The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of the claimant to compensation under the head loss of amenities on account of permanent disability, and the application of the pay and recovery principle, directing the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount first and recover the same later from the owner of the offending vehicle.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Sri B.Parameswara Rao, learned counsel for appellants/claimants and Sri T.Sri Charan, learned counsel for 1st respondent and Sri G.Srinivasu, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company.

2. The appeal is directed by the claimant against the judgment and decree dated 20.07.2010 passed in M.V.O.P.No.135/2009 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Addl.District Judge, Guntur.

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

4. The appellant/claimant is the injured in the motor accident. He filed claim petition U/s.163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the personal injuries sustained by him in motor vehicle accident.

5. The case of the claimant is that on 29.04.2008 at about 10.30 p.m. he along with Dasari Charles Bobby (deceased) boarded an auto bearing No. AP 07Y 2169 (offending vehicle) to go to Guntur; they reached a place near Crane Nut Powder Company at Potturu village; the driver of auto drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, dashed dead buffaloes; as a result, the auto turned turtle, the claimant sustained grievous injuries; the claimant was admitted in Government General Hospital, Guntur, and later to Guntur Dental Hospital, and operations were conducted; due to accident, the claimant is unable to open mouth completely and feeling difficult to swallow the food; Taluk Police, Guntur, registered a case in Cr.No.101/2008 for the offence punishable U/secs.337, 338 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code against the driver of the auto; police investigated the same and laid police report (charge sheet) against the driver of the auto; the claimant was aged 45 years, working as Junior Assistant in District Institute of Educational Training (DIET), Boyapalem, Guntur, and earning Rs.12,000/- per month; he suffered permanent disability on account of injuries sustained in the accident; he spent Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical treatment. Hence, the claimant filed the claim petition.

6. The 1st respondent/owner of the offending vehicle remained exparte before the learned Tribunal.

7. The 2nd respondent/insurer of the vehicle i.e., Insurance Company filed written statement and additional written statement; contending that the driver of the vehicle has no valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident; the offending vehicle is a goods vehicle; the deceased is an unauthorised passenger boarded the goods vehicle; the 1st respondent thereby violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy; the insurer is not liable to indemnify the insured.

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

1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 1st respondent?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, what amount and form which of the respondents?

3. To what relief?

9. Before the learned Tribunal, three witnesses were examined by the claimant as P.Ws-1 to 3 and nine documents were marked as Exs.A-1 to A-6 and Exs.X-1 to X-3 respectively. One witness was examined by the 2nd respondent as R.W-1 and two documents were marked as Exs.B-1 and B-2 respectively.

10. The learned Tribunal considering the evidence placed by the claimant through P.Ws-1 to 3, copy of FIR and police report (charge sheet) vide Exs.A-1 and A-2, held that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the auto by the driver of the offending vehicle. This finding is not challenged by the owner of the offending vehicle or by the insurer of the vehicle i.e., Insurance Company.

11. The claimant filed the appeal contending that the learned Tribunal failed to award just compensation for the personal injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident, and also on the ground that the learned Tribunal failed to direct the Insurance Company to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle.

12. The learned counsel