JUDGMENT : B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI, J. 1. This appeal is preferred by the claimant, challenging the award dated 10.02.2012 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 609/2007 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Vizianagaram, (for short ‘the Tribunal’) wherein the Tribunal while partly allowing the petition, awarded compensation of Rs.75,900/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as parties in the M.V.O.P. 3. As seen from the record, originally the petitioner filed an application U/s.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) claiming a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of the injuries and disability sustained by the petitioner in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 19.08.2006 under the following heads: Special damages: 1. Compensation for medicines, transport to hospital and extra nourishment Rs. 25,000-00 General Damages: 1. Compensation for pain and suffering Rs. 15,000-00 2. Compensation for loss of earnings due to permanent disability Rs. 1,60,000-00 TOTAL Rs. 2,00,000-00 4. The facts would show that the petitioner is a minor boy, aged 8 years. On 19.08.2006 the petitioner was bringing water from tap to his house at about 09.30 a.m. and while crossing the bypass road, the 1st respondent coming from Nellimerla to Vizianagaram drove the car bearing No. AP35D 0298 in a rash and negligent manner, at high speed and dashed against the petitioner, as a result, the petitioner fell down and received injuries on his left foot, right thigh and parietal region. The petitioner was taken to Sri Sai Orthopaedic Hospital, Vizianagaram, where doctor found fractures to left femur, right thigh, and parietal region, and other injuries all over the body. The doctor conducted operation to left ankle, right thigh, applied plaster of paris and plates. The doctor advised the petitioner to take further treatment using medicines and extra nourishment. Two persons also attended the petitioner to meet his daily routine duties. The father of petitioner spent heavy amount towards medicines. The petitioner was hale and healthy at the time of accident. Due to the accident, the petitioner lost all his future studies and income. The petitioner lost all his amenities, and pleasure of life. The Traffic Police Station, Vizianagaram P.S. registered a case in Cr. The father of petitioner spent heavy amount towards medicines. The petitioner was hale and healthy at the time of accident. Due to the accident, the petitioner lost all his future studies and income. The petitioner lost all his amenities, and pleasure of life. The Traffic Police Station, Vizianagaram P.S. registered a case in Cr. No. 148/2006 for the offence punishable U/s. 338 of Indian Penal Code against the 1st respondent. 5. Before the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent owner filed counter denying the material averments of the petition, contended that she handed over the crime vehicle to the 1st respondent, who is having a valid driving license to drive light motor vehicle. The crime vehicle was insured with the 3rd respondent. If any liability if fixed against this respondent, the 3rd respondent has to indemnify the same. There was gross negligence on the part of petitioner and he did not take proper care while crossing the road. The accident occurred due to negligence of the petitioner. 6. Before the Tribunal, the 3rd respondent/Insurance Company, filed a counter, while traversing the material averments with regard to manner of accident, rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle, nature of injuries, medical expenditure, alleged permanent disability, and liability to pay compensation, and contended that the petitioner has to prove that the 2nd respondent is owner of the crime vehicle and she insured the same with 3rd respondent and there is valid and subsisting insurance policy at the time of accident. The 1st respondent/driver was not having valid driving license at the time of accident. 7. On the strength of the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, at what amount he is entitled? 3. To what relief? 8. To substantiate his claim, the petitioner examined PWs. 1 to 4 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-6 and Ex.X-1. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the 2nd and 3rd respondents. 9. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of PWs. 1 to 4, coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-6 and Ex.X-1 held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the car driver and further taking into consideration the evidence of PWs. 9. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of PWs. 1 to 4, coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-6 and Ex.X-1 held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the car driver and further taking into consideration the evidence of PWs. 1 to 4 corroborated by Exs.A-1 to A-6 and Ex.X-1, awarded a compensation of Rs.75,900/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit under fallowing heads: 1. Medical expenses Rs. 15,900-00 2. Loss of amenities Rs. 25,000-00 3. Pain and suffering Rs. 35,000-00 TOTAL Rs. 75,900-00 10. The contention of the appellant/claimant is that the Tribunal ought to have seen that the appellant suffered grievous injuries to his left foot, right thigh and parietal region in the accident, and that the appellant suffered 25% partial permanent disability, and should have awarded compensation for loss of earnings. Further contention of the appellant is that he underwent operation to set right the fractures and implants were fixed in both legs, and on account of the accident, he incurred Rs.25,000/- towards medical expenses, but the Tribunal awarded only Rs.15,900/- towards medical expense; The Tribunal erred in awarding Rs.35,000/- only towards pain and suffering, though he sustained grievous injuries; The Tribunal also erred in awarding only Rs.25,000/- towards loss of amenities, and thereby the Tribunal erred in awarding only a sum of Rs.75,900/- instead of Rs.2,00,000/- claimed by the appellant/claimant. 