JUDGMENT :

T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J.

1. Aggrieved by the order and decree dated 24.09.2011 in M.V.O.P. No. 272 of 2009 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, at Rajahmundry (for short “the tribunal”) whereby the tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 1,73,921/- 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 seeking enhancement of 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 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 04.12.2005.

4. The claimant's case is that on 04.12.2005 at about 11 a.m. when she and her husband were proceeding on their motorcycle, reached near Agarwal Tyres shop in Tanuku road in Tadepalligudem town, the 1st respondent being the driver of the lorry bearing No. AIL 966 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’) drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the petitioner’s motorcycle from back side due to which she fell on the road and the lorry tyres ran over the right hand of the claimant and sustained injuries. A lorry bearing No. AP-01-V-1899 parked on the road. Respondents 4 and 5 are its driver and owner and the 6th respondent is its insurer and they are added by abundant caution. Immediately, she was taken to the Government Hospital, Tadepalligudem, and later taken to Dr. Raja Rao Memorial Hospital, Nidadavolu, and took treatment as an inpatient for two months.

5. Respondents 1, 2, 4 and 5 have remained ex-parte.

6. Respondent No. 3 filed counter denying the material allegations, inter-alia contended that the accident occurred due to the contributory negligence in parking of lorry bearing No. AP-01-V-1899. The 1st respondent was not having valid and effective driving license, and the 2nd respondent handed over possession of the vehicle to the 1st respondent, knowing fully well that the 1st respondent did not possess a valid and effective driving license, allowed him to drive the vehicle, therefore, contravening the provisions of the M.V. Act and commit a breach of the terms of the policy.

7. Respondent No. 6 filed its counter denying the material allegations contending that there was no rash or negligent act on the part of the 4th respondent and the accident occurred only due to the negligent driving of the 1st respondent.

8. Based on the pleadings, the tribunal framed relevant issues. To substantiate the claim, during the trial, on behalf of claimants, PWs. 1 to 3 were examined and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.9. On behalf of the 3rd respondent, RW-1 was examined and got marked Ex.B.1 copy of policy.

9. After evaluating the evidence on record, the tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No. AIL 966 and the claimant sustained injuries in the accident. The tribunal also has given a finding that the respondents 1 to 3 failed to establish the rash and negligence attributed to the driver of the lorry bearing No. AP-01-V-1899 parked on the right side of the road at the time of accident and while answering issue No. 2, granted compensation of Rs. 1,73,921/-.

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

11. In the grounds of appeal, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contended that the tribunal ought to have awarded just and reasonable compensation as she suffered 40% disability to her right hand, she is unable to attend the work; the tribunal failed to see that the claimant was doing tailoring work and she lost her total ability and the tribunal ought to have taken the disability at 40% as prescribed by the medical board, instead