GHULAM MOHAMMED, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an unfortunate case of motor accident injury wherein the appellant sustained brain injury and describing it as organic psychosis filed a claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for a sum of rs. 2,20,000. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 51,000 both under pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.

( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are as follows: on 10. 1. 1990 at about 8. 15 p. m. the injured-appellant Pithula Pathrudu along with some other persons started on a cycle to witness second show cinema in Swamy theatre, Thagarapuvalasa from their village Kapula Uppada. When they reached the garden of Katanpeta, a Matador van bearing No. ADJ 2464 which was coming from Thagarapuvalasa towards Bheemili road in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn, dashed the cycle of the appellant and the appellant fell down on the road and sustained injuries on the left eyebrow, left chin, severe contusion to the head and abrasions to both knees of the legs. The petitioner was taken in the same van and admitted in the Government hospital, Bheemunipatnam. It is stated that at the time of accident, the petitioner was an agricultural labourer earning Rs. 1,200 per month and due to the injuries sustained, he became disabled and was not able to carry on the agricultural operations, thus claimed the above said compensation.

( 3 ) THE respondent Nos. 1 and 2, namely, the driver and the owner of the vehicle remained ex parte, whereas the respondent no. 3, insurance company, filed counter disputing the earnings and attributing negligence on the part of the cyclist stating that he was carelessly driving the bicycle and he himself is responsible for the said accident and the compensation claimed is excessive.

( 4 ) ON the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed necessary issues for consideration. The first issue as regards the negligence aspect is concerned, the appellant has produced both oral as well as documentary evidence to substantiate his claim. The tribunal while believing the version of pw 3 who is an eyewitness to the incident rightly held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle and also held that the evidence of PW 3 is in corroboration with the claim petition.

( 5 ) AS regards the determination of just compensation under the provisions of section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the learned counsel for the appellant Mr. G. Ramagopal Rao contended that the entire approach of the Tribunal is inequitable and inasmuch as the Tribunal has not awarded the compensation as claimed by the appellant herein by following the reasonable criteria as contemplated under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. As regards the issue in not appreciating the medical evidence in proper perspective is concerned, he drew my attention to the medical evidence, namely, the evidence of the doctor who was examined as PW 1 and also the certificate issued by him under Exh. A-1.

( 6 ) TO determine the compensation in a case of this nature, it is essential and necessary to go through the medical evidence and see the effect of the accident by which the appellant-injured became disabled and deprived of his comforts and also the fruits of life.

( 7 ) PW 1 Dr. G. D. Bhagya Rao, Assistant Professor of Psychiatry, Government hospital for Mental Care, Visakhapatnam, deposed that he examined Pathrudu, the appellant, and when the appellant-injured brought to the hospital with the following complaints, namely, loss of speech, biting people, loss of power in left upper and lower limbs and throwing away articles from home and he observed that the appellant was suffering with organic psychosis due to brain damage following head injury and he issued Exh. A-l wound certificate. In the cross-examination he stated that immediately he has not treated the patient but he gave treatment for psychiatric complications and he also stated that it is a case of mental disability and it cannot be a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document