JUDGMENT :

T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J.

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 04.07.2005 in MVOP No. 169 of 2001 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Tirupati (for short ‘the Tribunal’) the claimant has preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. The parties will be referred to as arrayed in the MVOP for convenience.

3. The claimant had applied to Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- for the injuries and Disability sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 03.03.2000.

4. The claimant’s case is that on 03.03.2000 at about 6.30 AM, near Sai Baba Temple on Satyavedu - Srikalahasthi road, while he was travelling in the Tractor - Trailer bearing No. TN-21-B-5721 and 5720 (hereinafter referred to as offending vehicle) as a coolie, the offending vehicle’s driver drove the vehicle at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and suddenly turned the vehicle to a side. As a result, the inmates of the trailer slipped and fell.

5. The 1st respondent filed counter submitting that the 1st respondent has insured the vehicle with the 2nd respondent under the policy; the 1st respondent sold the vehicle to Subramanyam, and the same was transferred in favour of Subramanyam with effect from 27.12.1999, as on the date of the accident, Subramanyam was the owner of the offending vehicle and not the 1st respondent. The said Subramanyam insured the offending vehicle with Oriental Insurance company from 22.08.2001 to 21.08.2002.

6. The 2nd respondent filed a counter stating that there was no negligence on the part of the 1st respondent.

7. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal has formulated appropriate issues. On behalf of the claimant, PWs. 1 to 3 got examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.6. On behalf of the respondents, RWs. 1 and 2 got examined and Ex.B1 copy of the policy was marked.

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 by its driver. The Tribunal granted a compensation amount of Rs. 55,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization against respondents 2 and 3 and directed interim compensation amount of Rs. 25,000/- awarded under no fault liability shall be deducted out of total compensation.

9. The Tribunal has found that the claimant travelled in the tractor only as a coolie; his risk is covered under Ex.B1 policy. The contention raised by the Insurance company regarding the driving licence of the offending vehicle is negatived by the Tribunal by holding that the presumption is that the driver of the offending vehicle had a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. The said findings of the Tribunal are not challenged by the respondent-Insurance company by filing an appeal or cross objection. It has attained finality.

10. Heard both the learned Counsel. Perused the record.

11. The learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that the claimant suffered permanent Disability to the extent of 30% and ought to have awarded compensation accordingly. The Tribunal ought to have awarded reasonable compensation under the head of pain and suffering; the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and does not commensurate with the Disability suffered by the appellant/claimant.

12. Learned Counsel for the respondents supported the Tribunal’s findings and observations.

13. Now the point for determination is:

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

POINT:

14. The claimant, who was examined as PW-1, stated his evidence that after the accident, he was admitted to Community Health Centre, Sathyavedu, and later shifted to SVRRGG Hospital, Tirupati, for treatment for about 20 days as an in-patient. Due to the pelvic injur