The compensation awarded by the Tribunal was inadequate and needed to be enhanced as the Tribunal failed to consider compensation on some of the conventional heads and committed an illegality in awarding a meager amount of compensation under the above conventional heads.

JUDGMENT :

DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA, J.

1. This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘M.V. Act’) has been filed by the appellant/Insurer challenging the judgment and award dated 27.02.2006 delivered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Kadapa in M.V.O.P. No. 308 of 2003 granting compensation of a sum of Rs. 1,40,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum thereon from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit of the compensation amount to the claimant on account of injuries sustained by the claimant in a road accident occurred at Kadapa-Rayachoti Main Road on 02.12.2002.

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 context of the case is as follows:

(a) On 02.12.2002 the petitioner and her husband while returning from Kadapa to their village after getting treatment on their Hero Honda motorcycle, the petitioner was the pillion rider and her husband was riding the motorcycle, at about 1.30 p.m. when they reached near Nagireddy’s house, the rider of the motorcycle observing that a DCM lorry was ahead of them, had blown horn and while they were crossing the said DCM lorry, in the meanwhile the offending lorry bearing No. AP-27-T-9558 being driven by its driver, came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle as a result, the petitioner had fallen and sustained crush injury on right leg. She was shifted to the Government Hospital, Kadapa and she took treatment as in-patient from 02.12.2002 to 29.01.2003. The matter was reported to the Police alleging that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending lorry driven by its driver and based on the F.I.R. lodged by the husband of the petitioner/injured, a case in Cr. No. 105/2002 under Section 337 IPC was registered. After investigation of the case, charge sheet was submitted against the driver of the offending vehicle having committed the offence punishable under Section 338 IPC and Section 134(a)(b) read with 187 of M.V. Act. Later the injured filed an application claiming compensation of Rs. 3,50,000/- before the Tribunal on account of the injuries sustained by her in the said road accident.

(b) The 1st respondent/owner of the offending vehicle did not contest the matter. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company filed written statement. It was pleaded that the petitioner is put to strict proof of involvement of the lorry bearing No. AP-27-T-9558 in the accident and sustained injuries. It was further pleaded that the husband of the petitioner in an effort to overtake the vehicle going ahead, suddenly increased the speed of the motorcycle without noticing the opposite vehicle. Even on seeing it by the driver of the offending vehicle, he cannot save from the accident. The husband of the petitioner suddenly passed the motorcycle in between the two lorries, as such, the carrier which is the last end of the motorcycle came into contact, as a result the petitioner had fallen. It is further pleaded that the petitioner is put to strict proof that the driver of the offending vehicle possessed valid driving licence on the date of accident. The petitioner had taken treatment in a Government Hospital at free of cost. However, in any event, the quantum of compensation claimed, is excessive. It was further pleaded that it was not liable to pay any compensation arriving out of the said accident.

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

(1) Whether the petitioner received injuries in motor vehicle accident on 02.12.2002 due to rash or negligent driving of the 1st respondent’s lorry bearing No. AP-27-T-9558 driven by its driver?

(2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, and if so, to what amount and