JUDGMENT : V R K Krupa Sagar, J. Questioning the inadequacy of compensation, the father/ natural guardian representing his injured minor son preferred this Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 impugning the award dated 13.09.2010 of the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), West Godavari, Eluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in O.P.No.787 of 2008. 2. Respondent No.1 was the driver of the offending bus and respondent No.2-APSRTC owns the bus. 3. Heard arguments of Sri Eluru Sesha Mahesh Babu, the learned counsel representing Sri Eluru Venkateswara Rao, the learned counsel for appellant and Sri T.Vinod Kumar, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2-APSRTC. 4. The following facts are required to be noticed: Mr. T.Sarveswara Rao was a boy aged 10 years. On 06.05.2007 he, along with his family members boarded APSRTC bus bearing registration No.AP-10-Z-8042 at Tadepalligudem and was to reach Hyderabad. However, the driver at the steering wheel was unmindful of a stationed lorry on the National Highway and by virtue of his high speed and rash or negligent driving dashed on the back of it near Denduluru Petrol Bunk during the intervening night of 6/7.05.2007. Several people sustained injuries including the body. He was initially treated at Government Headquarters Hospital, Eluru and was thereafter shifted to Mahalakshmi Hospital where surgeries were conducted on his left leg. Concerning the subject matter accident Crime No.45 of 2007 was registered at Denduluru Police Station. A charge sheet was also laid against the driver of the offending APSRTC bus. The boy stated to have acquired permanent disability. Representing his minor son, the father/the natural guardian filed O.P.No.787 of 2008 claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. Respondent No.1 therein being the driver was expected to put up his defence but he did not choose to do so and he failed to appear and contest and was set ex parte. Respondent No.2 therein/APSRTC filed its counter wherein it denied the narration made in the petition and pleaded perfect driving on part of its driver and attributed negligence to the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP-16-TW-577 stating that the driver of the said lorry suddenly stopped the lorry on the road and he did it without applying any signals and that was the cause of accident. The claim made was described as excessive. Finally, it sought dismissal of the claim. 5. The claim made was described as excessive. Finally, it sought dismissal of the claim. 5. Learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- V Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), West Godavari, Eluru framed the following issues for trial: 1) Whether the petitioner/injured sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident on 6/7.5.2007 mid night at about 12.30 a.m. due to rash and negligent driving of the RTC Bus bearing No.AP 10 Z 8042 driven its driver/1 st respondent? 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to for compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? 3) To what relief? 6. At the trial, the father of the victim boy testified as PW.1 and the doctor who treated the injured boy testified as PW.2 and Exs.A.1 to A.6 and Exs.X.1 to X.3 were marked. 7. The driver of the offending RTC bus though did not put up his contest he testified as RW.1. No documentary evidence was adduced for respondents. 8. After considering the entire material on record and the submissions made on both sides, the learned Claims Tribunal evaluated the rival contentions as to whether the accident was result of negligence on part of the lorry driver or the negligence on part of the driver of the APSRTC bus. On considering the oral evidence of PW.1 and F.I.R. in Ex.A.1 and charge sheet in Ex.A.4 it concluded that the accident was the result of rash or negligent driving of driver of offending APSRTC bus. It stated that he, along with his owner/respondent Nos.1 and 2 were jointly and severally liable to shoulder the duty to pay compensation to the victim boy. 9. After analysis of evidence on record, it granted compensation under the following heads: Towards surgeries and medicines Rs. 18,500-00 Towards expenses for attendant and extra nourishment and other charges Rs. 5,000-00 Towards pain and suffering Rs. 10,000-00 Towards the partial disability Rs. 50,000-00 Total: Rs. 83,500-00 Thus, a total amount of Rs.83,500/- was awarded. 10. Learned Claims Tribunal passed the award in the following terms: “In the result, petition is partly allowed granting compensation of Rs.83,500/- (Rupees Eighty Three Thousand and Five Hundred Only) to the petitioner along with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization from respondents 1 and 2, jointly and severally. R.1 and R.2 are directed to deposit entire compensation amount along with costs and accrued interest within one month from the date of order of this tribunal. (a) Petitioner through his father P.W.1 is permitted to withdraw Rs.30,000/-(Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) along with proportionate costs and interest. (b) The remaining balance amount shall be kept in fixed deposit in any one of the nationalized banks till the petitioner/injured boy attains majority. The petitioner will be permitted to withdraw the amount in case he require such amount for further treatment and the injured boy is permitted through his father (P.W.1) who is natural guardian to receive interest amount ones in three months, if require. Petitioner is not entitled to claim any interest on compensation amount, if the petition was dismissed for any reason till the date the petition was restored. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,500/- (Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred Only)” 11. Grieved by the inadequacy of compensation, the father pursued the cause of his limping son in this appeal. 12. Learned counsel for appellant urged that the learned Claims Tribunal grossly erred in failing to award what was expended towards medicines and failed to consider the permanent partial disability acquired by the victim and finally it failed to grant just compensation and invites the interference of this Court. 13. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2-APSRTC submits that the impugned award was right on facts and law requiring no interference. 14. The point that falls for consideration in this appeal is: “In terms of the evidence made available on record, whether the impugned award failed to grant just and adequate compensation requiring interference in this appeal?” POINT: 15. At the outset it may be stated that the finding of the Claims Tribunal that the accident and the resultant injuries to the victim were out of rash or negligent driving of respondent No.1 are not in dispute in this appeal. Therefore, nothing more needs be stated on that front. 