JUDGMENT:

1. This appeal is preferred by the claimant, challenging the award dated 04.02.2015 passed in M.V.O.P.No.555/2012 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Addl.District Judge, Guntur, (for short ‘the Tribunal’), wherein the Tribunal partly allowed the petition, awarded compensation of Rs.48,000/-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.163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) claiming a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-on account of the injuries and disability sustained by the petitioner in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 10.02.2012.

4. The facts would show that the petitioner is resident of Reddytungala village of Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam eking out his livelihood by doing welding work. On 08.02.2012 the petitioner came down to Mangalagiri to attend the marriage of his nephew and on 10.02.2012 at about 08.00 a.m., he boarded auto bearing No.AP 27 35V 3308, near Hai Land in order to go to Mangalagiri, and when the auto reached Union Petrol Bunk, near Chinakakani village, the auto driver drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, at high speed, and on sudden application of brake by him in the middle of the road, the auto turned turtle and petitioner fell on the road and the auto fell on his left leg, and thereby he sustained grievous injuries to his left hip joint, besides other multiple injuries all over his body. Immediately, he was shifted to NRI Hospital, Mangalagiri, and he was treated as inpatient, and a surgery was performed to his left hip joint by inserting rods, and spent Rs.10,000/-towards medical expenses. The Mangalagiri Rural Police registered a case in Cr.No.24/2012 against the driver of auto. The petitioner is aged 56 years at the time of accident and earning Rs.250/-per day out of his welding work and due to injuries and permanent disability, the petitioner is unable to attend his welding work and thereby lost earnings and earning capacity. The 1st respondent is owner of auto bearing No.AP 35V 3308, 2nd respondent is insurer and both the respondents are jointly and severally liable for compensation.

5. Before the Tribunal, 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 the driver of auto was not having valid and effective driving license, and he was not qualified to drive the same during the accident. The auto driver was under the influence of alcohol, and talking over cell phone at the time of accident, and the said auto was over loaded with passengers more than the permissible capacity, and thereby the 1st respondent violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The 1st respondent remained exparte.

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

1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the accident caused by vehicle auto bearing No.AP 35V 3308?

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

3. To what relief?

7. To substantiate his claim, the petitioner examined P.Ws-1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-9 and Ex.X-1. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, R.W-1 was examined and Exs.B-1 to B-3 were marked.

8. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws-1 and 2, coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-9 and Ex.X-1, held that the petitioner sustained injuries in the accident on 10.02.2012 due to rash and negligent act of driver of 1st respondent, and further taking into cons