JUDGMENT :

This appeal is preferred by the Appellant/claimant, challenging the award dated 03.02.2016 passed in M.V.O.P.No.36/2013 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XIII Addl. District Judge, Vijayawada, (for short ‘the Tribunal’), wherein the Tribunal while partly allowing the petition, awarded compensation of Rs.1,33,000/-with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation to the respondent/claimant for the injuries sustained by the claimant.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as parties in the M.V.O.P.

3. As seen from the record, originally the appellant/petitioner filed an application U/s.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) claiming a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-on account of the injuries and disability sustained by the petitioner in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 01.10.2011.

4. The facts show that on 01.10.2011 at about 05.45 a.m. while the petitioner was travelling in an auto bearing No. AP 16X 9741 from Sunnapubattilu Center to go to RTC Bus Stand, and when the auto reached Sikhamani Center, at about 06.00 a.m. the driver of the auto drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, causing turn turtle of the said auto, by dashing against the cable wires as a result of which the petitioner and two other passengers in the auto sustained multiple injuries. On information, Machavaram police registered a case in Cr.No.612/2011 for the offence punishable U/s.338 of the Indian Penal Code against the driver of the auto. The petitioner was shifted to Citi Orthopaedic Center, Vijayawada, for treatment. The petitioner sustained a fracture in the left leg ankle joint and right leg 3rd, 4th and 5th fingers were crushed in the said accident. The petitioner stayed in hospital as in-patient and took treatment for a period of one month and spent huge amount towards medical expenses. The petitioner was aged 30 years, hale and healthy at the time of accident. The petitioner is working as a Teacher in Bhashyam Public School and earning a salary of Rs.10,000/-per month. On account of the fractures received in the accident, the petitioner could not attend any work.

5. Before the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company, filed a counter, while traversing the material averments with regard to proof of age, avocation, monthly earnings of the petitioner, manner of accident, rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle, nature of injuries, medical expenditure, alleged permanent disability, and liability to pay compensation, and contended that there was no rash and negligent driving on part of the driver of the auto No. AP 16X 9741. The driver of crime auto was not having a valid driving license at the time of the accident. The compensation claimed is highly excessive. The 1st respondent remained exparte.

6. On the strength of the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 01.10.2011 at about 06.00 a.m. at Sikhamani Center, Mogalrajapuram Area in Vijayawada, due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto bearing No. AP 16X 9741 by the driver?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation as prayed for? If so, from whom and to what amount?

3. To what relief?

7. To substantiate his claim, the petitioner examined P.Ws-1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-15. On behalf of the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company, R.Ws-1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-4 were marked. Exs.X-1 and X-2 were marked through R.W-2.

8. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws-1 to PW-3, coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-15, held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto driver, and further, taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws-1 to 3 corroborated by Exs.A-1 to A-15, awarded a compensation of Rs.1,33,000/-with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the