IMPORTANT POINT
Compensation for personal injury must adequately reflect the impact of permanent disability on earning capacity and quality of life, distinguishing between pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.

JUDGMENT :

SUMATHI JAGADAM, J.

1. The appellant/petitioner filed this appeal against the Judgment dated 07.09.2006 passed by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in M.V.O.P. No. 766 of 2004, awarding compensation of Rs.1,64,000/- to the petitioner as against the claim of Rs.4,00,000/-.

2. For convenience and to avoid confusion, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The petitioner's case is that on 19.08.2004 at about 01.30 p.m., the petitioner and his friend parked the motorcycle bearing No. AP 21J 5017 to attend nature calls. At that time, an Ambassador Car bearing No. AP-11-W-2875, which was coming in opposite direction and being driven by its driver rashly and negligently without blowing horn by violating the traffic rules, came to the extreme right side of the road and dashed the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner fell and sustained fractures and multiple injuries all over his body. He was shifted to the Government Hospital, Kurnool, for treatment, and he was inpatient from 27.10.2004 to 07.11.2004. The matter was reported to Kodumur Police, and the same was registered as a case in Crime No. 79 of 2004 under Section 337 of I.P.C. against the driver of the car bearing No. AP 11W 2875. Therefore, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to compensate the petitioner.

4. The 1st respondent was set ex-parte. The 2nd respondent filed a counter-affidavit denying the allegations made in the claim petition. It is contended that the alleged accident was not caused by the rash and negligent acts of the car driver bearing No. AP 11W 2875, there is no fault on the part of the driver of the car. The 2nd respondent did not insure the 1st respondent’s car, and the offending vehicle's driver does not have a valid and effective driving licence as of the alleged date of accident. The compensation claimed by the petitioner is excessive and unreasonable; therefore, the claim petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:

1. Whether the accident occurred on 19.08.2004 at about 01.30 p.m. was due to rash or negligent driving of the car bearing No. AP 11W 2875 by its driver belonging to the first respondent?

2. Whether, the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation, if so, to what amount, to what extent and from whom?

3. To what relief?

6. To establish his claim, the petitioner examined himself as PW-1 and examined the Doctors as PWs. 2 and 3, respectively and marked the documents as Exs.A1 to A10 and Ex.X1. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents.

7. The Tribunal, by an order dated 07.09.2006, allowed the claim petition in part by granting compensation of Rs.1,64,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Seeking enhancement of the compensation, the petitioner/appellant filed the present appeal.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner submitted that when the petitioner and his friend parked the motorcycle bearing No. AP 21J 5017 to attend nature calls, the 1st respondent drove the car rashly and negligently, came to the extreme right side of the road, and dashed the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner fell and sustained fractures and multiple injuries all over his body. The petitioner was admitted to the Government Hospital, Kurnool. PWs. 2 and 3 are the doctors who treated the petitioner from 27.10.2004 to 07.11.2004 in the hospital and opined that the petitioner suffered 40% disability, and his leg was shortened by two inches. The petitioner was about 30 years old and was doing milk business; he was earning Rs.6,000/- per month; the accident made it difficult for him to continue his business, and he lost his earnings. Police have filed a charge sheet holding that the driver of the 1st respondent’s car w