The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement to enhanced compensation based on the nature of injuries and loss of earnings resulting from a car accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent.

JUDGMENT :

A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, J.

1. Challenge in this M.A.C.M.A. is to the award, dated 14.07.2010 in M.V.O.P. No. 21 of 2008, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru (for short “Tribunal”), where under the Tribunal as against the claim of compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-, awarded a sum of Rs.13,338/-. The appellant herein is no other than the claimant in M.V.O.P. No. 21 of 2008.

2. The parties to this MACMA will hereinafter be referred to as described before the learned Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

3. The case of the petitioner in M.V.O.P. No. 21 of 2008, in brief, is that on 28.07.2007 morning hours, the petitioner and his wife Balamma and another person engaged the first respondent’s Car bearing No. AP-37-U-8444 (“offending vehicle” for short) to go from Tanuku to Jangareddigudem. During the course of journey they reached Chebrolu Center. At that time first respondent/driver drove the said Car with high speed, negligently without following rules and suddenly diverted the Car towards Railway Gate side and dashed against Skoda Car bearing No. AP-9-DH-144, as a result, both the Cars met with damage. The petitioner, his wife and another sustained injuries. Immediately, they were shifted to Government Headquarters Hospital, Eluru and they got treatment. The Station House Officer, Chebrolu, registered a case in Crime No. 129 of 2007 for the offence under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code and investigated into. The first respondent is the driver of the offending vehicle bearing No. AP-37-U-8444. The second respondent is owner of the said Car. It was insured with the third respondent. Hence, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

4. Before the Tribunal respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex-parte.

5. The third respondent-insurance company got filed a counter denying the case of the petitioner and putting to the strict proof of age, income, manner of accident and expenditure incurred by him. According to FIR, driver of Skoda Car bearing No. AP-9-DH-144 was at fault. There was no rash and negligent act on the part of the first respondent in driving the offending vehicle. Hence, the third respondent is not liable to pay the compensation. The petition is also bad for non-joinder of proper and necessary parties. The petitioner did not implead the driver, owner and insurer of the Skoda Car bearing No. AP-9-DH-144. Hence, the petition is to be dismissed.

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

(1) Whether the accident occurred on 28.07.2007 was on account of the rash and negligent driving of the Car bearing No. AP-37-U-8444 by the first respondent?

(2) Whether the accident occurred was due to rash and negligent driving of the Skoda Car bearing No. AP-9-DH-144 by its driver as alleged in the written statement of third respondent?

(3) Whether the petitioner is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as alleged in para No. 6 of the written statement of third respondent?

(4) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation and if so for what amount and from which of the respondent?

(5) To what relief?

7. The petitioner examined himself as PW-1 and got marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.5 and further he examined PW-2, the Doctor, who treated him. On behalf of the contesting third respondent, no witnesses were examined. However, Ex.B.1-the copy of insurance policy was marked with consent. Further Ex.X.1 was also marked through the examination of PW-2 which was the case-sheet of the petitioner.

8. The Tribunal on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, answered the issues 1 and 2 in favour of the petitioner and against third respondent and further issue No. 3 also answered as against the contention of the third respondent, but awarded compensation of Rs.13,338/- only. Felt aggrieved that the compensation was awarded is totally inadequate, the claimant filed the present appeal