The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to enhance compensation based on discrepancies in the awarded amount and the actual medical expenditure and pain and suffering endured by the petitioner.

JUDGMENT :

This Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order, dated 24.06.2015, in M.V.O.P. No.511 of 2012 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Kadapa (for short, ‘the Tribunal’).

2. The appellant herein is no other than the claimant before the Tribunal in M.V.O.P. No.511 of 2012. The respondents herein are no other than the respondents in M.V.O.P. No.511 of 2012, who are owner of the Tractor trolley bearing registration No.AP-04AJ-6894 (for short, ‘the offending vehicle’) involved in the accident and the insurance company respectively.

3. The parties to this Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the Tribunal, for the sake of convenience.

4. The petitioner laid a claim before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- on account of the injuries caused to him in a motor vehicle accident, which was occurred on 22.02.2012 at about 04:30 p.m. near Raja Saheb Peta on Seetharamapuram – Porumamilla road, in which the driver of the offending vehicle had involved. The case of the petitioner, in substance, according to the claim filed by him before the Tribunal, is that he was aged about 38 years at the time of accident. He was hale and healthy prior to the date of accident. On 22.02.2012 morning, he went to Porumamilla on a motorcycle on his personal work. After completion of his work, he left Porumamilla on the same motorcycle. He was proceeding on the same motorcycle on the left side of the road. At about 04:30 p.m., when he reached near Raja Saheb Peta on Seetharamapuram – Porumamilla road, the offending vehicle of the first respondent bearing registration No.AP-04-AJ-6894 came in opposite direction, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, with high speed and dashed against the motorcycle of the petitioner. Petitioner fell down from his motorcycle and sustained serious fracture injuries. He was taken to RIMS Hospital, Kadapa. He lodged a report at RIMS Hospital before the Police, which was registered as a case in Crime No.20 of 2012 of Porumamilla Police Station, and after completion of investigation, Police laid charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle. The accident occurred was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. Petitioner sustained a fracture to his right upper thigh, over chest and other parts of the body. From RIMS Hospital, Kadapa he was taken to Himalaya Multi Specialty Hospital, Kadapa where the doctors conducted a surgery to the fractured injury by inserting rods, plates and screws and he was in the hospital for 20 days as inpatient. After discharge from the Himalaya Multi Specialty Hospital, Kadapa he took treatment from private orthopedic surgeons at Kadapa. He incurred Rs.20,000/- towards treatment, medicines and extra-nourishment; Rs.5,000/- towards transport charges. He also incurred transport expenses of Rs.5,000/- and attendant charges. In spite of the treatment, the fractures are not united properly. The petitioner is not able to perform the agricultural operations as like he did prior to the date of accident.

5. Petitioner in his affidavit apportioned the claim of compensation under different heads. He apportioned Rs.25,000/- towards treatment, medicines and extra nourishment. He apportioned Rs.5,000/- towards transport charges, Rs.15,000/- towards attendant charges, Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.30,000/- towards permanent disability and loss of amenities in life and further compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- towards loss of earning power and thus he has shown the total amount of Rs.6,00,000/- but restricted his claim to Rs.2,50,000/-.

6. First respondent is owner of the offending vehicle and second respondent is the insurer and both of them are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-.

7. The first respondent, owner, remained ex parte before the Tribunal.

8. The second respondent, insurance company, got file