JUDGMENT :

B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI, J.

1. This appeal is preferred by the claimant, challenging the award dated 04.07.2012 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 447/2010 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Addl. District Judge, Srikakulam, (for short ‘the Tribunal’) wherein the Tribunal partly allowed the petition, awarded compensation of Rs. 3,41,377/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit, for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident.

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

3. As seen from the record, the petitioner filed the application U/s. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) claiming a compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/- on account of the injuries and disability sustained by the petitioner in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 30.01.2010.

4. The facts would show that on 30.01.2010 at about 11.00 a.m. when the petitioner was coming on his motor cycle bearing No. AP-30B-9023 and at about 01.00 p.m. the 1st respondent being the driver of the lorry bearing No. WB 23B 0832, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, without observing traffic rules, and dashed against the motor cycle, due to which the petitioner fell down and lorry front wheel ran over on petitioner’s left hand, and he received multiple crush injuries on his left hand, stomach, abdomen, penny, both knees, both hands, head, left foot and injuries on other parts of the body. The petitioner was shifted to Palasa Hospital from which, he was taken to Kanakadurga Hospital Private Limited, Visakhapatnam, and he underwent major operation, and left hand was amputated, and took treatment for about one month as in-patient and since then, he is taking treatment as out-patient, and he met Rs. 1,00,000/- towards medical expenses, and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards travelling expenses, besides extra nourishment and attendant charges. The petitioner is doing cultivation and mason work, and earning Rs. 10,000/- per month.

5. Before the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company, filed written statement, while traversing the material averments with regard to manner of accident, rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle, nature of injuries, medical expenditure, alleged permanent disability, liability to pay compensation, and contended that there is violation of terms of policy by owner, and the driver is not having valid driving license at relevant point of time, and as such, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. The petitioner himself got confused, and dashed the crime vehicle, which resulted the accident. The petitioner being agriculturist, there is no loss of income for him. The injuries sustained by the petitioner have not adversely affected his earnings, and they are simple in nature. The 1st respondent/driver remained ex-parte.

6. On the strength of the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

1. Whether the driver of the 1st respondent vehicle Lorry bearing No. WB 23/B 0831, drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident and responsible for the accident?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as prayed for? If so, to how much amount and from which of the respondents?

3. To what relief?

7. To substantiate his claim, the petitioner examined PWs. 1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-14. On behalf of the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company, no oral evidence was adduced, however Ex.B-1 insurance policy was marked.

8. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2, coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-14, held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle lorry only, and further taking into consideration the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 corroborated by Exs.A-1 to A-14, awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,41,377/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit.

9. This an appe