IMPORTANT POINT
The court reinforced that compensation for injuries in motor vehicle accidents is warranted when negligence is established, regardless of pre-existing conditions.

JUDGMENT :

V Srinivas, J.

This appeal is directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge at Kadapa (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.714 of 2011 dated 19.01.2018.

2. The appellant is the insurer of the Car bearing No.AP 03 AH 1793 (hereinafter referred to as “crime car”). The respondent No.1 herein is the injured/claimant and respondent No.2 is the owner of the said crime car.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the tribunal.

4. The case of the claimant, in the petition before the Tribunal is that:

i). On 02.09.2010, while the claimant, who was aged 13 years, along with his mother crossing the main road leading to Putur town for having water, the crime car driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the claimant, resulted, he sustained severe head injury.

ii). Due to the said injury, he lost his memory power as well hearing power. He claimed compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- against the owner and insurer of the crime car.

5. The respondent No.2 filed written statement denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the claimant is not suffering any permanent disability and not proved the medical expenses by filing relevant material and thereby, prays to dismiss the petition.

6. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material:

“1.Whether the petitioner received injuries in a motor vehicle accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of Tata Indica Car bearing No.AP 03 AH 1796 on 02.09.2010?

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

4.To what relief?”

7. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimant, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.14 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral and documentary evidence was adduced.

8. On the material, the Tribunal, having come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the crime vehicle by its driver and the claimant suffering from permanent disability, held that the claimant is entitled for the compensation of Rs.4,10,000/-, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

9. It is against the said award; the present appeal was preferred by the appellant/insurer.

10. Heard Sri Srinivasa Rao Vutla, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer and Smt.Y.Bhagyalakshmi Reddy, learned counsel for the 1st respondent/claimant.

11. Sri P.B.Narasimha Murthy, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer submits that as per the testimony of P.W.2 the claimant is suffering from disability by birth, but not due to the accident; that the Tribunal failed to consider the said fact and erroneously awarded compensation and thereby, prays to consider the present appeal.

12. Smt.Y.Bhagyalakshmi Reddy, learned counsel for the 1st respondent/claimant submits that the Tribunal after considering the material placed on record, rightly concluded that the claimant is suffering from disability due to the injuries sustained in the accident and that the testimony of P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 coupled with material placed on record proved the said fact and thereby, prays to dismiss the appeal.

13. Now, the only point that arises for determination is “whether the claimant is suffering from disability due to the injuries sustained in the motor vehicle accident?”

14. POINT:

It is not in dispute about the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime car by its driver and that the claimant did not prefer any appeal against the order of the tribunal.

15. The only contention raised by the insurer is that the claimant is suffering from disability with cerebral palsy (by birth), but not due to the injuries sustained in the accident.

To fortify the said contention, he mainly relied upon the testimony of P.W.2. He testified that the claimant