IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that compensation awarded by the Tribunal was excessive and not supported by evidence, leading to a reduction in the awarded amount.

JUDGMENT :

A.V. Ravindra Babu, J.

Challenge in this MACMA is to the award, dated 06.03.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.1308 of 2014, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam (“Tribunal” for short), whereunder the Tribunal dealing with the claim of compensation made by the petitioner for Rs.14,00,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident, occurred on 21.11.2013 at 1-00 p.m., awarded compensation of Rs.3,70,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization with a direction to the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to deposit the same within a period of one month. The appellant herein is no other than the second respondent/insurance company.

2. The parties to this MACMA will hereinafter be referred to as described before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, according to the averments set out in the claim before the Tribunal, is that he was aged about 55 years, as on the date of accident. He was attending the work of supply of labour as Mastry. He was earning Rs.10,000/- per month prior to November, 2013. On 21.11.2013 at 1-00 p.m., when the petitioner sat as a pillion rider on the Pulsar motorcycle bearing No.A.P.31-J-3746 driven by Shri Reddy and when it reached road margin at Gundivillipeta Village, one Bolero Van bearing No.A.P.31-TC-0058 (hereinafter will be referred to as “offending vehicle”) came from Srikakulam to Narasannapeta and dashed the motorcycle of Shri Reddy. The vehicle came in rash and negligent manner. On account of the accident, the petitioner fell on the road and sustained injuries to his right leg and fracture of ankle of left leg and injury to his left hand finger. He was taken to Vatsalya Hospital. Later, he was shifted to Sindhura Hospital, Srikakulam. He underwent surgery for correction of bone fracture. He was treated as In-patient from 23.11.2013 to 02.12.2013. He got treatment under Rajiv Arogyasri Scheme. He became permanently disabled. He claimed Rs.5,00,000/- for loss of earnings; Rs.4,00,000/- for pain and suffering; Rs.3,00,000/- for loss of facilities to life and Rs.1,00,000/- for medical expenses.

4. The third respondent remained exparte.

5. The first respondent got filed a counter contending in substance that the petitioner has to prove about his employment and income and rash and negligent driving said to be made by the driver of the offending vehicle. There was no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle.

6. The third respondent got filed a counter contending in substance that the driver of the Van was not having qualified driving license. The petitioner has to prove that Van has valid documents such as permit and registration certificate. The accident was occurred due to negligence of the rider of Pulsar Motorcycle. Hence, the petition is liable to dismissed.

7. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal settled the following issues for trail:

(1) Whether the accident, dated 21.11.2013 is the outcome of rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle bearing No.A.P.31-TC-0058?

(2) Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?

(3) Whether there is contributory negligence on the part of rider of the vehicle bearing No.A.P.31-J-3746?

(4) Whether the driver of the crime vehicle was having valid and effective driving license at the time of accident?

(5) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as prayed for?

(6) To what relief?

8. On behalf of the petitioner, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.8 and Ex.X.1 were marked.

Respondents did not let in any evidence.

9. The Tribunal on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, answered the issues in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents and awarded a sum of Rs.3,70,000/- towards compensation as above. Felt aggrieved of the same, the second respondent filed the present MACMA.

10. Now, in deciding the present MACMA, th