ORDER :

G. Shyam Prasad, J.

1. This appeal is arising out of the judgment and decree dated 9.1.2009 passed in MVOP No. 1292 of 2007 by the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Guntur at Narasaraopet (for short "the Tribunal").

2. The appellant is the petitioner/injured, respondent No. 1 is the owner of the crime vehicle bearing No. AP 27W 4639 and respondent No. 2 is the owner of the crime vehicle.

3. The case of the appellant is that on 12.8.2007 at about 10.00 p.m., while the appellant/petitioner was proceeding in a lorry bearing No. AP 27 W 4639 along with its cleaner with a cement load from Dachepalli to Madras and when they reached near bye-pass road, Ongole, the driver of the lorry drove the same in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn and without following the traffic rules and regulations, dashed against the stationed lorry bearing No. AP 4V 9499 from its behind, as a result, the appellant/petitioner received crush injury and multiple fracture to his left leg and the front portion of the lorry was completely damaged. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Ongole for first aid and thereafter, he was shifted to Government General Hospital, Guntur, where he underwent an operation to his left leg was amputated upto hip joint. Apart from that, skin grafting was also done. Due to the amputation and loss of left lower limp, he was unable to move from bed. He could not attend to his personal duties without the assistance of others. A case in Crime No. 371 of 2007 was registered by Ongole Taluk Police Station, Ongole, for the offence under Section 338 against the driver of the lorry and after completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet. As the driver of the lorry was responsible for causing the accident due to which the petitioner became disabled and unable to attend to his daily work and as he incurred huge expenditure for his treatment, he laid a claim against the owner and the insurer of the offending lorry bearing No. AP 27 W 4639 for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/-.

4. Before the Tribunal, respondent No. 1, owner of the lorry remained ex parte.

5. The contesting respondent No. 2 filed its counter denying the material allegations made in the petition and inter alia contended that on the date of accident, the driver of the offending lorry had no valid driving licence. The owner of the vehicle had violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It is further submitted that there was contributory negligence on the part of the drivers of both the lorries involved in the accident. At the time to accident, there is no existence of insurance policy of the crime vehicle. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.

6. Based on the above averments, the Tribunal framed issues and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, more particularly, the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 coupled with Exs. A1 to A6, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending lorry and accordingly, allowed the petition in part by awarding compensation of Rs. 1,85,000/- with proportionate costs and subsequent interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. Dissatisfied with the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioner filed the present appeal.

7. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant.

8. None appeared for respondents.

9. Sri K. Siva Rama Krishna, learned Counsel representing Sri N. Subba Reddy, submits that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and it ought to have awarded just and reasonable compensation under various heads. He submits that the Tribunal ought to have granted adequate compensation under the head of pain and suffering. He submits