The loss of earning capacity of a claimant in a motor vehicle accident should be computed on the basis of loss of functional disability, and not on the basis of permanent disability.

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is preferred by the claimant, challenging the award dated 10.11.2014 passed in M.V.O.P.No.275/2012 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Addl.District Judge, Visakhapatnam, (for short ‘the Tribunal’), wherein the Tribunal partly allowed the petition, awarded compensation of Rs.5,30,000/-with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation, for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as parties before the tribunal.

3. As seen from the record, the petitioner filed the application U/s.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) claiming a compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-on account of the injuries and disability sustained by the petitioner in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 28.05.2010.

4. The facts would show that on 28.05.2010 at about 10.30 hours while the petitioner was going in tanker lorry bearing No.AP31X 4239 being its cleaner and reached Kotha Narayanapuram village, Thallada Mandal, Khammam District, which was driven by its driver, in a rash and negligent manner, at high speed and without following the traffic rules, dashed one stationed lorry bearing No.AP 28 TB 3678, resulting which the petitioner sustained grievous multiple injuries and bleeding injuries all over the body, including grievous crush injury to his right leg ankle bone. Immediately, the petitioner was shifted to Khammam Head Quarters Hospital, wherein the petitioner underwent treatment as in-patient and also undergone major operation to his right leg and that right leg was amputated. The petitioner incurred huge amount towards medicine, extra nourishment and operation charges. Thallada police registered a case in Cr.No.57/2010 for the offence punishable U/s.337, 338 of Indian Penal Code against the driver of said tanker lorry. Due to the said accident, the petitioner permanently disabled and lost his earning power, and became mentally disturbed. The petitioner is only earning person of his entire family. The petitioner is unable to walk and leading a miserable life. The 1st respondent is the owner of tanker lorry, and the 2nd respondent is insurer of the said lorry, and both the respondents are jointly and severally liable for compensation.

5. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent filed counter, denying the material averments of the claim application, contended that the 1st petitioner worked as cleaner on the tanker lorry belongs to respondent, but he was taken in service as cleaner on temporary basis and it is duly insured with the 2nd respondent. This respondent is not aware how the accident took place and so also the amputation of the leg of petitioner, due to the said accident. The 1st respondent is not responsible for the alleged accident. The claim is exaggerative and petitioner is not entitled for compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-.

6. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company filed written statement, while traversing the material averments with regard to manner of accident, rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle, nature of injuries, medical expenditure, age and avocation of the petitioner, alleged permanent disability, liability to pay compensation, and contended that without causing prejudice to the rights of 2nd respondent, it does not admit that the vehicle belongs to the 1st respondent was insured with the 2nd respondent and even if any policy was issued, unless the said policy was complied U/s.64-VB of the Insurance Act, the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay compensation. There is no negligent act on the part of driver of 1st respondent. The 1st respondent is not holding a valid and effective driving license by the time of accident, and he was not qualified for holding or obtaining such driving license. The 1st respondent contravened the provisions of M.V.Act and