The main legal point established is the requirement to award just compensation in motor accident claim petitions, considering the pain, suffering, loss of amenities, and future medical expenses, and the failure of the Insurance Company to prove its defense.

JUDGMENT :

The Injured/Claimant (minor) represented by his father B.Subbarayudu, aggrieved by the Order dated 18.10.2001 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool (for short “the Tribunal”) in M.V.O.P.No.586 of 2000, filed the instant appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.

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

3. (a) The claimant/injured filed the above-mentioned original petition claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident that occurred on 28.06.1999. In the original petition, it is averred that, while the claimant was going on a cycle to the market at Koilkuntla and when he reached near the house of Pedda Giddanna, the offending vehicle (car) bearing No.AP 16 V 2869 came behind the claimant/injured, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and hit the cycle, due to which the claimant has fallen, sustained fracture injuries and was taken to the Government Hospital, Koilkuntla and from there, he was taken to a private hospital in Nandyal for better treatment. The matter was reported to the Police alleging that the accident has taken place as a result of rash and negligent driving of the said offending vehicle (car bearing No.AP 16 V 2869). Based on the F.I.R lodged by the claimant/injured, a case in Crime No.48 of 1999 for the offence under Section 337 IPC was registered and after investigation of the case, a charge sheet was submitted against the accused-driver for having committed the offence under Section 338 IPC. The claimant filed an application claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- before the Claims Tribunal at Kurnool on account of the injuries sustained by him in a road accident.

b) The 1st respondent/owner of the offending vehicle (car) did not contest the matter. The 2nd respondent/New India Assurance Company filed a written statement contending inter alia that the petitioner is put to strict proof of all the averments raised in the petition, that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle (car) bearing No.AP 16 V 2869 due to which the petitioner sustained injuries. It is further averred that the compensation claimed by the injured is highly excessive, speculative, and exorbitant. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

c) Based on the above pleadings, the Claims Tribunal framed the following issues:

1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car bearing No.AP 16 V 2869 belonging to the first respondent or the petitioner in driving his cycle?

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

3) To what relief?

d) During the trial, in order to establish his claim, the injured B. Siva Sankaraiah was examined as P.W.1, and Exs.A.1 to A.4 and B.1 were marked on behalf of the claimant/injured. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company neither examined any witnesses nor adduced any documentary evidence.

e) On appreciation of the evidence of P.W.1, and placing the reliance on Exs.A.1 to A.4 and B.1 i.e., Certified Copy of FIR, Certified Copy of charge sheet, Certified Copy of Wound Certificate, Medical Bills, and Copy of Insurance Policy respectively, the learned Tribunal by impugned judgment inter alia held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle (car) bearing No.AP 16 V 2869 by its driver, as a result of which the claimant sustained injuries. The learned Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.14,553/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the petition till realization payable by the 1st and 2nd respondents jointly and severally.

f) Aggrieved by the award passed by the learned Tribunal, the instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant/clai