The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of just and reasonable compensation for personal injury under the Motor Vehicles Act, considering factors such as contributory negligence, monthly earnings, permanent disability, and various conventional heads of compensation.

JUDGMENT:

This appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”) by the appellant/claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 02.06.2006 delivered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- II Additional District Judge(Fast Track Court), Srikakulam (for short “the Tribunal”) in M.V.O.P.No.228 of 2002 granting compensation of Rs.32,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization to the appellant/claimant on account of the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident, against both the respondents jointly and severally.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts, necessary for adjudication of the case, are that a 43 years old – V.Durga Prasadarao (petitioner) was a Sound and Radio Engineer and was drawing salary of Rs.3,000/- per month at the time of the accident. On 27.01.2000 at 3.00 p.m., the petitioner along with Sasibhushan Patnaik was proceeding on his motorcycle towards their village and when they reached Haripuram Junction at 4.30 p.m., the Trucker bearing No.AP 30-T-3587 driven by its driver came in an opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle due to which the petitioner, who is the rider of the motorcycle had fallen and received crush injury to the ankle and all over the body. He was shifted to the Government Hospital, Palasa, for treatment. The matter was reported to the Police alleging that the alleged accident took place as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the said Trucker. Based on the statement given by the petitioner/injured, Mandasa Police registered a case in Crime No.10 of 2000 for the offence under Sections 337 and 338 IPC. After investigation of the case, charge sheet was submitted against the accused-driver (Ch.Venkata Rao) for having committed the offence punishable under Sections 337 and 338 IPC.

(ii) The petitioner/injured filed an application claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- before the Tribunal on account of the injuries sustained by him in the said accident.

(iii) The 1st respondent filed a written statement contending inter alia that the averments of the petition are false. It is further averred that the claims made under various heads are all imaginary figures to gain wrongfully and in fact, the driver of the offending vehicle was having valid driving licence and the accident took place only due to the rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle by its rider (petitioner). It is further averred that the alleged accident took place in a busy locality and there was no chance to drive the offending vehicle at a high speed. It is further averred that the said Trucker was insured with the 2nd respondent and this respondent is not liable to pay the compensation.

(iv) The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company filed a written statement denying all the allegations made in the petition. It is contended inter alia that the driver of the 1st respondent was not having valid driving licence to drive the offending vehicle. Hence, this respondent is not at all liable to pay the compensation. It is further averred that the petitioner and the 1st respondent have to prove that the offending vehicle, which involved in the accident, was covered by a valid insurance policy by the date of the accident, otherwise, this respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. Even if the policy is established, this respondent is not liable to pay the compensation unless it is proved that Section 64 VB of the Insurance Act, 1939 and Rules 58/59 of the Insurance Rules, 1939 are complied with. The petitioner has to prove that he was aged about 43 years and was working as a Sound Engineer under self-employment and was getting Rs.3,000/- per month etc. It is further averred that the compensation claimed by the pe