11. In the light of above grounds urged in the appeal, the points that would arise for consideration in this appeal are as under: 1. Whether the Tribunal did not award just compensation to the appellant/claimant? 2. To what relief? 12. POINT No. 1: The case of the appellant is that on 19.08.2006 at about 09.30 a.m. the claimant was bringing water from a tap near to his house, and crossing bypass road, the 1st respondent/driver drove the car in a rash and negligent manner while coming from Nellimerla to Vizianagaram, as a result, he dashed the appellant, who received injuries to his left foot, right thigh and parietal region. He was shifted to Sri Sai Orthopaedic Hospital, Vizianagaram. It was found that the appellant sustained fractures to his left femur bone, right thigh bone and parietal region, and operation was conducted to the left ankle, and right thigh, implanting plates to set right the fractures. He was shifted to Sri Sai Orthopaedic Hospital, Vizianagaram. It was found that the appellant sustained fractures to his left femur bone, right thigh bone and parietal region, and operation was conducted to the left ankle, and right thigh, implanting plates to set right the fractures. The father of the claimant spent huge amount towards medical expenditure. The claimant was hale and healthy prior to the accident. The claimant suffered partial permanent disability on account of the accident, and he lost all his amenities and pleasure of life. Police registered a case against the driver of the car, and laid police report (charge-sheet) after investigation for the offence punishable U/s.338 of Indian Penal Code. The 2nd respondent is the owner of the car. The 3rd respondent is the insurer, and therefore, the respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. 13. The Tribunal upon considering the evidence of PW-2, who is an eye witness, and basing on the FIR and copy of charge sheet filed by the police held that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car. No contra evidence was adduced by the insurance company. In that view of the matter, there are no grounds to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal on that aspect. 14. The claimant has examined two doctors as PW-3 and PW-4 in support of his case to prove the injuries sustained by him and treatment. The claimant filed Ex.A-3 copy of wound certificate, Ex.A-4 medical bills and Ex.A-5 X-ray and Ex.A-6 disability certificate, and also Ex.X-1 case sheet relating to the treatment of the claimant. 15. PW-3 evidence shows that he treated the claimant on 19.08.2006, and the claimant sustained injuries as under: 1. Fracture of left foot 2. Femur right thigh and parietal region 16. His evidence also established that after taking x-ray, he conducted operation to set right the above fractures, and fixed steel rods, and thereafter, he discharged the claimant on 28.08.2006, and he was advised to take further treatment, and also to take nourishment, and later the claimant was treated as out-patient, and he issued Ex.A-3 wound certificate, and also Ex.A-4 medical bills, and they are genuine, and Ex.X-1 is the case sheet and three x-rays issued by his hospital. He further deposed that patient require further operation of both legs for removal of steel rods, and it would cost Rs.25,000/- for removal of steel rods, and medicines, and Ex.A-6 is the disability certificate. He denied the suggestion of Insurance Company that the injured can walk freely as prior to the accident. 17. PW-4 deposed that he is working as Civil Asst. Surgeon in Govt. Hospital, Vizianagaram, and he is one of the members of the Medical Board of Vizianagaram, and on 26.04.2011 the claimant attended the hospital, and he has examined the injured person, and that he sustained injuries, which are found in Ex.A-5 x-ray taken at the time of examination, and he thoroughly examined the patient, and wound certificate and came to a conclusion that the patient has 25% disability, and accordingly, issued Ex.A-6 disability certificate, and on account of the disability, the patient cannot do any work, as he was doing prior to the accident. 18. It appears that the certificate was issued by him in the year 2011, whereas the accident was occurred in the near 2006. So, he issued it nearly 5 years after the accident, when M.V.O.P. which was filed in the year 2007 is pending for evidence. It is pertinent to note down that PW-3, who treated the claimant in his evidence did not say anything that on account of the injuries sustained by the claimant, he cannot do the works, which he was doing prior to the accident. He also did not depose specifically that the injured was facing inconvenience on account of the fractures sustained by him. Therefore, PW-3 did not depose anything about the functional disability suffered by the claimant on account of the injuries. 