JUDGMENT:

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 18.08.2011 in MVOP No.426 of 2010 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge (FTC), Tanuku (for short 'the Tribunal'), the claimant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the 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, read with Rule 455 of the Motor Vehicle Rules, read with amended Act No.54 of 1994, claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the injuries and disability sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 06.01.2010.

4. The claimant is a resident of Venkatarajapuram, H/o.Tallapalem of Ganapavaram Mandal, working as a mason and getting an amount of Rs.4,500/- per month, is about 22 years old. On 06.01.2010, when he went to Pippara Village for construction work, at 10 a.m., he went to have breakfast and walked on the road. By that time, the first respondent had driven the tractor bearing No. AP 7 G 1810 attached with a trailer bearing No.AP 37 B 5152, in a rash and negligent manner, proceeding from Attili side towards Pippara, dashed the claimant in the opposite direction on the wrong route, resulting in the claimant falling, and the front wheel of the tractor ran over his right leg below the knee, causing grievous injuries. The tractor and trailer will be referred to as "the offending vehicle". The petitioner was shifted to Vamsi Hi-Tech Hospital, and on receipt of the petitioner’s statement and based on MLC’s intimation, the police registered a case in Crime Number 4 of 2010 at Tanuku Police Station. The injured was treated as an inpatient in a hospital from 06.01.2010 to 22.01.2010. He underwent surgery for his mandible fracture and hard palate injury to his right leg, spending Rs.50,000/-towards surgical expenses; afterwards, he got treatment as an outpatient. He has lost his income for all these days as he lay in bed from the date of the accident. The leg was tripled, and he became unfit to render any labour work due to his permanent disability.

5. Respondents 1 and 2 remained ex-parte.

6. The third respondent filed its counter by denying all the averments contending that the first respondent was not authorized to drive the tractor and trailer (transport). It was involved in the accident, and it is a commercial transport commercial vehicle, which amounts to a violation of the terms and conditions. The petitioner has to prove the tractor and trailer had a proper route permit, fitness certificate, and registration certificate at the time of the accident. The petitioner has to prove that the tractor and trailer were validly insured at the time of the accident. The petitioner has to prove that he is a Mason and the manner of the accident.

7. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal has formulated appropriate issues. On behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 and 2 got examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.9. On behalf of the third respondent, R.W.1 got examined, and Exs.X1 and X2 were 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's driver. The Tribunal granted a compensation amount of Rs.2,40,000/- with proportionate interest and costs @ 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization against respondents 1 and 2. The petition is dismissed against the 3rd respondent.

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

10. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the Tribunal failed to award a proper compensation amount. Exonerating the liability of the third respondent is contrary to law and evidence. The evidence is not sufficient to prove that the driver had no valid driving license.

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