The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of just compensation for personal injuries sustained in a motor accident, considering medical expenses, loss of earnings, loss of amenities, and interest on the compensation amount.

JUDGMENT :

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

1. Heard Sri M.Venkata Ramana Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and Smt. V.Durga, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2/Insurance Company through virtual mode.

2. This appeal directed by the appellant/claimant challenging the Order and Decree dated 13.05.2008 passed in M.V.O.P.No. 329 of 2004 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Chittoor (hereinafter referred to ‘Tribunal’).

3. Parties are referred to as they were arrayed in the proceedings before the learned Tribunal, for the sake of convenience.

4. The case of the claimant is that he was travelling in a car on 15.05.2000 and when the car reached a place Gattukindapalli at about 7.00 AM, a lorry belonging to respondent No. 1 came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the car, as a result, the claimant and others travelling in the car sustained injuries and petitioner was shifted to SVRR Hospital, Tirupati; police registered a case in Crime No. 78 of 2000, investigated the same and laid Report (charge sheet) against the driver of the respondent No. 1 for the offence punishable under Sections 304-A, 338 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘IPC’); the claimant suffered five (05) injuries out of which one injury is grievous as he suffered fracture to his right toe and he suffered laceration injury to his right side of the eye, as a result he suffered deformity on his face and his visibility of right eye was decreased; he was in-patient for 2½ months and later, he took treatment in CMC Hospital, Vellore and he spent Rs.1,00,000/- for his medical expenses; he needs further surgery to his right toe for which he require Rs.25,000/- towards treatment; he is unable to walk freely; he lost right eye sight, there is deformity and he suffered Rs.10,00,000/-loss on account of injuries sustained in the accident; he filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity ‘the Act’).

5. The respondent No. 1/owner of the lorry remains exparte. The respondent No. 2/Insurance Company i.e., Insurer of the respondent No. 1 filed counter contending that the accident was occurred due to head on collision between the lorry and car and therefore, the accident was occurred due to negligence of both drivers; the claimant did not suffer any disability and the compensation claimed by the claimant is highly excessive.

6. The respondent No. 3/owner of the car also remains exparte. The Insurer of the car i.e., respondent No. 4 filed a memo adopting the counter filed by the respondent No. 2/ Insurance Company.

7. The learned Tribunal, basing on the rival contentions, framed the following issues for trial:

1. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry AP7V 3721 or due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car bearing No. AP03F 990?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?

3. To what relief?

8. During enquiry, the claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and filed four (04) documents which are marked as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4. The claimant also examined the Doctor, who issued Ex.A.2/Wound Certificate, as P.W.2. On behalf of the respondents, no evidence either oral or documentary was placed before the Tribunal.

9. The Tribunal, on consideration of the evidence placed before it, on issue No. 1 which is regarding rash and negligent driving held that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry only. This finding was not challenged by either of the Insurance Company or owner of the lorry.

10. The contention of the claimant is that, the Tribunal did not award just compensation for the personal injuries suffered by him in the impugned motor accident and the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side; the Tribunal did not consider the medical bills and awarded lesser amount than the amount claimed by