The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the concept of 'just and fair' compensation under Section 168 of the M.V. Act and the principles laid down in Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another (2009) 6 SCC 121 in determining the quantum of compensation for motor vehicle accidents.

JUDGMENT :

K. MANMADHA RAO, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the appellant-claimant under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “M.V. Act”) aggrieved by the order and decree, dated 02.12.2008, passed in M.V.O.P. No. 57 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Kurnool (for short “the tribunal”).

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties have been referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 (a) of the M.V. Act before the tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 30.05.2005 at about 10.00 P.M. near Alfa college on Allagadda-Kadapa Road, while he and other coolies were travelling in an auto bearing No. AP21-W-783 from Yerraguntla to Allagadda and when the auto reached Alfa College at Allagadda town, a mini lorry bearing No. AP21-U-4932 came in opposite direction from Allagadda side proceeding towards Kadapa side, the driver of the vehicle drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the auto, due to which, the petitioner received grievous injuries and immediately he was shifted to the Government Hospital, Allagadda, where he took treatment and though he was referred to the Government General Hospital Kurnool, he took treatment at Lakshmi Chaitanya Orthopedic Hospital, Proddatur and underwent operation and incurred an expenditure of Rs.40,000/- for the treatment and medicines. The petitioner further submitted that, prior to the accident, he was hale and healthy, aged 29 years, and as a coolie, he was getting income of Rs.3,000/- per month, but due to his sustaining injuries and taking treatment, he could not attend the work, and thereby, he lost income. Hence, the claim petition came to be filed.

4. The first respondent remained ex-parte. The second respondent filed counter denying the allegations made in the petition and specifically contended that the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. It is stated that the petitioner was working as a coolie and he was getting income and due to his sustaining injuries, he suffered loss of income and stated that the petitioner took treatment at different places as mentioned in the claim petition, he underwent operation and incurred expenditure of Rs.40,000/- and also denied that the lorry was having valid and permit. It is also denied that the amount claimed by the petitioner is highly excessive and therefore prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

5. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

(i) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash or negligent driving of the driver of mini lorry bearing No. AP21-U-4932 resulting in injuries to the petitioner?

(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

(iii) To what relief?

6. To substantiate his claim, the petitioner/claimant examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A4 and Ex.X1 and Ex.X2. On behalf of the second respondent, no witnesses are examined, and no documents were marked.

7. After analyzing the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the respondents no. 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount and accordingly awarded an amount of Rs.42,700/- as compensation to be paid by the respondents no. 1 and 2 with costs and with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit of amount. On such deposit, the petitioner is entitled to withdraw entire amount. Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded, the present appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant.

8. Heard Sri G. Sravan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant; Sri V. Sambasiva Rao and Sri Sravan Kumar Mannava, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant mainly submits that the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal is on lower side and s