The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of just compensation for personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, based on the evidence presented and the principles laid down by relevant court judgments.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Sri S.V.Muni Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt.A.Jayanthi, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company.

2. The appeal is directed by the claimant against the order and decree dated 25.10.2012 passed in M.V.O.P.No.65/2010 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Addl.District Judge, Tirupathi.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as parties before the learned Tribunal.

4. The claimant filed the claim petition before the learned Tribunal U/s.166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the personal injuries sustained by the claimant in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 14.09.2009 at about 06.00 p.m. on Punganur-Madanapalle Road.

5. The case of the claimant is that he was aged 40 years, working as coolie, earning Rs.200/- per day; on 14.09.2009 at about 06.00 p.m. he was travelling on his TVS Moped bearing No.AP 03H 0071; he reached a place near Bonepally cross on Punganur-Madanapalle Road; the 1st respondent was the driver of the bus bearing No.AP 28X 7806; the bus came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motor cycle; the claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries; he was shifted to Government Hospital, Madanapalle; police registered FIR in Cr.No.163/2009; police investigated the case and laid police report (charge sheet) against the driver of the bus for the offence punishable U/s.338 I.P.C.; the claimant sustained permanent disability on account of the injuries suffered in the accident; the claimant lost his earning capacity; hence, he filed petition claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.

6. The 1st respondent remained exparte before the learned Tribunal.

7. The insurer of the offending vehicle i.e., Insurance Company filed counter, while traversing with the material averments with regard to manner of accident; rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle; nature of injuries; liability to pay compensation; and contended that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle by the claimant; the driver of the bus was not having driving licence; the amount claimed by the claimant is excessive.

8. Basing on the above pleadings of both parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:

1. Whether the driver of the bus bearing No.AP 28X 7806 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident on 14.09.2009 in which the petitioner sustained injuries?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and by whom?

3. To what relief?

9. Before the learned Tribunal, on behalf of the claimant, three witnesses were examined as P.Ws-1 to 3 respectively and 12 documents were marked as Exs.A-1 to A-12. On behalf of the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company, no oral evidence was adduced, but copy of insurance policy was marked as Ex.B-1 with consent.

10. The learned Tribunal basing on the evidence placed before it, on issue No.1 held that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driver of the bus. The learned Tribunal on issue No.2 assessed the physical disability suffered by the claimant on account of the injuries sustained in the accident, functional disability on loss of earnings, medical expenses, pain and suffering and other miscellaneous amounts, and awarded a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit against the owner and Insurance Company, fastening liability jointly and severally.

11. The appellant/claimant filed the appeal challenging the above order and decree of the learned Tribunal on the ground that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is not a just compensation.

12. The learned counsel for appellant would submit that the learned Tribunal failed to consider the evidence of doctor (P.W-2) and the medical bills produced by the claimant, and awarded lesser amount towards medical expenses. He would further submi