The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of liability for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, based on the nature and extent of injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident.

JUDGMENT :

VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.

1. The appellant is claimant in M.V.O.P. No. 367 of 2006 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Addl. District Judge, Kadapa and the respondents are respondents in the said case.

2. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim application.

3. The claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents praying the Tribunal to award an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 14.06.2004.

4. The brief averments of the claim petition are as follows:

On 14.06.2004 the claimant was travelling in an lorry bearing registration No. AP 04U 2110 towards Chunnur from Duvur and when the lorry reached near Chennur bridge, a lorry bearing registration No. AP 16V 4929 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came in opposite direction and dashed the lorry, due to which, the claimant sustained multiple grievous injuries. The 1st respondent is owner and the 2nd respondent is insurer of the offending lorry and hence, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

5. The 1st respondent was set ex-parte.

6. The 2nd respondent/Insurance company filed a written statement by denying the manner of accident. It is pleaded that the accident is of head on collision and therefore, both the drivers of the auto and the lorry are at equal fault and if any compensation is awarded, the same shall be apportioned equally and not against the owner of the lorry alone.

7. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:

1. Whether the claimant sustained injuries on 14.06.2004 at 4.00 p.m. near Chennur Bridge, Anjaneyapuram village on Kadapa-Kurnool National Highway due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No. AP 16V 4929 of the 1st respondent being insured with the 2nd respondent?

2. Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation and if so, for what amount and from whom?

3. To what relief?

8. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of the claimant, PWs. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.9 were marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, no oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.B.1 was got marked.

9. At the culmination of the enquiry, after considering the evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the Tribunal allowed the petition in part and awarded a sum of Rs.67,500/- towards compensation to the claimant. Being aggrieved by the impugned award, the claimant preferred the appeal for enhancement of compensation.

10. Heard learned counsels for both the parties.

11. The grounds urged by the appellant/claimant are that the Tribunal failed to consider that the claimant sustained one grievous injury and eight simple injuries and ought to have awarded compensation on these two heads.

12. Now, the points for determination are:

(1) Whether the claimant is entitled enhancement of compensation as prayed for?

(2) Whether the order passed by the Tribunal needs any interference?

13. POINT Nos. 1 and 2: On appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending lorry and because of the accident, the claimant sustained multiple injuries. The material on record and Ex.A.1-certified copy of first information report and Ex.A.3-certified copy of charge sheet also proves that the accident occurred due to sole negligent driving of the driver of the offending lorry. The Tribunal gave the same finding. No appeal was filed by the respondents against the order of the Tribunal. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the said finding given by the Tribunal.

14. The claimant, who is a student, is aged about 16 years at the time of accident. Because of sudden accident, he suffered