JUDGMENT :

T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J.

1. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 03.12.2014 in M.V.O.P. No. 813 of 2012 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Vizianagaram (for short “the tribunal”) whereby the tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 46,239/- with interest at 7.5% from the date of petition till realization against respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally, the claimant has preferred the present appeal.

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 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- on account of the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 15.03.2012.

4. The claimant's case is that on 15.03.2012, at about 5.00 p.m. when the claimant and his relatives travelling from Peda Thadivada to Denkada, the first respondent drove his car bearing No. AP-37-C-7766 (hereinafter referred to as the “offending vehicle”) in 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 Headquarters Hospital, Vizianagaram, obtained treatment there till 25.03.2012, thereafter obtained treatment at Tirumala Nursing Home, Vizianagaram, as inpatient. The claimant's further case is that since he sustained injuries in the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent, claims compensation Rs. 3,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him against the driver, owner, and insurer of the offending vehicle.

5. Respondents 1 and 2, offending vehicle’s driver and owner, have remained ex-parte.

6. The third respondent, the offending vehicle’s insurer, filed its counter, denying the allegations in the petition, inter-alia, contended that the accident not occurred due to the negligence of the first respondent and the second respondent violated the policy's terms and conditions, and hence it is not liable to pay any compensation.

7. 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 were examined and were marked Exs.A.1 to A.9 and Ex.X.1. On behalf of the second respondent, no oral evidence was adduced, but the policy copy was marked under Ex.B.1.

8. 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. 46,239/- together with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.

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

10. In the grounds of appeal, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contended that the tribunal erred in not considering the disability suffered by the claimant, even though the Member, District Medical Board, issued the disability certificate to the claimant duly examining and so also did not award transportation charges, extra nourishment and loss of income.

11. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent has supported the findings and observations of the tribunal.

12. Upon hearing the argument of both the learned counsel and having perused the record, the point that has arisen for consideration is whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal is just and reasonable?

POINT:

(a) The tribunal’s findings that the accident occurred on account of first respondent’s negligent driving and the claimant sustained injuries in the said accident are not disputed by filing a cross-appeal or cross-objection. Hence these findings have attained finality.

(b) The tribunal’s finding that the policy marked under Ex.B.1 was in force; and that the third respondent is liable to indemnify the second respondent are also not disputed in this appeal. It is the evidence of PW-1 that he sustained simple