JUDGMENT :

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 31.07.2006 in M.V.O.P. No.707 of 2003 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Vizianagaram (for short 'the Tribunal'), the appellant, who is the claimant in M.V.O.P., has preferred this appeal questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

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

3. The claimant had filed a petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-for his injuries in a motor vehicle accident on 17.06.2003.

4. The claimant's case is that on 17.06.2003, during his employment under the 2nd respondent, he started in a lorry bearing No. A.P. 31 T 8899 (hereinafter referred to as 'the offending vehicle') as a cleaner. The first respondent, who is the offending vehicle's driver, drove the offending vehicle rashly and negligently; when it reached near Konijerla police station, the lorry turned turtle. As a result of the accident, he sustained grievous injuries on his left leg and all over his body. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to the Government hospital, Khammam; after that, he had taken treatment at several hospitals. Plastic surgery was also conducted on his left leg. The Station House Officer, Konijerla police station, registered a case in Cr.No.76 of 2003 under Sections 337 and 338 of I.P.C. against the first respondent.

5. Respondents 1 and 2, the offending vehicle's driver and owner, have remained exparte.

6. Respondent No.3-insurance company, has filed its counter denying the averments made in the claim petition and submitted that the claimant should prove that the offending vehicle was insured with this respondent and the policy was in force as of the date of the accident. The claimant should prove that the offending vehicle's driver had a valid and subsisting driving licence at the time of the accident. The claimant shall put to strict proof that he sustained injuries in the accident. The compensation claimed is excessive. The accident is said to have occurred during his employment as a cleaner of the offending vehicle. Hence, the Tribunal does not have any jurisdiction to entertain the application. If the claimant has any grievance against the insurance company, he has to file the petition before the Workmen's Compensation Court at Vizianagaram.

7. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal has formulated relevant issues. On behalf of the claimant, PWs.1 and 2 got examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.15 and Ex.X1. On behalf of the contesting 3rd respondent, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.

8. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle’s driver and granted compensation of Rs.70,256/-under various heads together with interest at 7% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization against respondents 1 to 3, making them jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

9. Heard both the learned counsel. Perused the record.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant-claimant has contended that the Tribunal should have awarded the compensation by treating the disability sustained by him as 100%; the Tribunal grossly erred in awarding Rs.5,000/-to the grievous injury, and Rs.1,000/-to each of the simple injuries and the Tribunal should have awarded a minimum amount of Rs.1,00,000/-under this head.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the Tribunal’s findings and observations.

12. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and requires modification?

POINT:

13. The Tribunal's findings that the accident occurred on account of the first respondent's negligent driving and the claimant sustained injuries in the said accident are not disputed by filing an appeal or cross-objection. Hence these findings have attained finality. The c