JUDGMENT :

This appeal is preferred by the Appellant/claimant, challenging the award dated 02.06.2011 passed in M.V.O.P.No.61/2007 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Addl.District Judge, East Godavari at Amalapuram, wherein the Tribunal while partly allowing the petition, awarded compensation of Rs.1,16,000/- with interest @ 7.5% P.A. from 20.12.2006, till the date of deposit to the claimant for the injuries sustained by the claimant.

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

3. As seen from the record, originally the petitioner filed an application U/s.166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- on account of the injuries and disability sustained by the petitioner in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 25.12.2005 while the petitioner was travelling on his two wheeler by the offending Auto bearing No.AP5V 6567 belonging to the 2nd respondent, which met with an accident at Kapavaram Village, West Godavari District.

4. The facts show that on 25.12.2005 at about 08.30 p.m. when the petitioner was going on his motor cycle and reached Kapavaram Village, the offending Auto bearing No.AP5V 6567 came in opposite direction and dashed him, as a result of which, the petitioner fell on the road and sustained grievous injuries. The petitioner was initially shifted to Sai Orthopaedic Hospital, Tanuku, and later he was taken to Nagarjuna Hospital, Vijayawada, where he underwent surgeries. The 1st respondent is driver of the said auto, the 2nd respondent is the owner of the said auto and the 3rd respondent is insurer of the offending auto.

5. Before the Tribunal, the 3rd respondent in the appeal, who is also the 3rd respondent in the petition, filed written statement 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 auto, nature of injuries, medical expenditure, alleged permanent disability and liability to pay compensation and contended that the 1st respondent is not the driver of the vehicle in question at the time of accident. As per the FIR, an unknown auto allegedly dashed the petitioner. Respondents 1 and 2 in collusion with the petitioner, filed the petition to have wrongful gain and to cause loss to the Insurance Company. The respondents 1 and 2 remained exparte before the Tribunal.

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

1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle i.e., Auto bearing No.AP5V 6567 by its driver i.e., 1st respondent?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount and against whom?

3. To what relief?

7. To substantiate his claim, the petitioner examined P.Ws-1 to 6 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-17 and Ex.X-1. On behalf of the 3rd respondent, R.W-1 was examined and Exs.B-1 and B-2 were marked.

8. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws-1 to 6, coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-17, held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Auto, and further, taking into consideration of the evidence of P.Ws-1 to 6 corroborated by Exs.A-1 to A-17 and Ex.X-1, awarded a compensation of Rs.1,16,000/- with interest @ 7.5% P.A. from 20.12.2006, till the date of deposit of compensation amount.

9. The plea of the 3rd respondent/Insurance Company is that the 1st respondent is not driver of the offending Auto and as per FIR, an unknown auto dashed the petitioner.

10. The Tribunal considered the evidence on record, and based on the contentions of both parties, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent/driver of offending auto, and that the petitioner sustained injuries in the said accident.

11. The Tribunal after considering the evidence of P.Ws-1 to 6 coupled wi