JUDGMENT :

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 29.08.2011 in MVOP No.414 of 2008 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Vizianagaram (for short ‘the Tribunal’), the claimant has preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

2. For convenience's sake, the parties will be referred to as arrayed in the MV OP.

3. The claimant has filed the petition under Sections 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act read with Rule 455 of Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, to grant compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- for the injuries and disability sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 09.11.2007.

4. On 09.11.2007, the claimant, along with M. Narasimha Murthy, G. Kumaraswamy and M. Sridhar, engaged a Tata Sumo bearing No. AP 35 U 4969 and boarded the same at Parvathipuram to go to Sompeta to attend the function. The said Tata Sumo would hereinafter be referred to as 'the offending vehicle'. When the offending vehicle reached near matchbox factory roadside, Parvathipuram, at about 9.30 a.m., the vehicle dashed a tree. The offending vehicle's driver, the first respondent, drove the same rashly and negligently at high speed even without hearing the cries and cautions of the claimant. The claimant sustained fractures on the left leg and endangerous injuries all over the body. Immediately, the claimant was taken to Karshaka Maharshi Hospital, Parvathipuram, where the doctors took an X-ray and found fractures on the shaft of the left femur, the super left femur and the neck of the femur of the left. Injury on the face and other vital parts of the body and Dr A. Hari Krishna, M.S.Ortho conducted surgery to his left femur, neck femur and super left femur, applied plaster of Paris and plates. The claimant underwent treatment from 09.11.2007 to 23.11.2007 as an in-patient. Later, he underwent treatment at MIMS Hospital, Nellimarla, where the doctor conducted second surgery for the left femur and underwent treatment from Dr Laxminarayana, M.S. Ortho, MIMS hospital, Nellimarla. Subsequently, he underwent physiotherapy at Area Hospital, Parvathipuram.

5. The first respondent filed a counter, and the second respondent adopted the same. On the counter, the first respondent contended that he is an experienced driver and there was no negligence.

6. The third respondent filed its counter, contending that claim is excessive and the petitioner is not entitled to the same.

7. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal has framed appropriate issues. During the trial, on behalf of the claimant, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined, marked Exs.A.1 to A.13 and Exs.X.1 to X.7. On behalf of the respondents, none were examined, Ex.B.1-copy of policy was marked by consent.

8. After considering the material evidence on record, the Tribunal held that due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle’s driver, the accident took place and awarded compensation of Rs.3,01,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization.

9. Heard both the learned counsel.

10. It is contended by the learned counsel for the claimant that the Tribunal erred in not granting amounts under the head of transportation and extra nourishment and granted a very meagre amount for the disability suffered by the claimant/appellant.

11. The learned counsel for the second respondent supported the findings and observations of the Tribunal.

12. Considering the rival contentions of both the learned counsel and on perusal of the material on record, the point for consideration is whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal was just and reasonable or required any enhancement.

13. It is not in dispute that the second respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle, and the said vehicle was insured by the third respondent. The third respondent filed Ex.B.1-policy. The said policy was in force as o