JUDGMENT :

The appellant is the claimant in M.V.O.P.No.549 of 2009, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-(Principal District Judge) East Godavari District, Rajahmundry, and the respondents herein are the respondents in the said case.

2. The parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim application.

3. The claimant has filed a claim petition under Sections 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for seeking compensation of Rs.8,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a Motor Vehicle Accident that occurred on 04.12.2008. at about 03:30 PM.

4. The case of the petitioner is as follows: On 04.12.2008 at about 03:30 P.M., while he was proceeding from Mandapeta to Pasalapudi village on Super Splendor Hero Honda Motor cycle bearing No.AP 5 AR 6043 very slowly and cautiously on the left side of road and when he reached Veerabharapuram, at that time the 1st respondent drove lorry bearing No.AP 37 W 7556 in a rash and negligent manner in opposite direction and dashed the motor cycle on which the petitioner was proceeding due to which the petitioner fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries.

5. The 1st and 2nd respondents remained ex parte.

6. The 3rd respondent filed a written statement denying the material pleas taken by the petitioner and putting the petitioner to establish the same strictly and specifically and setting out its defenses with a plea to dismiss the petition ultimately.

7. Based on the above pleadings the, Tribunal framed following issues:

1) Whether the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of car bearing Registration No. AP 07 U 2385?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for the compensation amount claimed? If so from which of the respondents?

3) To what relief?

8. On behalf of the Petitioners, PW1 to PW5 are examined, Ex.A.1 to A.7 and Exs.X1 to X4 are marked. On behalf of the respondents, nobody has been examined but Ex.B1 copy of Insurance policy has been marked.

9. Now the point for consideration are:

1) Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference?

2) Whether the appellant is entitled enhancement of claim as prayed for?

POINT NO.1 & 2:

10. The petitioner pleaded that on the report given by him the case was registered in Cr.No.103/08 on the file of Alamuru police station against the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 37 W 7556.

11. In order to prove the case of the petitioner the petitioner relied on his self-testimony as PW1. He deposed in his evidence that due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry i.e., 1st respondent this accident was happened and the 1st respondent drove the lorry bearing No.AP 37 W 7556 in a rash and negligent manner in a opposite direction and dashed the motor cycle of the petitioner due to which, the petitioner fell down and received injuries. In support of the evidence of PW1 the petitioner also relied on Ex.A1 attested copy of FIR and Ex.A3 attested copy of charge sheet, the Ex.A1 and A3 coupled with the evidence of PW1 clearly goes to show about the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent driver of the lorry and due to his rash and negligence driving, only the accident is happened. The learned Tribunal also gave the said finding in its order dated 07.01.2011. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the finding given by the learned Tribunal.

12. In order to prove the claim of the petitioner and in order to prove his injuries the petitioner got examined three doctors as PW2 to PW4. As per the evidence of PW2 coupled with Ex.A2 wound certificate, and Ex.X1 case sheet, the petitioner/claimant sustained six grievous injuries and one simple injury and Ex.A7 is bunch of bills also marked through him, in cross-examination nothing was elicited form PW2 to discredited the testimony of PW2, PW3, who is another Doctor, he is practising as an Orthopaedic surgeon deposed in his evidence that on 10.12.2008, the petitioner was shifted to his hospital as in-patient and as per the discharge record, he s