Point of Law: Accident claim - Appellant/claimant is entitled for loss of amenities and future medical expenses.

ORDER :

1. The injured/claimant in M.V.O.P. No. 576 of 2004 on the file of Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Narsapur filed the present appeal aggrieved by the order and decree dated 31.05.2006, in so far as it is adverse to the appellant/claimant.

2. Heard Mr. T.V. Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel representing the appellant and Mr. U. Ramanjaneyulu, learned counsel representing the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company.

3. The appellant/claimant, who is a house wife filed M.V.O.P. No. 576 of 2004 seeking compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in a motor accident that occurred on 23.01.2004. In the O.P. it was averred that when the appellant/claimant was proceeding on foot and reached near the vicinity of Annapurna Theatre Canteen, Palakol, the driver of a lorry bearing No. AP-31B-2748 came with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the appellant from behind. As a result of the same, the appellant sustained fracture to her both legs and multiple injuries all over the body. The appellant was shifted to hospital at Bheemavaram, where she was treated as in-patient for three months and undergone two major surgeries for both legs, steel rods were inserted in the left leg, skin grafting was also done to the injuries and as a result of the said accident, the appellant suffered permanent disability.

4. The appellant in support of her case examined as PW-1 and also PWs. 2 to 4-Doctors who had treated her. She got marked Exs.A.1 to A.12. The 1st respondent remained ex-parte and the 2nd respondent died. The 3rd respondent-Insurance Company filed written statement denying the manner in which the accident allegedly occurred. It was alleged that the appellant/claimant herself contributed to the accident by suddenly attempting to cross the road without observing the crime vehicle. The averments with regard to surgeries undergone by the appellant/claimant, the amounts spent by her towards medical treatment/surgeries etc. and the permanent disability due to the accident etc., were denied by the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company.

5. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company.

6. The Claims Tribunal by an order and decree dated 31.05.2006 allowed the M.V.O.P. in part by awarding a sum of Rs. 80,000/- towards the injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant as against the total claim of Rs. 3,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal came to be filed.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant, inter-alia, submits that the compensation as awarded by the Claims Tribunal is meager, unjust and unreasonable. He submits that the injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant are grievous in nature and the evidence on record would clearly establish that the appellant has undergone two major surgeries and steel rods were implanted. He further submits that the Doctors PWs. 2 to 4 who treated the appellant/claimant gave evidence with regard to the injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant and as per Ex.A.12 the disability is assessed at 40%. Despite ample material on record, the learned counsel submits that the Claims Tribunal grossly erred in awarding only Rs. 80,000/-. The learned counsel while relying on judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sri. Anthony alias Anthony Swamy vs. The Managing Director, K.S.R.T.C. 2020 (3) SCC (CIV), Sanjay Kumar vs. Ashok Kumar and Another, 2014 (3) SCC (CIV), Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Rep. by its Manager vs. T. Laxman Goud and Others, (2014) Supreme (AP) 1134, Kirti and Another vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. 2021 (2) SCC 166 submits that the appellant/claimant is entitled to just and reasonable compensation, more particularly, in the light of the injuries sustained by her, which are grievous in nature and the disabilities suf