The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for proof of disability by a competent Medical Board and the importance of consistency between pleadings and evidence in assessing medical expenses.

JUDGMENT :

A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, J.

1. Challenge in this M.A.C.M.A. is to the award, dated 06.10.2006 in M.V.O.P. No. 140 of 2004, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District Judge, Madanapalle, Chittoor District (“Tribunal” for short).

2. The appellant is the claimant in the M.V.O.P. No. 140 of 2004 before the Tribunal and he urged to pay compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- towards injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident and the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.53,000/- as against Rs.1,50,000/-. Felt aggrieved that the compensation so awarded by the Tribunal as inadequate, the claimant filed this M.A.C.M.A.

3. The parties to this M.A.C.M.A. will hereinafter be referred to as described before the learned Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

4. The case of the petitioner, in brief, according to the averments in the Motor Vehicle accident claim, is that:

(i) On 07.09.2003, the petitioner was waiting for a bus in order to come to Madanapalle. At about 04.30 p.m., near Sarkar thopu on Madanapalle-Kadiri road, the driver of offending jeep bearing No. AP 04 U 5582 (“offending vehicle” for short), drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner, who was standing nearby the bus stop. The petitioner sustained injuries to his head and other vital parts of the body. Immediately after the accident, he was admitted into Government Hospital, Madanapalle. As his condition was serious, he was referred to a well equipped Hospital i.e., Saint John’s Medical College Hospital, Bangalore.

(ii) At Banglore, the petitioner was inpatient nearly for one month and odd and took treatment for the injuries. He was operated thrice and in-spite of injury to the spinal cord, he is unable to sit properly. He sustained disability permanently. He spent Rs.60,000/- towards medicines and Rs.5,000/- towards extra-nourishment, Rs.15,000/- for transport and attendant. The petitioner has been taking treatment from one Dr.Viswakiran Reddy at Madanapalle. He felt much mental agony. Prior to the accident, he was doing cultivation and milk vending and he was getting income of Rs.200/- per day and on account of the disability, he lost income. The driver of the offending vehicle was discharging his duty in the course of employment under the respondent No. 1. Hence, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. The vehicle was insured with the respondent No. 2.

5. The respondent No. 1 remained exparte before the Tribunal. The Respondent No. 2 filed counter denying the allegations and putting the petitioner to strict proof of the allegations that the petitioner was inpatient in Saint John’s Medical College Hospital, Bangalore, for nearly one month and that he is taking treatment under Dr.Viswakiran Reddy, Madanapalle. The petitioner is attending his work properly. The jeep of respondent No. 1 was insured with respondent No. 2, but the driver of the jeep did not have valid driving licence, as such O.P. is liable to be dismissed.

6. On the basis of the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal settled the following issues for trial:

(1) Whether the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending jeep bearing No. AP 04 U 5582 which resulted injuries to the petitioner?

(2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation if so, by whom?

(3) To what relief?

7. During the course of enquiry before the Tribunal, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.A1 to A.10 were marked. On behalf of the respondent No. 2, RW.1 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked.

8. The learned Tribunal on hearing both sides and on considering the oral and documentary evidence, awarded a sum of Rs.53,000/- as against the original claim of Rs.1,50,000/-. Felt aggrieved of the same, the petitioner in the M.V.O.P. filed the present M.A.C.M.A.

9. The petitioner allowed the M.A.C.M.A. dismiss for default against the respondent No. 1 though a joint and several liability is fixed against the respondent No. 1 along with