P. DURGA PRASAD, J.

This appeal is at the instance of claimant directed against the award passed in O.P.No.3076 of 2004 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum - XVIII Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad on 05.12.2008.

2. The appellant herein has filed the petition under Section 166 of M.V.Act claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 30.11.2003.

3. According to the petitioner on 30.11.2003 while he was traveling in Open Corsa car bearing No. AP 11M 345 from Bangalore to Hyderabad and when the car reached Pamidi, near Ananthapur at about 5.00 P.M., the driver of the car tried to overtake DCM van bearing No.AP 02T 6796 and could not control the vehicle and dashed the van, resulting which the left side of the car was totally damaged and the petitioner suffered crush injury to his left hand. Immediately, he was shifted to Appolo Hospital, Ananthapur and after first aid, he was shifted to Manipal Hospital, Bangalore, where the left hand of the petitioner was amputated above the elbow on 01.12.2003 and discharged on 09.12.2003. The petitioner has spent Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses. After amputation, the petitioner developed further complications of stress on the heart and thereby suffered with chest discomfort and admitted in Care hospital, Banjara Hills on 01.03.2004 where stent to LAD was done with thrombus and the petitioner incurred an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical expenses. According to him, he is aged about 31 years working as Marketing Manager in M/S. A.V.Healthcare Products, Hyderabad and was drawing Rs.15,000/- per month. After the accident and amputation of left hand above the elbow, the petitioner was removed from service and thereby he suffered total loss of earnings. He also suffered loss of future prospects. Hence, the petition.

4. The 1st respondent, who is the owner of the car, filed the counter admitting the accident and also suffering of crush injury to the left hand of the petitioner and also admitted about the amputation of the left hand above elbow. According to him, the said car was insured with 2nd respondent and the same is in force as on the date of the accident. The compensation claimed by the petitioner is highly excessive and pleaded for dismissal of the petition.

5. The 2nd respondent Insurance Company has filed the counter denying the averments made in the petition and pleaded that the accident was took place due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the DCM van and not due to the rider of the Open Corsa car. Since two vehicles involved in the accident, the compensation, if any, awarded has to be apportioned between the owner and insurer of both vehicles. The petitioner put to strict proof with regard to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car and also his sustaining crush injury, amputation of left hand above elbow and also his earnings. The compensation claimed by the petitioner is highly excessive and also prayed for dismissal of the petition.

6. On the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues:

(1) Whether the petitioner has sustained injuries due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of car bearing No.AP 11M 345?

(2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so to what amount and from whom?

(3) To what relief?

7. During the course of enquiry, the claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and also examined P.Ws.2 to 5 on his behalf and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.15. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the 1st respondent. On behalf of the insurance company, R.W.1 was examined and got marked Exs.B.1 copy of insurance policy.

8. Taking into consideration of the said oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has held issue No.1 in favour of the petitioner holding that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car.

9. With regard to issue No.2, the Tribunal by holding that the claima