The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of compensation for motor accidents, taking into account medical expenses, loss of future earnings, and pain and suffering, based on the evidence presented and the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT :

B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI, J.

1. Challenging the award dated 18.06.2013 passed in M.V.O.P.No. 64/2011 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-II Addl.District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni, the appellant/Insurance Company filed the appeal.

2. The respondent/claimant being minor, represented by his father filed claim petition before the learned Tribunal alleging that on 30.11.2010 at about 06.30 p.m. while the claimant was going towards his house at Tirumala Nagar on a bicycle, he reached a place near Seetharam Nagar Arch; At tha time a lorry bearing No. ATA 0485 which was coming into Adoni from Yemmiganur side came at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the bicycle, on which the claimant was travelling, as a result, the claimant fell down and right side front tyre ran over the hands of the claimant and sustained crush bleeding injuries; Immediately he was shifted to Government Hospital, Kurnool for treatment; As per advice of doctors at Kurnool, he was shifted to Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad.

The claimant was treated as in-patient in Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad, from 01.12.2010 to 14.12.2010; He incurred expenditure of Rs.1,05,000/- towards medical charges, Rs.10,070/- towards x-ray; Subsequently, the claimant once again was admitted in Apollo Hospital on 23.12.2010 and he was treated as in-patient till 28.12.2010; During the said period, he incurred Rs.63,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.3,304/- towards medical examinations; The claimant had to undergo further treatment and he has to undergo an operation for left thumb.

The claimant was hale and healthy before accident; He was studying 7th class; Due to crush injury of both hands, the claimant lost free movement and working condition of his hands is badly affected; As per doctors certificate, the permanent disability is 40%; The claimant is a brilliant student; The 1st respondent is owner of lorry and 2nd respondent is insurer of the said lorry.

3. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company filed counter, while traversing the material averments with regard to manner of accident, rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle, nature of injuries, medical expenditure, age of the claimant, alleged permanent disability, liability to pay compensation, and contended that the accident occurred due to negligent of the claimant himself;

The petitioner has not spent Rs.2,00,000/- for his treatment. The driver of the crime vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and the claimant has not suffered any permanent disability; The compensation claimed by the claimed under different heads is excessive.

4. The 1st respondent remained ex-parte.

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

1. Whether the accident and the resultant injuries to the petitioner had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver employed by the respondent No. 1 on his lorry bearing No. ATA 0485?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? and If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

3. To what relief?

6. To substantiate his claim, the father of the claimant was examined as P.W-1, as the claimant was minor and also examined P.Ws-2 to 5 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-35. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, R.W-1 was examined and Exs.B-1 and B-2 were marked.

7. The learned Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws-1 to 5, coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-35, held that accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle, awarded compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation.

8. The learned counsel of the appellant/Insurance Company would submit that the learned Tribunal awarded excessive compensation to the claimant under various heads; and that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that the claimant was a non-earning member and notional income of Rs