The main legal point established is the determination of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act based on the evidence of rash and negligent driving and the extent of injuries sustained.

JUDGMENT :

VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.

1. The appellant is claimant in M.V.O.P. No. 185 of 2014 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Addl. District Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur 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 Sections 140, 141 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents praying the Tribunal to award an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 12.02.1999.

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

On 12.02.1999 the claimant along with others was proceeding on an auto bearing registration No. AP 21U 3732 to go to Mokkapadu village to Sattenapalli town and when the auto reached near Brick-kiln at the outskirts of Sattenapalli at about 5.30 p.m., the driver of the auto drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, as a result, the auto got down from the road margin and turned turtle resulting in multiple injuries to the claimant. The 1st respondent is owner and the 2nd respondent is insurer of the offending auto 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 driver of the offending auto had no valid driving licence to drive the auto and the auto was not having any permit by the date of accident and therefore, the Insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation.

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

1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the auto bearing registration No. AP 21U 3732?

2. To what compensation the claimant is entitled and from whom?

3. To what relief?

8. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of the claimant, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.3 and Exs.X.1 to X.5 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.56,000/- 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 ought to have awarded more amount towards grievous injuries and failed to award compensation on other counts.

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:

The material on record reveals that the accident occurred due to pure rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending auto. The learned Tribunal, by giving cogent reasons and considering the evidence of the injured/claimant, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending auto. No appeal was filed by the respondents against the order of the Tribunal. Therefore, this Court feels that there is no infirmity in the said finding given by the Tribunal.

14. Coming to granting of compensation, on appreciation of the evidence on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimant is entitled an amount of Rs.36,000/- towards 15% disability sustained by the claimant. On the said finding, no appeal was filed by the respondents. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the said finding given by the Tribunal.

15. The material on record reveals that the claimant sustained fi