Judgment : 1) Questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District and Sessions Judge (F.T.C), Markapur, Ongole (for short “the Tribunal”) in O.P.No.488 of 2007 for the death of deceased-Brahma Reddy, 8 years old boy, as low and inadequate, his parents who were the claimants before the Tribunal preferred the present M.A.C.M.A. 2) The factual matrix of the case is thus: a) The claimants are residents of Kambalapadu village in Podili Mandal of Ongole District. On 27.09.2007, when their 8 years old son Brahma Reddy who was studying 3rd class, while playing with his urchins in front of his house came on to the road leading from Podili to Nandyal, at that time, a Maruthi Car bearing No. AP 21 L 3784 belonging to 1st respondent came at high speed being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the boy. Thereby the boy fell and suffered grievous injuries. It is the case of the claimants that injured boy was taken for treatment to different hospitals i.e., at first to Government General Hospital, Ongole and later, on the advice of the doctors, to Peoples Trauma Hospital, Guntur where scanning was done to the boy. Since the doctors there expressed no hope of surviving, again the boy was brought back to Government General Hospital, Ongole and he was again shifted to Venkat Ramana Nursing Home, Ongole. Their efforts could not fructify and ultimately the boy was succumbed to injuries on the intervening night of 30/1.10.2007. The claimants ascribed that the car driver was responsible for the accident. Hence they filed O.P.No.488 of 2007 against respondents 1 and 2 who are owner and insurer of the offending car and claimed compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- under different heads. b) The 1st respondent remained ex parte. c) The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company filed counter and opposed the claim denying the entire case of the claimants. Inter alia respondent No.2 contended that the accident was occurred due to the fault of the deceased himself as he suddenly came on to the road unmindful of the traffic and thereby he met with an accident. On this ground, respondent No.2 denied its liability. Further respondent No.2 contended that the driver of the 1st respondent did not hold valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident and 1st respondent committed violation of terms of the policy. On this ground, respondent No.2 denied its liability. Further respondent No.2 contended that the driver of the 1st respondent did not hold valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident and 1st respondent committed violation of terms of the policy. On this ground also, respondent No.2 denied its liability. Nextly, respondent No.2 denied the age, health condition and education of the deceased and urged to put the claimants in strict proof. Finally, it contended that the claim under different heads is highly excessive and untenable and prayed to dismiss the O.P. d) The judgment of the Tribunal shows that during trial, PW.1 was examined and Exs.A.1 to Ex.A.3 were marked on behalf of claimants. Respondent No.2 did not adduce any evidence. e) The judgment further shows that regarding the proof of rash and negligence of the car driver, the Tribunal held that since the claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”) the claimants are not liable to prove the rash and negligence on the part of the vehicle driver, except proving the death of the deceased due to Motor Vehicle accident. Then regarding the quantum of compensation, considering the age of the boy, the Tribunal selected multiplier 15 and notional annual income at Rs.15,000/- following the Second Schedule of the Act. From the said notional income it deducted 1/3rd towards the personal expenditure of the boy and multiplied the balance amount with multiplier 15 and arrived at a figure of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rs.10,000/- X15) and awarded the said amount towards the loss of earnings of the deceased. Further, the Tribunal also awarded Rs.2,500/- towards the loss of estate and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses as per Second Schedule. Then regarding the medical expenditure, considering the medical bills covered by Exs.A.7, A.9 and A.10, the Tribunal granted Rs.14,592/-. The Tribunal did not admit the medical expenditure covered by Ex.A.8 issued by Rama Diagnostic Centre, Guntur on the ground that the claimants failed to prove that the boy was treated in Peoples Trauma Hospital, Guntur. Thus the Tribunal granted a total compensation of Rs.1,71,092/- under different heads as stated supra. Hence, the appeal by the claimants on the ground that compensation is low and inadequate. 3) Heard arguments of both sides. 4) Learned counsel for appellants has, on two grounds, criticized that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is low and inadequate. Thus the Tribunal granted a total compensation of Rs.1,71,092/- under different heads as stated supra. Hence, the appeal by the claimants on the ground that compensation is low and inadequate. 3) Heard arguments of both sides. 