JUDGMENT
A.K. Gohil, J.
1. The appellant-claimant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement of compensation, being aggrieved by the award dated 11.8.2000 passed by the Addl. Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kukshi, District Dhar, whereby awarded a compensation of Rs. 62,000 plus interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 19.10.1998, Janubai, mother of the claimant Rinka, aged about 4 years, was waiting for a bus at village Dahi to go to Dharamrai Road. A passenger bus No. MP 11-A 3691, belonging to respondent No. 2 and being driven by respondent No. 3, rashly and negligently, came and hit Rinka. On account of the said accident Rinka received severe injury in her right leg. The whole skin of the thigh was ruptured and leg was also fractured. The incident was reported to the Police Station Dahi and, thereafter, she was taken to P.H.C. Dahi and after giving some first aid she was referred to the District Hospital, Barwani, where she remained admitted for two months. X-ray was taken and she was also operated in the hospital.
3. After appreciating the evidence on record the Tribunal has found that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus No. MP 11-A 3691, belonging to respondent No. 2. It was being driven by respondent No. 3 and has also found that claimant Rinka aged 4 years suffered permanent disablement. The vehicle was insured with the insurance company and there was no violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and thus the Claims Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 62,000.
4. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid amount the claimant has filed this appeal through her natural guardian father for enhancement.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. It is not in dispute before me that the claimant was aged about 4 years at the time of accident. It has come in the evidence of PW 4 Dr. J.S. Panwar and PW 5 Dr. B.S. Khangar that she was initially examined at the Primary Health Centre, Dahi and she had received an incised wound at the right thigh, which was 13″ x 2″ x bone deep and she was referred to District Hospital, Barwani for X-ray as well as for further treatment. PW 4 Dr. J.S. Panwar in his examination-in-chief had suggested that the injury, which was bone deep, was curable after plastic surgery. PW 5 Dr. B.L. Khangar stated that she was brought to the District Hospital, Barwani on 19.10.1998. At that time her condition was not good. The injury was bone deep from which blood was oozing. She was operated and remained hospitalised for 2 months from 19.10.1998 to 22,12.1998 and from X-ray it was found that she was also having fracture of fibula, which is an important part of ankle mortis. In the opinion of Dr. Khangar due to injuries, she has suffered deformity in the right knee and he assessed permanent disablement. He has also advised further operation of plastic surgery for reducing the deformity. In the cross-examination para 17 he has stated that there is wasting in the right leg from 4 cm. to 5 cm. and as per his opinion she suffered 57.5 per cent permanent disablement.
7. PW 4 Dr. J.S. Panwar has stated in his examination-in-chief that if plastic surgery is performed it would cost about Rs. 60,000 to Rs. 70,000 and as per report, Exh. P-5, for plastic surgery again she has to remain in the hospital for around 2 months.
8. It is not in dispute before me that the parents of the claimant are poor persons and illiterate villagers. At the time of arguments the claimant Rinka was produced before me and I got her examined by Dr. Solanki, who is posted in the High Court dispensary. As per Dr. Rajesh Solanki’s report dated 10.12.2002 the right knee joint is totally damaged and its movement is also restricted. Right ankle joint is also damaged and its movement is also restricted. There is deformity and atrophy of muscle of calf region and this deformity cannot be totally rehabilitated. Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid evidence of treating doctors as well as by Dr. Solanki, during the pendency of this appeal, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal appears to be on lower side. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 40,000 under the head of permanent disability, which is on the lower side. At the time of accident the claimant was aged about 4 years.
9. I have also seen the claimant. She is not in a position to properly stand and walk. Thus, the permanent disability was assessed by Dr. Khangar, PW 5, which is 57.5 per cent appears to be reasonable. She has to remain dependent on her parents throughout her life, therefore, the amount of permanent disability is enhanced from Rs. 40,000 to Rs. 2,00,000 in lump sum, because looking to the age multiplier as per Schedule cannot be applied in this case. The Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 12,000 only towards the treatment, but since she remained in hospital for a period of 2 months, the amount of compensation for medical treatment, even if presumed at the rate of Rs. 300 per day for hospitalisation in Government Hospital, Barwani, this amount would come to Rs. 18,000. Therefore, the amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs. 12,000 to Rs. 18,000. PW 4 Dr. Panwar has stated that operation of plastic surgery would cost Rs. 60,000 to Rs. 70,000 and looking to the report of Dr. Rajesh Solanki an additional sum of Rs. 75,000 is awarded to the claimant for future treatment of plastic surgery operation of knee. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000 towards pain and suffering. This amount is further enhanced to Rs. 20,000. A sum of Rs. 25,000 is further awarded towards conventional expenses.
10. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed with costs Rs. 1,000 payable to the counsel for the appellant and the total amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs. 62,000 to Rs. 3,38,000, which according to me would be just and proper compensation to the claimant. The claimant would also be entitled for interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition (i.e., 20.11.1998) till realisation. There is no dispute about the liability of the insurance company, therefore, the respondent insurance company is directed to deposit the said amount within 2 months, failing which the claimant would be entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. It is further directed that the trial court shall deposit maximum amount of award in FDR with some nationalised bank for the welfare of the claimant and release the amount for treatment, operation, etc., as and when required for legitimate purposes.