JUDGMENT :

1. Aggrieved by the Order and decree dated 10.09.2012 in M.V.O.P. No.271 of 2010 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Ongole (for short, "the tribunal"), whereby the tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,45,000/-with interest at 9% from the date of petition till realization against respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally, the claimant has preferred the present appeal.

2. For convenience, the parties herein will be referred to as per their rankings in the M.V.O.P.

3. The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-for his injuries in a motor vehicle accident on 03.05.2010.

4. The claimant's case is that on 03.05.2010, he went to Dyvalaravuru village on his T.V.S. Moped bearing No.AP-27-AA-8357. After completing his work, he was returning to his village on the NH-5 road. When he reached Venkatarajupalem village, the lorry bearing No.NL-01-D-7499 (hereinafter referred to as 'the offending vehicle’) proceeding from Guntur to Ongole, driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit on the back side of Moped of the claimant. As a result, he fell on the road and received multiple injuries, including a fracture of the tibia, shaft left leg and degloving injury on the right foot. He was taken first aid at Sai Neuro Trauma Hospital, Ongole. After that, he had taken treatment at N.R.I. Hospital, Guntur. From there, he was shifted to Manipal Hospital, Vijayawada, where he was treated as an in-patient for 27 days. An operation was conducted on the fractures received to the left leg, and the rods were fixed. Skin grafting was done to the right foot, and plastic surgery was also conducted.

5. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed counter contending that the offending vehicle's driver is an experienced driver with a valid driving licence. There was no mistake on his part in causing the accident. The accident was only due to the act of the claimant. The claimant was not a businessman. The lorry was insured with the .rd respondent. Compensation if any payable, is payable by the 3rd respondent only.

6. The 3rd respondent filed a counter, contending that it was unaware of the criminal case proceedings launched against the 1st respondent. The insured did not report the accident in collusion with the claimant to cause loss to the 3rd respondent. The offending vehicle’s driver i.e., 1st respondent has a valid driving licence. The accident occurred only due to the negligent act of the claimant. In any case, the compensation claimed is excessive, and the interest claimed is also excessive. The claimant sustained only one grievous injury. The claim of Rs.2,16,888.84/-towards medical and other conveyance expenses obtained from N.R.I. Hospital, Guntur are not correct. The said documents are obtained for wrongful gain.

7. Based on the pleadings, the tribunal framed relevant issues. To substantiate the claim, on behalf of the claimant, P.Ws.1 and 2 got examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.66. Respondents 1 and 2 did not adduce any evidence. On behalf of the 3rd respondent, no oral evidence was adduced but got marked Ex.B.1-policy copy with consent.

8. After appreciation of 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 Rs.1,45,000/-together with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondents 1 to 3, making them jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

9. I have heard the learned counsel representing both parties.

10. In the grounds of appeal, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contends that the tribunal ought to have awarded the compensation as claimed by the petitioner by considering the nature of injuries, disability sustained, and treatment undergone by him; the tribunal failed to consider that the appellant had spent more than Rs.3,00