IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the necessity of just compensation reflecting the severity of injuries and loss of income, enhancing the awarded amount significantly.

JUDGMENT :

A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, J.

1. Challenge in this M.A.C.M.A. is to the award, dated 17.11.2015 in M.V.O.P. No. 100 of 2009, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Kadapa (“Tribunal” for short), whereunder the Tribunal dealing with a claim of compensation for a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- made by the claimant with reference to the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident, which was occurred on 22.04.2008, awarded a sum of Rs.3,20,000/- towards the compensation with interest @ 7.5% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of deposit with proportionate costs.

2. The parties to this M.A.C.M.A. will hereinafter be referred to as described before the learned Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

3. The case of the claimant before the Tribunal, in brief, according to the averments set out in the Motor Vehicle accident claim, is that:

(i) The claimant along with his friend Mohan Reddy, on 22.04.2008 were proceeding from Gandhi Temple to Vempalle, after completion of contract work at Gandi, on a motor cycle bearing No. AP 04 F 7853. Mohan Reddy was the rider of the motor cycle and the claimant Ganduluru Surendra Reddy, was the pillion rider. When they reached near Veerannagattupalli turning on Gandi-Vempalli road, the rider of the motor cycle was proceeding on the left side of the road. Suddenly, a tractor bearing No. AP 04 K T/R 6348 (“offending vehicle” for short) came in opposite direction i.e. from Vempalle side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle of the claimant, as a result, claimant and his friend Mohan Reddy fell down from the motor cycle and sustained injuries. They were shifted to Government Hospital, Vempalle. Mohan Reddy lodged complaint to the police. The motor cycle of the claimant was also damaged. The claimant sustained following injuries:

(1) Tender oedematuous diffused left middle leg.

(2) Tender oledematous diffused left middle thigh.

(3) Tender oedematous diffused right middle leg.

(4) Tender oedematous diffused left fore arm. Boney parts seen outside.

(5) Lacerated injury ½ x ½ x ½ on the left hip laterally.

(6) Lacerated injury of ½ x ½ x ½ over left middle lip.

(7) Left incisor (teeth) upper part broken.

X-ray shows the following:

(1) Left acetabular fracture.

(2) Left femur fracture.

(3) Left tibia fracture.

(4) Fracture medial malleous.

(5) Left knee tear of medial meniscocus.

(6) Right tibia and fibula fracture.

(7) Right volar barstones fracture with dislocation.

(8) Left ulna and head of radius, wrist fracture.

(9) Fracture L12 vertebra (back bone).

(ii) Claimant was shifted to Care Hospital, Hyderabad, Doctors performed several operations to the left of claimant. Matalic rods were inserted inside thigh bone. Five metallic rods were inserted to the hands of claimant after several operations. Still the wounds are not healed. Claimant incurred medical expenses of Rs.4,50,000/- and in spite of several operations, he got limping and unable to sit and stand, cannot perform any physical work, unfit to attend any work under contractor. The doctors at Care Hospital, advised the claimant to undergo further surgery as the fracture parts were not healed properly, resulting severe pain to the claimant and he sustained permanent disability to the extent of 50%.

(iii) The petitioner/claimant spent huge money towards transportation charges to Hyderabad and he is not in a position to attend work as a site supervisor and now walking with the help of stick. Claimant prior to the accident was working as supervisor under contractor Malleswarar Reddy at Gandi Temple and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month and contributing the same for the maintenance of his family. The accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor engaged by respondent No. 1, which was insured with respondent No. 2. Hence, both the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

4...........

(i) Respondent No. 1/owner of the o