JUDGMENT :

T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J.

1. Aggrieved by the order and decree dated 23.07.2012 in M.V.O.P. No. 238 of 2011 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Prakasam District, Ongole, (for short “the tribunal”) the respondents therein has preferred the present appeal questioning the award passed by the tribunal.

2. For convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the M.V.O.P.

3. The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation Rs. 5,00,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 27.02.2011.

4. The claimant’s case is that on 27.02.2011, when he was going on a motorcycle at about 9.00 A.M. and when he reached near water tank situated by the side of Tammavaram and Medarametla road, a tractor and trailer bearing No. AP-W-1456, AAE-3786 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle; as a result, the claimant fell and received injuries; thereby he was taken to Jayanthi Nursing Home, Medarametla, later shifted to NRI hospital, Mangalagiri for better treatment.

5. The second respondent filed his counter, the same was adopted by the first respondent, wherein it is disputed the manner of the accident, age, avocation, income and injuries sustained by the claimant and the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle. Therefore, there was no negligence on the part of the first respondent.

6. Based on the pleadings, the tribunal framed relevant issues. To substantiate the claim, on behalf of the claimant during the trial, PWs. 1 and 2 were examined, Exs.A.1 to A.11 were marked; on behalf of respondents, RWs. 1 and 2 were examined, and Exs.B.1 to B.4 were marked. After evaluating the evidence on record, the tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle’s driver and awarded compensation Rs. 1,73,000/- against respondents 1 and 2 with interest at 9% P.A. from the date of petition till realization.

7. Heard both the learned counsel.

8. During the hearing, learned counsel for the appellants (respondents in M.V.O.P.) has contended that the tribunal came to the conclusion based on the crime registration, which is adjudicated by the criminal court, to decide the negligence of the first appellant and mere filing of the charge sheet could not establish the rash and negligent driving of the first appellant and PW-2 did not mention the exact number of wounds in the wound certificate. The tribunal erred in granting Rs. 86,000/- towards treatment based on the essentiality certificate and the tribunal failed to note that the first respondent did not produce his driving license and prayed to allow the appeal by dismissing the claim petition.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent (claimant in M.V.O.P.) has supported the findings and observations of the tribunal.

10. The claimant sustained injuries in the accident is not disputed. However, the manner of the accident and the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal are disputed. Now the points for determination are:

(I) Whether the tribunal erred in holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent.

(II) Whether the quantum of compensation fixed by the tribunal is just and reasonable or requires modification.

POINT No. 1:

(a) The claimant himself got examined as PW-1. In the chief examination, he narrated the manner of the accident. According to his evidence, on 27.02.2011, while he was going on the motorcycle, when he reached the water tank situated by the side of Tammavaam and Medarametla road, a tractor and trailer came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle. In support of his case, the claimant relied on Ex.A.1, F.I.R. and Ex.A.3, charge sheet. The second respondent, the offending vehicle’s owner, was exa