JUDGMENT:- The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the claimant being aggrieved of the quantum of compensation fixed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Additional District Judge, Nizamabad in O.P.No.346 of 1995 at Rs.30,000/- with proportionate costs and interest on the ground that the same is unjust and unreasonable.

2. The appellant-claimant filed the abovesaid O.P. on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Nizamabad, hereinafter in short referred to as Tribunal for the purpose convenience, claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for the injuries and fractures sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident on 20.2.1995.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant-claimant had taken this Court through the findings, which had been recorded, and would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case the quantum of compensation awarded being unjust and unreasonable, the same to be enhanced.

4. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would maintain that as against 1st respondent, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal had been dismissed for default, and enhancement of compensation, at any rate, cannot be granted as against the United India Insurance Company-2nd respondent in the light of the views expressed by this Court in CHEJERLA MUNICHANDRAIAH vs. SHAIK NOORJAHAN AND ANOTHER, 2008 (1) ALD 35, and also by the Apex Court in NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. CHOLLETI BHARATAMMA AND OTHERS2.

5. Heard the learned counsel.

6. In view of the facts and circumstances, the following points arise for consideration in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal:

1. Whether the appellant is entitled to enhanced compensation as prayed for in the facts and circumstances of the case?

2. If so, to what relief the parties would be entitled to?

POINTS 1 and 2:

7. The parties hereinafter would be referred to as petitioner and respondents as shown in O.P.No.346 of 1995 on the file of the Tribunal.

8. It was averred that on ill-fated day, date of accident, i.e., on 20.2.1995 at about 6 AM, the petitioner along with others were traveling in the lorry bearing No.ADQ.5112 as a labourer of 1st respondent from Hyderabad towards Armoor side. When reached at Argul village shivar on Hyderabad to Nagpur road on N.H.7, District Nizamabad, at the same time, the driver of the lorry drove it in a rash and negligent manner with a high speed and dashed against road side tree, due to which the petitioner received fracture to both legs, both hands injured, head injuries, face was injured, and also received injuries on other parts of the body. It was further stated that immediately after the accident, the petitioner was shifted to Headquarters Hospital, Nizamabad, where he was treated by Duty Medical Officers, and so far he spent Rs.50,000/- towards the medicines and for extra nourishment. It is also stated that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of lorry No. ADQ.5112 by its driver only. Due to the injuries and fractures, the petitioner got permanent disability and hence he is claiming compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- from the respondents.

9. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte. Respondent No.2-United India Insurance Company filed written statement denying the averments. Further it was averred that the respondent company does not admit the age, avocation and earnings of the petitioner and it also does not admit that the petitioner met with motor vehicle accident on 20.2.1995 at 6 AM and P.S. Jakranpally issued FIR 3/.95 under Sections 337 and 338 IPC. It is also denied that the petitioner and others were traveling in the lorry bearing No.ADQ.5112 as labourers of 1st respondent from Hyderabad towards Armoor and when the lorry reached Argul village shivar, the driver of lorry drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to road side tree. The respondent company also does not admit the injuries and fr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document