In assessing compensation for personal injury under the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal must consider the specific circumstances of the claimant, including age, disability, loss of amenities, and future prospects, and award just and reasonable compensation under various heads, including loss of future earnings, medical bills, loss of amenities, loss of earnings during the treatment period, transportation, attendant charges, extra nourishment, pain and suffering, and artificial leg and future medical expenses.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”) has been filed by the appellant/petitioner challenging the judgment and award dt.26.10.2005 delivered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Court, Kurnool in M.V.O.P.No.23 of 2004 granting compensation of a sum of Rs.2,23,300/- alongwith 7.5% interest thereon from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization of the amount to the petitioner on account of injuries sustained by the petitioner in a road accident near Sivalayam at Kadapa-Tadipatri road on 08.03.2003.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”).

3. The factual matrix of the case is thus:

a) The Petitioner in the claim petition filed the above O.P stating inter alia that on 08.03.2003 while he was traveling by a R.T.C bus bearing Registration No.AP 9 Z 7484 from Pulivendula to Tadipatri and when the bus reached Sivalayam at about 7.10 p.m., the offending vehicle i.e., tractor and trailer bearing Registration Nos.AP 02 F 1452 and AP 02 F 1453 respectively loaded with Napa Stones came in opposite direction being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and hit the bus. Thus, caused the accident, as a result, he sustained a crush injury on his right leg besides sustained injuries all over his body and he was shifted to the hospital for treatment. The matter was reported to the Police alleging that the accident took place as a result of rash and negligent driving of the said tractor and trailer and based on the F.I.R lodged by the driver of the R.T.C bus, a case in Crime No.35 of 2003 was registered for the offence under Sections 337 & 338 I.P.C. After investigation of the case, a charge sheet was submitted against the accused-driver of the offending vehicle for having committed offence punishable under Sections 337 and 338 I.P.C. Thereafter, the injured filed an application claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- before the Tribunal on account of the injuries i.e., for Amputation of the right leg above the knee sustained by him in the road accident, against the 1st and 2nd respondents who are the insured and the insurer respectively of the offending vehicle.

(b) The 1st respondent/owner of the offending vehicle did not contest the matter. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company filed counter contending inter alia that the petitioner is put to strict proof that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and further strict proof that the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a valid driving licence and got a valid permit and fitness etc., to drive the same on the road. Further, it is contended that the owner of the bus (A.P.S.R.T.C) is the necessary party to the proceedings and further contended that the claim of the petitioner is excessive and exorbitant and prayed for dismissal of the petition.

(c) On the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed three issues as under:

(1) Whether the accident occurred due to the collision between the bus bearing No.AP 9 Z 7484 and the tractor-cum-trailer bearing Nos.AP 02 F 1452 and AP 02 F 1453?

(2) Whether the accident not occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor-cum-trailer bearing Nos.AP 02 F 1452 and AP 02 F 1453?

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

(4) To what relief?

(d) In order to establish the claim of the petitioner, at the time of enquiry, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.6 and X.1 were got marked. The Assistant Administrative Officer of the Insurance Company (R.2) was examined as R.W.1 and Ex.B.1 was marked on behalf of the 2nd respondent.

(e) Appreciating the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and placing reliance upon Exs.A.1 to