The legal requirement for transport endorsement on a driving license for driving a light motor vehicle and the exemption from the requirement to obtain the endorsement for commercial vehicles, as clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the Government of India, influenced the Court's decision in awarding compensation to the claimant.

JUDGMENT :

V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.

1. The appellant is the Claimant in M.V.O.P.No. 433 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Kadapa and the respondents are the respondents in the said case.

2. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim application.

3. The claimant filed a Claim Petition under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents praying the Tribunal to award an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a Motor Vehicle Accident occurred on 02.02.2008.

4. The brief averments of the petition are as follows:

On 02.02.2008 the petitioner along with others boarded an auto bearing No. AP 04W 0183 to go towards Nandimandalam side and when the auto reached Kuntamarri on Vempalli road, the driver of auto drove the same in a rash and negligent manner in order to cross another auto and dashed to a motor cycle and then turned turtle, resulting which, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and the petitioner claimed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation.

5. The first respondent remained exparte. The second respondent filed counter denying the claim of the claimant and contended that the claimant is not entitled any compensation and the second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

(i) Whether the petitioner received injuries in a motor vehicle accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the auto bearing No. AP 04W 0183 on 02.02.2008?

(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?

(iii) To what relief?

7. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of the petitioner, PW1 and PW2 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 were marked. On behalf of respondents RW1 and RW2 were examined and Ex.B1 and Ex.X1 to Ex.X4 were marked.

8. At the culmination of the enquiry, after considering the evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the Tribunal has given a finding that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of offending vehicle and the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.1,17,082/- to the claimant towards compensation.

9. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant filed the present appeal claiming the remaining balance of compensation amount.

10. Now, the points for consideration are:

1. Whether the Order of Tribunal needs any interference?

2. Whether the claimant/appellant is entitled for enhancement of compensation as prayed for?

11. POINT Nos. 1 and 2:

On considering the Ex.A1 attested copy of First Information Report, Ex.A2 attested copy of charge sheet and Ex.A3 attested copy of wound certificate coupled with the evidence of PW1, the Tribunal came to conclusion that the accident in question was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle auto bearing No. AP 04W 0183.

12. The case of the petitioner is that on 02.02.2008, the petitioner along with others boarded an auto bearing No. AP 04W 0183 to go towards Nandimandalam side and when the auto reached Kuntamarri on Vempalli road, the driver of auto drove the same in a rash and negligent manner in order to cross another auto and dashed to a motor cycle and then turned turtle, resulting which, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries The oral evidence of PW1 is well supported by Ex.A1 to Ex.A3. The material on record proves that the accident in question was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle auto in which the petitioner sustained fracture injuries to both legs. The Tribunal also came to the same conclusion. I do not find any legal flaw or infirmity in the said finding given by Tribunal.

13. Coming to the compensation granted by the Tribunal, the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.1,17,082/- towards total compensation to the