JUDGMENT :

B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI, J.

1. This appeal is preferred by the petitioner/claimant challenging the award dated 31.10.2011 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 832/2008 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Addl. District Judge, Visakhapatnam, wherein the Tribunal while partly allowing the petition, awarded compensation of Rs. 10,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit, for the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a motor accident.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as parties in the lower Court.

3. As seen from the record, originally the petitioners filed an application U/s. 166 r/w. 455 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) claiming compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 17.07.2008 at about 01.00 p.m. while the injured was going to his house on his scooter bearing No. AP-32D-499, by the offending car bearing No. AP-9-BA-6345, driven by the 1st respondent/driver, which met with an accident at Industrial Estate, Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam.

4. The facts show that 17.07.2008 the petitioner was going on his scooter to his house and when he reached near Indo Marine Company, one car bearing No. AP-9-BA-6345 came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the scooter of the petitioner from its behind, while he was going on left side of the road, as a result, the petitioner fell on the road and sustained head injury and another injury on his ear. Immediately, the petitioner was shifted to Seven Hills Hospital, Visakhapatnam and he undergone treatment in the said hospital and also undergone surgery for the head injury. The Kancharapalem police registered a case in Cr. No. 131/2008 for the offence punishable U/s. 338 of Indian Penal Code against the driver of the said car. The petitioner was working as Commission Agent in SRMT Parcel Service and as Real Estate Broker and earning Rs. 8,500/- per month and he is unable to earn as usual.

5. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent/driver filed counter denying the material averments of the petition, contended that the accident occurred only due to the negligent driving of the petitioner and as such, this respondent need not pay any compensation to the petitioner. It is further contended that the said car was insured with National Insurance Company Limited and the said insurance policy is in force.

6. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company filed counter resisting while traversing the material averments with regard to proof of age, avocation, monthly earnings of the petitioner, manner of accident, rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, nature of injuries, alleged permanent disability, medical expenditure, and liability to pay compensation to the petitioner and contended that the petitioner has to prove that there is a valid permit for the vehicle and the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. The rate of interest claimed is too high.

7. On the strength of the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

1. Whether the accident occurred due to a rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Maruthi Alto Car bearing No. AP-9-BA-6345 by its driver?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

3. To what relief?

8. To substantiate their claim, the petitioner got examined PWs. 1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-11. On behalf of the respondents, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.

9. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2, coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-11, held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent/driver of the Maruthi Alto Car bearing No. AP-9-BA-6345, and further, taking into consideration of the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 corroborated by Exs.A-1 to A-11, awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- with interest @ 7