16. Entire debate is revolved around the adequacy or otherwise of compensation. On a reading of the evidence as well as the impugned award, this Court is constrained to say that the approach adopted by the Claims Tribunal was incorrect and the way in which it depended on its own surmises cannot be supported. 17. 16. Entire debate is revolved around the adequacy or otherwise of compensation. On a reading of the evidence as well as the impugned award, this Court is constrained to say that the approach adopted by the Claims Tribunal was incorrect and the way in which it depended on its own surmises cannot be supported. 17. The evidence of PW.1 and PW.2-doctor and Ex.A.2-wound certificate and Ex.X.3-X-ray film and Ex.X.2-case sheet and Ex.X.1-discharge summary disclosed that the victim boy suffered fracture of left femur, fractures of both bones of left leg. The injuries were diagnosed as grievous. He had to undergo surgeries. He was initially treated at a Government Hospital and thereafter at a private hospital. PW.2 was the doctor who treated him. According to the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, for about 5½ months the victim boy was under treatment and for the best part of it he was an in-patient. As against the sworn evidence of PWs.1 and 2 on the above aspects there was no evidence being mentioned to find fault with those aspects which are referred just above. In other words, on these facts spoken to by PWs.1 and 2 in this regard the evidence remained unchallenged. At paragraph No.9 the learned Claims Tribunal, to the dismay of anyone, stated that looking at the kind of injuries the boy would not have been treated for such long time and in its opinion, certificates excessively mentioning the prolonged treatment were obtained and in its own opinion he could have been treated only for a period of two months. It arrived at such finding disregarding the sworn evidence on record and without having gathered any opinion of medical expert. 18. Ex.A.5 is a bunch of medical bills. They were proved by PW.1 as well as by the doctor PW.2. As per those documents, the father of the boy expended Rs.25,350/- towards medicines and other articles pertaining to surgeries etc. As one would see from the evidence of RW.1 there was nothing to say that these bills were fabricated. The cross-examination of PWs.1 and 2 did not impeach their credibility. However, the learned Claims Tribunal stated that the injured boy would not have spent so much amount of money and it granted Rs.18,500/- towards medicines, surgeries and other diagnostic reports. As one would see from the evidence of RW.1 there was nothing to say that these bills were fabricated. The cross-examination of PWs.1 and 2 did not impeach their credibility. However, the learned Claims Tribunal stated that the injured boy would not have spent so much amount of money and it granted Rs.18,500/- towards medicines, surgeries and other diagnostic reports. Here also the learned Claims Tribunal arrived at a factual conclusion by disregarding with the sworn evidence without there being any contrary evidence. 19. In his evidence PW.2 stated that he not only treated the injured boy but also being Member of the Medical Board he had the occasion to assess the condition of the victim boy and the Medical Board issued Ex.A.6-disability certificate and on oath PW.2 stated that in terms of this disability certificate there was shortening of leg and it resulted in 55% permanent partial disability. Cross examination of this witness shows that this aspect of the matter was not challenged. A perusal of Ex.A.6- disbility certificate also discloses these facts. Despite all that the learned Claims Tribunal recorded that there was no shortening of leg. Having said it, the learned Claims Tribunal then stated that it still believes that there was some disability for the victim boy and then granted Rs.50,000/- in that regard. 20. The discussion made above clearly shows that the approach of the Claims Tribunal is not pragmatic as it failed to appreciate the evidence in the manner that is required under law and it took too much liberty to thrive on its own views while there was no material to enable judicial forum to reach to such opinions and conclusions. Therefore, an eminent case is made out by the appellant to revise the amounts of compensation awarded. 21. The principle has been that the Tribunals should be mindful that a serious injury not only permanently imposes physical limitations and disabilities but too often they inflict deep mental and emotional scars upon the victim. The attendant trauma of the victim having to live in a world entirely different from the one he is born into, as an invalid, and with degrees of dependence on others, robbed of complete personal choice or autonomy, should forever be in the judge's mind, whenever tasked to adjudge compensation claims. The attendant trauma of the victim having to live in a world entirely different from the one he is born into, as an invalid, and with degrees of dependence on others, robbed of complete personal choice or autonomy, should forever be in the judge's mind, whenever tasked to adjudge compensation claims. Severe limitations inflicted due to such injuries undermine the dignity of the individual, thus depriving the person of the essence of the right to a wholesome life which he had lived, hitherto. From the world of the able bodied, the victim is thrust into the world of the disabled. That itself is most discomfiting and unsettling. If courts nit-pick and award niggardly amounts oblivious of these circumstances, there is resultant affront to the injured victim . Pappu Deo Yadav v. Naresh Kumar (2022) 13 SCC 790 and Sidram v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited (2023) 3 SCC 439 22. In the light of the above referred principle and in the light of the discussion made earlier, the following additional amounts are found to be just and are thus granted: Towards actual medical expenses Rs. 6,850-00 Towards extra nourishment and attendant charges Rs. 10,000-00 Towards pain and suffering Rs. 5,000-00 Towards future medical expenses Rs. 15,000-00 Towards loss of amenities Rs. 60,000-00 Total: Rs. 96,850-00 23. In the result, this Appeal is allowed enhancing the compensation awarded in the impugned award dated 13.09.2010 of the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), West Godavari, Eluru in O.P.No.787 of 2008 from Rs.83,500/- to Rs.1,80,350/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. The second respondent- APSRTC is directed to deposit the amount after giving due credit to amounts, if any, deposited already within one month before the Claims Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.