19. PW-4, who issued Ex.A-6 disability certificate after 5 years of the accident, opined that the patient cannot do any work which he was doing as prior to the accident. He did not speak in detail what was the works he was doing prior to the accident, and how he is unable do the same after the accident. He did not state that patient cannot walk properly, cannot stand or sit properly and cannot do any physical activities or play games, as he was doing earlier etc. He did not speak anything about the affect of partial permanent disability of 25% on functioning of the whole body. 20. He did not state that patient cannot walk properly, cannot stand or sit properly and cannot do any physical activities or play games, as he was doing earlier etc. He did not speak anything about the affect of partial permanent disability of 25% on functioning of the whole body. 20. Admittedly, the claimant was not examined as a witness to speak about the difficulties faced by him on account of the injuries sustained in the accident. 21. In the light of above circumstances, no evidence is available on record about functional disability or loss of future earnings on account of partial permanent disability. In view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and Another, 2011 (1) SCC 343 no amount can be awarded to the claimant under the head pecuniary damages (special damages), (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising, (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment and (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. 22. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of amenities, basing on the evidence of PW-3, who deposed that the claimant sustained two fractures, and he is facing difficulty to walk freely due to these injuries. In the said circumstances, considering the evidence of PW-3, who deposed about the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident, and also considering the injuries and age of the claimant, an amount of Rs.50,000/- instead of Rs.25.000/- can be awarded under the head loss of amenities. 23. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards pain and suffering on account of injuries under the head non-pecuniary damages (general damages)-damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. Admittedly, the petitioner/claimant sustained two grievous injuries as per Ex.A-3 wound certificate. The same was also corroborated by the evidence of PW-3 doctor, who treated the claimant. The evidence on record also establish that the claimant underwent surgeries and steel rods were fixed to set right the fractures and he needs further surgery for removal of said steel rods. In that view of the matter, an amount of Rs.50,000/- can be awarded under the head (iv) damages for pain, suffering and trauma because of the injuries, instead of Rs.35,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 24. In that view of the matter, an amount of Rs.50,000/- can be awarded under the head (iv) damages for pain, suffering and trauma because of the injuries, instead of Rs.35,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 24. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.15,900/- under the head Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)-Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. The claimant contended that he is entitled to Rs.25,000/- towards medical expenses, transport charges and extra nourishment charges. He filed Ex.A-4 medical bills and proved the same in the evidence of PW-3. No contra evidence was adduced by the Insurance Company. As per Ex.A-4, claimant established that a sum of Rs.15,900/- was incurred towards medical expenditure. The Tribunal rightly awarded said amount only under the head expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. 25. When coming to the head pecuniary damages (Special Damages) - future medical expenses, PW-3 deposed that the claimant needs another surgery for removal of steel plates fixed in the operation to set right the fractures and it will cost around Rs.25,000/-. Considering the same, an amount of Rs.25,000/- can be awarded to the claimant under the head future medical expenses. 26. Therefore, the total amount of just compensation entitled comes to (25,000 + 15,000 + 25,000=Rs.65,000/- in addition to Rs.75,900/- compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, the total amount of compensation entitled by the claimant is (Rs.65,000 + 75,900) is Rs.1,40,900/- (Rupees One Lakh Forty Thousand and Nine Hundred only) towards just compensation, for the personal injuries sustained by him in the accident. Accordingly, this point is answered. POINT No. 2: To what relief? 27. In the light of findings on point No. 1, I am of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to modify the judgment passed by the Tribunal. 28. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and held that the appellant/claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,40,900/- (Rupees One Lakh Forty Thousand and Nine Hundred only) with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date petition till the date of deposit. There shall be no order as to costs. 29. The 3rd respondent/Insurance Company is directed to the deposit the compensation amount of Rs.1,40,900/- (Rupees One Lakh Forty Thousand and Nine Hundred only) with accrued interest thereon, within one month from the date of judgment. There shall be no order as to costs. 29. The 3rd respondent/Insurance Company is directed to the deposit the compensation amount of Rs.1,40,900/- (Rupees One Lakh Forty Thousand and Nine Hundred only) with accrued interest thereon, within one month from the date of judgment. In the event of 3rd respondent/Insurance Company already deposited some amount, the said amount has to be excluded, and the balance amount shall be deposited within one month from the date of judgment. On such deposit, the appellant/claimant is permitted to withdraw the said compensation amount with accrued interest thereon. 30. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.