the Appellant right at the admission stage, in his report to the Police, as per Ex.A-2, which finding is confirmed later on and he himself has performed the surgeries and treated her, he is not only certifying as an expert but also with his first hand knowledge. Therefore, the requirements of Sections 45, 59 and 60 of the Evidence Act have been complied with. Hence, I have no hesitation to hold that PW-3’s evidence is admissible and is liable to be given credence. The Appellant was only 33 years old at the time the accident had occurred. She was mother of two young children aged 4 and 3 years respectively. She was working as a Mathematics teacher. She was a qualified graduate trained teacher. The insurance Company had not made any efforts to discredit her evidence by securing any contra evidence to show that she was not working as a Mathematics teacher for the Government Girls High School (Urdu), in Guntur city. She was working as a Mathematics teacher. She was a qualified graduate trained teacher. The insurance Company had not made any efforts to discredit her evidence by securing any contra evidence to show that she was not working as a Mathematics teacher for the Government Girls High School (Urdu), in Guntur city. When the salary certificate Ex.A-8 has been produced and the same is marked, it is certainly open to the insurance Company to have got the same verified through any of it’s inspecting officials. It had not discharged the onus lying on it in that regard. Without making any such attempt, it is certainly not open for the insurance Company to doubt or debate about the genuineness and correctness of Ex.A-8 certificate. All the more so when it was issued by a Head of a Teaching Institution belonging to the Government. I, therefore, have no hesitation to reject the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the insurance Company that Ex.A-8 should be held as not conclusively establishing the employment of the Appellant or her claim of salary of Rs.5,365/- contained therein. The driver of the bus could have been examined to discredit the version set out by the Appellant about the manner of the accident. No such attempt has been made by the respondents. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that the accident had taken place wholly due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by it’s driver, is not open for doubt or debate, in view of the material evidence that was brought on record. The nature of injuries, which are grievous and critical in nature, would clearly indicate as to the sudden crushing suffered by the grave impact of running over by the wheels of a loaded bus. The pain and suffering of the Appellant can only be imagined, which she has suffered for long and sustained periods. Five major injures, which are of grievous in nature, have been recorded, as to have been caused to the Appellant in the accident. These five injuries not only needed surgical intervention and corrections, but yet, the tragedy has left it’s tell-tale effect of the shortening of the left leg by an inch, leaving the Appellant with permanent partial disability as well. These five injuries not only needed surgical intervention and corrections, but yet, the tragedy has left it’s tell-tale effect of the shortening of the left leg by an inch, leaving the Appellant with permanent partial disability as well. In a sense, the quality of her life had suffered visible impact and left her the traumatic experience of having to live with a physical impairment/impediment as well. Therefore, the assessment of the Appellant in seeking compensation in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of pain and suffering appears to be correct. There are no valid reasons as to why this assessment of compensation should be downsized at all. Therefore, I consider it appropriate to award her a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation under the head ‘pain and suffering’. The Appellant has claimed a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of enjoyment of life and a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of amenities. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-. The fact remained that the Appellant was confined to bed in a hospital for two months and it would have taken further three months to resume normal ways of life cannot be lost sight of. Apart from her obligations towards her husband, she also owes a duty to tend for two young children. For no fault they are also denied the love, care and concern of their mother. Therefore, the compensation on this count stands increased to Rs.25,000/-. The Appellant had also claimed a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of earnings. The Tribunal awarded two months of her salary, presumably, taking into consideration and account, the fact that immediately after the accident, the Appellant was confined to the hospital for two months period. But however, what the Tribunal overlooked is that the Appellant has been hospitalized as she had undergone surgical intervention and simultaneously, the fracture to her hip joint has been treated conservatively by way of pin traction. Therefore, she remained in the hospital for the two months period and the subsequent period after hospitalization that is needed for recovery and restoration of normal activities has not bee reckoned at all. Therefore, under the head of ‘loss of earnings’ the Appellant ought to have been compensated for a period of minimum four months instead of two months. Accordingly, the compensation amount for four months comes to Rs.21,460/-. Therefore, under the head of ‘loss of earnings’ the Appellant ought to have been compensated for a period of minimum four months instead of two months. Accordingly, the compensation amount for four months comes to Rs.21,460/-. The permanent partial disability, which has been assessed to the order of 30 to 40%, is sought to be compensated by awarding Rs.1,00,000/-. This assessment of compensation appears to be reasonable, but however, what has been ignored from being compensated to the Appellant is the claim made by her seeking payment of Rs.1,00,000/- for engaging and securing assistance on a permanent basis. PW-2 has been examined to drive home this point. The evidence that was brought on record disclosed that the Appellant’s husband was employed with a Bank and at the time of her accident she had two children aged 4 and 3 years respectively. Therefore, it is only expected that the necessary assistance was required in the matter of discharge of various functions liable to be performed by her at home. That was a circumstance, which has been thrust upon the Appellant, and is the direct manifestation of the accident. Therefore, at least, certain amount should have been awarded to the Appellant, which, if confined to a fixed deposit, would have fetched her considerable amount as interest, enabling her to defray the additional expenses liable to be incurred towards the salary and maintenance of the additional assistance required. Therefore, to this extent, the Tribunal should have attempted to compensate the Appellant. The Appellant has not been paid any amount on that count. It is reasonable to assume that unless a minimum of Rs.1,000/- to Rs.1,500/- is paid every month, a maid help will not become available. Therefore, this is an additional expenditure, which the Appellant had been forced to face all due to the accident. Hence, if an amount of Rs.50,000/- is awarded, which, when confined to a fixed deposit, can reasonably fetch a return of Rs.4,000/- or Rs.5,000/- per annum. That would certainly go in mitigating to a certain extent the additional expenditure. Therefore, a sum of Rs.50,000/- is awarded on that count. The Appeal stands allowed, subject to the modifications indicated supra. No costs.