JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant/petitioner aggrieved by the Order and Decree dtd. 9/8/2005 delivered by the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- XI Additional District Judge (F.T.C), Guntur at Tenali (for short "the Tribunal") in M.V.O.P.No.250 of 2003.

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

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 26/1/2003 at about 7.00 a.m., while the petitioner and another person were proceeding to Avulavaripalem from Kolluru on a cycle and when they reached near Repalle Kaluva bridge, a lorry bearing No.AP 11 T 4329 (hereinafter referred to as "the offending vehicle") driven by its driver at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn, dashed the cycle due to which the petitioner fell down and sustained severe injuries all over the body. Immediately the petitioner was shifted to the Government Hospital, Tenali and while taking treatment, his right leg was amputated. One Sanaka Siva Prasad, who is the relative of the injured, received the information about the accident and presented a report in Kolluru Police Station, based on which, a case in Crime No.4 of 2003 was registered for the offence under Ss. 337 and 304-A IPC. After investigation of the case, a charge sheet was submitted against the accused-driver for having committed the offence punishable under Ss. 338 and 304-A IPC.

(ii) The petitioner/injured filed an application claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.3,00,000.00 before the Tribunal on account of the amputation to his right leg and the injuries sustained by him in the said accident.

(iii) The 1st respondent/owner of the offending vehicle did not contest the matter.

(iv) The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company filed a written statement and contended that the accident did not take place as alleged by the petitioner and the accident occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner, who suddenly came and hit the lorry due to which, he sustained injuries. It is further contended that the accident was not reported to the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company as the 1st respondent colluded with the petitioner and filed this petition. It is further averred that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid driving licence and there was no valid permit to ply the offending vehicle. The claim of the petitioner is excessive and prays for dismissal of the petition.

(v) On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

(i) Whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 11 T 4329?

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

(iii) To what relief?

(vi) During the trial, in order to establish the claim of the petitioner, the father of the petitioner was examined as P.W.1, petitioner/injured was examined as P.W.2 and the Doctor, who treated the petitioner was examined as P.W.3 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.5 and Ex.X.1. The 1st and 2nd respondents neither led any evidence nor marked any documents on their behalf.

(vii) The Tribunal, after analyzing the entire oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the alleged accident occurred on 26/1/2003 due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending lorry bearing No.AP 11 T 4329 by its driver and dashed the cycle due to which the petitioner, who was pedaling the cycle and another person, who sat on the back of the petitioner sustained injuries. Considering the above aspect, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,26,000.00 with interest @ 7.5% per annum and with proportionate costs against the respondents, from the date of the petition till the date of realization.

(viii) The learned Tribunal has discussed the manner in which the said compensation was arrived at, in Para No.18 of its Order and the corresponding amount is set out herein below in a tabular form