In cases of serious injuries resulting from motor vehicle accidents, compensation can be granted for loss of future earnings, future medical expenses, loss of amenities, and loss of expectation of life, in addition to expenses for treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, miscellaneous expenses, and loss of earnings during the treatment period.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is preferred by the Appellant/APSRTC, challenging the award dated 25.07.2013 passed in M.V.O.P.No.24/2009 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Addl. District Judge, Kadapa, wherein the Tribunal while partly allowing the petition, awarded compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- with interest @ 6% P.A. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation to the respondent/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.2,00,000/-on account of the injuries and disability sustained by the petitioner in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 04.12.2007 while the petitioner was travelling on a lorry bearing No.AP 04 U 9502 from Kadapa through Kothakota village, proceeding to Hyderabad along with company materials. When the lorry was moving on N.H.7 near outskirts of Addakula village, RTC Bus bearing No.AP11Z 1769 came in a rash and negligent manner, opposite to his vehicle and hit the lorry in high speed, due to which, the driver of lorry sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot and the petitioner also sustained grievous and simple injuries.

4. The facts show that on 04.12.2007 while the petitioner was proceeding on a lorry bearing No. AP 04 U 9502 from Kadapa through Kothakota village, proceeding to Hyderabad along with company materials. When the lorry was moving on N.H.7 near outskirts of Addakula village, RTC Bus bearing No.AP11Z 1769 came in a rash and negligent manner, opposite to his vehicle and hit the lorry in high speed, due to which, the driver of lorry sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot and the petitioner also sustained grievous and simple injuries On account of the said accident, the petitioner was shifted to Mahaboobnagar Hospital, and later he was shifted to Krishna Institute of Medical Sciences, Secunderabad, for better treatment. The petitioner sustained spinal cord focal intra medullary and he was discharged from KIMS on09.11.2007. Due to the injury caused to the petitioner, he was bed ridden and lost his salary as Coordinator in Shird Sai Eelectricals, Kadapa and getting salary of Rs.5,400/-. Due to the accident, the petitioner sustained loss of Rs.2,00,000/-.

5. Before the Tribunal, the respondent/APSRTC, filed written statement 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 crime bus, nature of injuries, medical expenditure, alleged permanent disability and liability to pay compensation and contended that the accident even though, there was no rash and negligence on the part of APSRTC Bus driver, police foisted case against the bus driver, with a view to get compensation from APSRTC and further contended that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties i.e., owner of lorry bearing No.AP04U 9502 and its insurer, which was involved in the accident, as they are proper and necessary parties to the petition. The claim of the petitioner is excessive.

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

1. Whether the claimant received injuries in the accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle?

2. Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation? If so, for what amount and from whom?

3. To what relief?

7. To substantiate his claim, the petitioner examined P.Ws-1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-9. On behalf of the respondent/APSRTC, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.

8. The plea of the respondent/APSRTC is that though the accident was not occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of th