The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of just compensation for personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident, considering medical evidence and applicable legal provisions.

JUDGMENT :

B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI, J.

1. This appeal is preferred by the claimant, challenging the award dated 10.02.2012 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 609/2007 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Vizianagaram, (for short ‘the Tribunal’) wherein the Tribunal while partly allowing the petition, awarded compensation of Rs.75,900/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as parties in the M.V.O.P.

3. As seen from the record, originally the petitioner filed an application U/s.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) claiming a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of the injuries and disability sustained by the petitioner in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 19.08.2006 under the following heads:

Special damages:

General Damages:

4. The facts would show that the petitioner is a minor boy, aged 8 years. On 19.08.2006 the petitioner was bringing water from tap to his house at about 09.30 a.m. and while crossing the bypass road, the 1st respondent coming from Nellimerla to Vizianagaram drove the car bearing No. AP35D 0298 in a rash and negligent manner, at high speed and dashed against the petitioner, as a result, the petitioner fell down and received injuries on his left foot, right thigh and parietal region. The petitioner was taken to Sri Sai Orthopaedic Hospital, Vizianagaram, where doctor found fractures to left femur, right thigh, and parietal region, and other injuries all over the body. The doctor conducted operation to left ankle, right thigh, applied plaster of paris and plates. The doctor advised the petitioner to take further treatment using medicines and extra nourishment. Two persons also attended the petitioner to meet his daily routine duties. The father of petitioner spent heavy amount towards medicines. The petitioner was hale and healthy at the time of accident. Due to the accident, the petitioner lost all his future studies and income. The petitioner lost all his amenities, and pleasure of life. The Traffic Police Station, Vizianagaram P.S. registered a case in Cr. No. 148/2006 for the offence punishable U/s. 338 of Indian Penal Code against the 1st respondent.

5. Before the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent owner filed counter denying the material averments of the petition, contended that she handed over the crime vehicle to the 1st respondent, who is having a valid driving license to drive light motor vehicle. The crime vehicle was insured with the 3rd respondent. If any liability if fixed against this respondent, the 3rd respondent has to indemnify the same. There was gross negligence on the part of petitioner and he did not take proper care while crossing the road. The accident occurred due to negligence of the petitioner.

6. Before the Tribunal, the 3rd respondent/Insurance Company, filed a counter, while traversing the material averments with regard to manner of accident, rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle, nature of injuries, medical expenditure, alleged permanent disability, and liability to pay compensation, and contended that the petitioner has to prove that the 2nd respondent is owner of the crime vehicle and she insured the same with 3rd respondent and there is valid and subsisting insurance policy at the time of accident. The 1st respondent/driver was not having valid driving license at the time of accident.

7. On the strength of the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

1. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1