4) Learned counsel for appellants has, on two grounds, criticized that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is low and inadequate. Firstly, he argued that the deceased who met with accident on 27.09.2007, died after three days i.e., on the intervening night of 30/1.10.2007 and during these three days, his parents shifted him to different hospitals with fond hope of surviving their little son. In the process, they spent about Rs.40,000/-. He submitted that the boy was treated in Government General Hospital, Ongole, Peoples Trauma Hospital, Guntur and also in Venkat Ramana Nursing Home, Ongole. Having regard to the fact that treatment in private hospitals is a costlier affair nowadays, the Tribunal ought to have granted Rs.40,000/- towards medical expenditure and transportation charges though the claims due to their illiteracy and anxiety could not preserve and produce the relevant medical bills. He submitted that grant of Rs.14,592/- towards medical expenditure is too low an amount in the circumstances of the case. Secondly, criticizing the Tribunal’s deducting 1/3rd from the notional income of the deceased to arrive at the loss of earnings to his family, learned counsel argued that in those cases where deceased happened to be a grown up person, there is a reasonability in deducting 1/3rd of his earnings towards his personal expenditure. But in cases of this nature, where the deceased is a child and have no much personal expenditure, he argued, there is no point in deducting 1/3rd from his notional income. Learned counsel submitted that it is not an insurmountable rule that in every case 1/3rd should invariably be deducted from the gross income of the deceased towards personal expenditure simply because it is laid down in Second Schedule of the Act. Thus, he prayed to revise and enhance the compensation by allowing the appeal. 5) Per contra, learned counsel for 2nd respondent argued that the Tribunal has rightly granted Rs.14,592/- towards medical expenditure since the claimants failed to prove the treatment and expenditure in the hospital at Guntur and so there is no point in criticizing the judgment of Tribunal on that count. 5) Per contra, learned counsel for 2nd respondent argued that the Tribunal has rightly granted Rs.14,592/- towards medical expenditure since the claimants failed to prove the treatment and expenditure in the hospital at Guntur and so there is no point in criticizing the judgment of Tribunal on that count. Supporting the Tribunal’s deduction of 1/3rd from the notional income of the deceased, learned counsel argued that the Tribunal rightly followed the Second Schedule and hence it cannot be found fault with. He thus prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 6) In the light of above divergent arguments, now the point for consideration is: “Whether the judgment of the Tribunal is legally and factually sustainable”? 7) POINT: The first argument of appellants is concerned, it may be noted that as per the explanation appended to Rule 475 of Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, two types of damages can be generally claimed by the claimants. They are: 1) Special Damages and 2) General Damages. i. ‘Special damages’ is one which has to be specifically pleaded and proved. It consists of out of pocket expenses and loss of earning incurred down to the date of trial, and is generally capable of exact substantial calculations. ii. Whereas ‘General damages’ is one which the law implies and which is not specially pleaded. It includes compensation for pain and suffering and like and if the injuries suffered are such as to lead to continuing or permanent disability, compensation for loss of earning power. It is needless to say that medical expenditure falls in the category of special damages which needs to be specifically pleaded and proved. However, sometimes the Tribunals may come across a situation where the claimants due to illiteracy, ignorance and efflux of time between the accident and trial, may not preserve the medical bills and prescriptions to prove the medical expenditure in a Court of law. In such circumstances, the Tribunals are not debarred from granting reasonable compensation towards medical and other incidental expenditure, provided if the factum of undergoing treatment in a particular hospital or medical institution is proved by the claimants. 8) Coming to the instant case, in the pleadings except the treatment in Government General Hospital, Ongole and Venkat Ramana Nursing Home, Ongole, there was no averment that the boy was taken to Peoples Trauma Hospital, Guntur for treatment. 8) Coming to the instant case, in the pleadings except the treatment in Government General Hospital, Ongole and Venkat Ramana Nursing Home, Ongole, there was no averment that the boy was taken to Peoples Trauma Hospital, Guntur for treatment. In Ex.A.1-F.I.R and Ex.A.3- Inquest Report also there was no mention about shifting the boy to Guntur for treatment. In those documents it was only mentioned that the deceased was treated in Government General Hospital, Ongole and Venkat Ramana Nursing Home, Ongole. It is only in the evidence of PW.1 we will find for the first time that the boy was taken to Peoples Trauma Hospital, Guntur. So in this back drop, it is difficult to accept the evidence of PW.1 that his son was treated in the hospital at Guntur. So the Tribunal rightly rejected the expenditure covered by Ex.A.8 which was issued by Kamaraju Diagnostic Centre, Guntur, for want of pleading and proof for the treatment at Guntur. 9) Then the second contention of learned counsel for appellants is concerned, since the claim is one under Section 163-A of the Act, the Tribunal rightly deducted 1/3rd from the notional income of the deceased towards his personal expenditure as provided in the Second Schedule of the Act. In a similar case reported in National Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Amesh Mondal and Others ( 2006 ACJ 1706 ), the point for consideration before High Court of Calcutta was, whether the Tribunal was right in not deducting 1/3rd from the notional income of the deceased boy who was aged 11 years. In that context, the High Court of Calcutta held that there was no reason for Tribunal in not deducting 1/3rd amount from the annual income of deceased and accordingly ordered for deduction of 1/3rd amount. The aforesaid decision clearly applies to the facts of the present case. So on a conspectus of facts and evidence, I find no merits in the appeal. 10) Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed by confirming the judgment dated 24.09.2008 passed by the Tribunal in O.P.No.488 of 2007. No costs. 11) Miscellaneous applications if any pending in this appeal, shall stand closed.