The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of reasonable compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident, considering various factors such as medical expenditure, pain and suffering, loss of earnings, transportation, and extra nourishment.

JUDGMENT

A.V. Ravindra Babu, J. - Challenge in this Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is to the Award, dated 31.03.2016, in M.V.O.P. No.388 of 2013 on the file of V Additional District Judge-cum Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, East Godavari District, Rajahmundry (for short, 'the Tribunal') where under the Tribunal, as against the claim of the petitioner/appellant to award a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation towards the injuries received by her in a motor vehicle accident, which was occurred on 08.03.2012, awarded a sum of Rs. 28,472/- as compensation.

2. Felt aggrieved that the compensation so awarded by the Tribunal is not just and reasonable and it is meager, the petitioner filed the present Appeal.

3. The parties to this Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the Tribunal, for the sake of convenience.

4. The case of the petitioner/appellant, in brief, according to the averments set out in the claim, before the Tribunal, is that the petitioner was working as a coolie as on the date of accident. On 08.03.2012, she was returning home from Kotikesavaram by walk, at about 06:00 p.m, when she reached near to the house of one Parisetti Rambabu, the first respondent, driver-cum-owner of Auto bearing registration No.AP 05 V 6412 (for short, 'the Auto'), drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, with high speed and dashed against the petitioner resulting which the petitioner sustained fatal injury to her left leg, chest and other injuries all over her body. Second respondent is the insurer of the Auto. The petitioner was hale and healthy and was living as coolie at the time of accident. She was earning Rs. 3,500/- p.m. by doing coolie works. She was operated at Sai Hospital, Rajahmundry and spent a sum of Rs. 60,000/- towards medical expenditure and further towards transportation to the Hospital. She suffered mental agony and pain and unable to attend her work. Hence, the Petition to award a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- compensation.

5. First respondent remained ex parte.

6. The second respondent is the insurer of the Auto, who contested the claim by filing a counter. The contention of the second respondent/insurer, in brief, is that the claim of the petitioner on all counts is out of proportion. Compensation claimed is abnormally excessive and exaggerated. First respondent had no valid driving license. The Auto was not insured with the second respondent. Petitioner has to prove all the allegations as set out in the Petition. She has to prove the injuries received by her and their impact. Hence, the Petition is liable to be dismissed.

7. The Tribunal, on the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, settled the following issues for trial:

(1) Whether the accident occurred was due to the rash and negligent driving of the Crime vehicle i.e. auto bearing No.AP 05 V 6412 by the 1st respondent?

(2) Whether the 1st respondent driver of the crime vehicle has possessed valid and effective driving license by the time of accident?

(3) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation amount if so to what extent and from whom?

(4) To what relief?

8. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner got herself examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-6. She further examined the Doctor, who treated her, as PW.2. No evidence was let in on behalf of the contesting second respondent. However, Ex.B-1 accident intimation and Ex.B-2 insurance policy were marked.

9. The Tribunal, on hearing both sides and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, gave findings that the accident occurred was due to rash and negligent act of the first respondent in driving the Auto and that the petitioner received injuries in the aforesaid accident. The Tribunal made further findings that the petitioner was able to prove the medical expenditure to a tune of Rs. 8,472/- and that the compensation of Rs.20,000/- is just and reasonable towards the injuries received by her as such totally awarded a sum of Rs. 28,472/- towards compensation with subseq