JUDGMENT :

1. Aggrieved by the order and decree dated 14.09.2006 in M.V.O.P. No.237 of 2004 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District Judge, Madanapalle (for short, "the tribunal"), the claimant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the compensation.

2. For convenience, the parties herein will be referred to as per their rankings in the M.V.O.P.

3. The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- on account of the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 13.02.2004.

4. The claimant's case is that on 13.02.2004, at about 10.45AM, the petitioner as a pillion rider of the motorcycle bearing No.KA05EP4621 was proceeding on from ANgallu – Kadari road and at that time the lorry bearing No.AP A 1809 (hereinafter as referred to as the "offending vehicle"), in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed without blowing the horn, dashed the claimant's motorcycle. The claimant fell on the road and sustained injuries. Immediately, he was taken to the Government Hospital, Madanapalle, obtained treatment there and was shifted to CMC Hospital, Vellore and took treatment there from 13.02.2004 to 02.03.2004 and again he was joined on 24.03.2004 to 10.04.2004 and also again he admitted on 29.06.2004 and till today he was undergoing treatment. The petitioner spent nearly a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-to-wards medicines, a sum of Rs.75,000/-towards extranourishment and Rs.30,000/-towards transportation and attendant charges.

5. The respondents 1 and 3 were remained exparte.

6. The respondents 2 and 4 filed written statements separately.

7. The 2nd respondent filed written statement denying the petitioner’s age, avocation, injuries treatment, expenditure and permanent disability, the injuries will not constitute any partial or permanent disability as contemplated under law and did not mention his percentage of disability. If there is any disability that would be proved by producing a medical certificate issued by the medical board constituted for the said purpose. The respondent denied the relation ship of employer and employee between 1st respondent and the alleged accident occurred during the course of alleged employment. The petitioner is also put to strict proof as to whether the driver of offending vehicle as well as himself were possessing any valid and effective driving license to drive the said vehicle and that the offending vehicle was carrying any valid permit and fitness certificate and the offending vehicle was insured at the time of accident. The accident occurred due to negligence of driver of two wheeler.

8. The 4th respondent filed written statement and denied that there was no rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of motorcycle bearing No.KA05KP4621. Hence, the insurer has no liability to pay compensation. The offending vehicle is insured with 2nd respondent. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of offending vehicle only.

9. Based on the pleadings, the tribunal framed relevant issues. To substantiate the claim, during the trial, on behalf of claimants, P.Ws. 1 and 2 got examined and marked Exs. A.1 to A.11. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence adduced, but the policy copy got marked as Ex.B.1.

10. After appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle's driver and awarded compensation Rs.2,11,000/- together with interest at 7.5% p.a. payable by the respondents 1 and 2 from the date of petition till the date of realization. The petition against the respondents 3 and 4 is dismissed.

11. I have heard the learned counsel representing both parties.

12. In the grounds of appeal, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contended that the tribunal erred in restricting the claim of appellant; tribunal ought to have been accepted the evidence of PW.2/doctor w