IMPORTANT POINT
The delay in lodging the FIR does not invalidate a claim for compensation. The compensation awarded should cover pain, suffering, loss of income, medical expenses, loss of amenities, and loss of future earnings. The Court should consider the sufferings and limitations imposed by the injuries while adjudging compensation.

JUDGMENT

BANDARU SYAMSUNDER, J. - As both Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeals arising out of same Award passed by the Tribunal can be disposed of by a Common Judgment.

2. The MACMA No.2217 of 2016 is filed by the appellant/petitioner/claimant, whereas MACMA No.493 of 2017 is filed by the appellant/2nd respondent/Insurance Company, under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (herein after referred to as "M.V.Act"), challenging the Award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Kadapa in MVOP No.533 of 2015, dtd. 7/4/2016, wherein and whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.7, 66, 000.00 to the claimant with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit into the Court, against his claim a sum of Rs.20, 00, 000.00

3. The appellant in MACMA No.2217 of 2016, and the appellant in MACMA No.493 of 2017 herein after referred to as petitioner and 2nd respondent/Insurance Company as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of brevity and convenience.

4. The petitioner has filed the petition under Sec. 166 of the M.V.Act read with Rule 475 of AP Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.20, 00, 000.00 for the injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident, that occurred on 18/8/2010 at 11.00 p.m on NH-18 road, near Thimma Reddy Junior College, outskirts of Venkatapuram village of Sirivella mandal, Kurnool District.

5. The case of the petitioner in brief is that he was working as a Cleaner for TATA Ace goods auto rickshaw bearing No.AP 04 W 5116, wherein readymade clothes were loaded at Vastra Bharathi complex of Proddatur town in order to deliver the same at Nandyal town, and said vehicle started from Proddatur at 9.00 p.m, when it was proceeding towards Nandyal town on NH-18 road, the driver of auto rickshaw driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, lost control over the vehicle and dashed against right road side tree, near Thimma Reddy Junior College, outskirts of Venkatapuram village of Sirivella mandal, Kurnool District, due to that the petitioner who sat in the cabin of TATA Ace vehicle sustained crush injury over the left leg, and grievous injuries over abdomen and head, and then immediately the petitioner was shifted to Government hospital, Nandyal and there from to Government General hospital Kurnool, where the left leg of the petitioner was amputated above knee, and he also underwent surgery to his abdomen. The petitioner submits that he was treated as inpatient in the hospital for two months, incurred a sum of Rs.80, 000.00 towards medical and attendant charges. It is also the contention of the petitioner that prior to the accident, he was hale and healthy, aged 22 years working as Cleaner, getting salary of Rs.300.00 per day, besides batta of Rs.50.00 per day, but due to amputation of his left leg, he is not in a position to attend his daily activities. He submits that the 1st respondent is the owner of TATA Ace goods vehicle, which insured with the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company, and the policy was in force on the date of accident. He claimed compensation of Rs.20, 00, 000.00 on various heads.

6. The 1st respondent/owner of offending vehicle remained ex parte, and not chosen to contest the case before the Tribunal.

7. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company filed counter, denying the accident manner in which it was occurred, age and income of the petitioner prior to the accident. It is the contention of the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company that driver of offending vehicle was not possessing valid and effective driving license at the time of accident, and the 1st respondent handed over the vehicle to the person having no driving license, thereby violated the terms and conditions of the policy. They also filed additional counter, stating that accident occurred on 18/8/2010, whereas FIR lodged on 29/8/2010 after lapse of 11 days, due to that it is suspicious that accident might have been created in order