JUDGMENT :

This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”) has been filed by the appellant/Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 09.11.2010 delivered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District Judge (FTC), East Godavari, Kakinada in M.V.O.P.No.183 of 2007 granting compensation of a sum of Rs.85,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization to the petitioner on account of injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident while he was proceeding towards Mandapeta from Jonnada on 11.07.2006.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal’).

3. The factual matrix of the case is thus:

(a) A 50-year-old person namely, Chitturi Bhogeswara Rao(petitioner/claimant) was a coolie in a brick kiln at the time of the accident and used to earn Rs.3,000/- per month by doing brickwork. On 11.07.2006 at about 6.00 a.m., while he was proceeding to his workplace and when he reached near ‘S’ turning on foot, the driver of the goods auto bearing No.AP 5 Y 8473 proceeding from Jonnada towards Mandapeta drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed without blowing horn and dashed him on his back due to which, the petitioner sustained multiple fractures on his left leg and injuries all over the body. He took treatment at Primary Health Centre, Alamuru and later at Government General Hospital, Kakinada. He got treatment for two months as an inpatient and six months as an out-patient and now he is not able to do coolie work due to the fractures sustained in the accident. The matter was reported to the Police alleging that the accident took place as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the said offending Auto and based on the complaint lodged by the petitioner/injured, a case in Crime No.101 of 2006 of Alamuru Police Station under Section 338 IPC was registered and after investigation of the case, a charge sheet was submitted against the accused-driver(1st respondent) for having committed the offence under Sec.338 IPC.

(b) The petitioner/injured filed an application claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- before the Tribunal on account of the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident.

(c) The 1st respondent/driver of the offending vehicle did not contest the matter.

(d) The 2nd respondent/owner of the offending vehicle filed a counter denying the earning capacity of the petitioner. It is contended that the offending vehicle got a valid insurance coverage and the 1st respondent has got a valid driving licence and therefore, prays to dismiss the petition against him.

(e) The 3rd respondent/Insurance Company filed a counter denying the age, income and avocation of the petitioner and the manner in which the accident occurred. It is contended that this respondent was not admitting that the auto bearing No.AP 5 Y 8473 was driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner. Further averred that the 1st respondent was not having valid driving licence. It is further contended that the 1st respondent has got licence only to drive Light Motor Vehicle whereas, the offending vehicle is a transport goods auto, hence, this respondent is not liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner and prays to dismiss the petition.

(f) On the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

(1) Whether the accident occurred out of the use of the Goods Auto bearing No.AP 5 Y 8473 and due to the rash and negligent driving of the said vehicle by the 1st respondent?

(2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, and if so, to what amount and from which of the respondent?

(g) In order to establish the claim of the petitioner, at the time of enquiry, P.W.1(injured) and P.W.2(Doctor) were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.4 and Exs.X.1 and X.2 were got marked on behalf of