JUDGMENT :

1. Dissatisfied with the order and decree dated 16.08.2012 in M.V.O.P. No.290 of 2009 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Kadapa (for short "the tribunal"), the claimant in the M.V.O.P. has preferred the appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. The parties herein will be referred to as arrayed in the M.V.O.P. for convenience.

3. The claimant had filed M.V.O.P. under Section 163-A read with II schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act read with Rule 455 of the Motor Vehicle Rules as per Act (Amended) 54 of 1994 seeking compensation an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 24.02.2008.

4. The claimant's case is that on 24.02.2008 in the morning, while he was proceeding on his motorcycle from Muddanur side, at about 2.00 PM, when he reached the up-gradient road of Mallela hillock, a lorry bearing No. A.P. 04 U 9299 (for convenience, referred to as 'the offending vehicle'), coming in the opposite direction rashly and negligently and losing control over the steering, dashed against the claimant. As a result, the claimant sustained a fracture to his right leg below the knee. After the accident, the claimant shifted to the Government Hospital, Pulivendla, and from there, to RIMS Hospital, Kadapa. He underwent surgery on the right leg below the knee, fixed a rod and treatment for about 20 days, was confined to bed for six months and spent nearly Rs.30,000/- towards treatment, medicines, travelling and attendant expenses and Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment. The claimant is an agriculturist, owns Ac.8.85 cents land, and used to plough the land personally. Due to the accident, he was forced to engage coolies to attend to work.

5. Respondents 1 and 3, owner and former owner of the offending lorry, remained ex-parte.

6. The second respondent, the offending vehicle's insurer, has filed its counter, denying the material allegations and further contending that the claim is highly excessive.

7. Based on the pleadings, the tribunal framed relevant issues. To substantiate the claim, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.6 on behalf of the claimant. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents.

8. On appreciation of the 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 of Rs.60,000/- under different heads against respondents 1 to 2.

9. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both parties.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant/ claimant contended that the tribunal erred in holding that P.W.2 is not the doctor who treated the claimant and erred in not awarding any amount towards attendant charges, transport charges and extra nourishment.

11. Learned counsel for the insurer/ second respondent supported the findings and observations of the tribunal.

12. Upon considering the argument of both the learned counsel and the material evidence on record, the point that arises for consideration is,

Whether the compensation awarded by the tribunal is just and reasonable, or it requires modification?

POINT:

a. As seen from the record, the tribunal's finding regarding the accident that occurred due to the negligent driving of the offending vehicle's driver is not disputed by the respondents by filing either cross-objection or cross-appeal. Hence, the said finding has attained finality.

b. To prove the injuries sustained in the accident, the claimant himself was examined as P.W.1 and Dr C.Sanjeevaiah as P.W.2. During the evidence, P.W.1 testified that he sustained a fracture to his leg. P.W.2 testified that he is practising as an Orthopedic surgeon, and on examination of the claimant, he noticed that:

1. Non-union fracture of pibiable sprain right with internal derangement of the right knee

2. An ethic ugly scar on the needle aspect of the right knee extending to the upper third of the right