Compensation for injuries must reflect a fair assessment of pain, suffering, and loss of income, even exceeding claimed amounts if justified by evidence.

JUDGMENT :

(Duppala Venkata Ramana, J.)

This appeal is preferred by the appellant/petitioner aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 25.06.2007 passed in M.V.O.P.No.1020 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Vijayawada (for short “the Tribunal”).

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was a resident of Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada and he used to run stone-crusher and lorry tipper at Mulapadu. On 09.02.2001 at about 11.30 p.m., while the petitioner was returning from Mangalagiri to Vijayawada on a motorcycle bearing No.AP 31 N 612 and when he reached Prakasam Barrage, an auto rickshaw bearing No.AP 16 X 4304 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and without blowing the horn dashed the petitioner as a result, he fell down and sustained bleeding injuries on his head and multiple fractures on his right leg and other 4 injuries all over the body. Immediately, the petitioner was shifted to Government General Hospital, Vijayawada by the auto driver.

(ii) On receipt of information, I Town Police, Vijayawada recorded the statement of the petitioner and based on the statement, a case in Crime No.92 of 2001 was registered by the I Town Police, Vijayawada, for the offence under Section 338 IPC. After investigation of the case, a charge sheet was submitted against the accused-driver.

(iii) The petitioner/injured filed an application claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- before the Tribunal on account of the injuries sustained by him in the said accident.

(iv) The 1st respondent/owner of the offending vehicle did not contest the matter.

(v) The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company filed a written statement and contended that the insured and insurer of the motorcycle bearing No.AP 31 N 612 are proper and necessary parties. It is further contended that there was no rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle in causing the accident. As such, this respondent is not liable to pay the compensation. It is further contended that there was medical negligence in treating the petitioner. It is further contended that the petitioner has not sustained any permanent or partial 5 disability and there was no loss of income to the petitioner due to the injuries sustained by him and prayed for dismissal of the petition.

(vi) On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

(i) Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident on 19.02.2001 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Auto bearing No.AP 16 X 4304?

(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation as prayed for, if so, from whom?

(iii) To what relief?

(vii) During the trial, in order to establish his claim, the petitioner/claimant was examined as P.W.1 and Dr.D.Venkatesh and Dr.R.Meher Prasanna, who treated the injured, were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.122 and Ex.X.1. The 1st respondent neither led any evidence nor marked any documents on his behalf. The Legal Assistant of the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company was examined as R.W.1 and Exs.B.1 to B.3 were marked.

(viii) The Tribunal, after analyzing the entire oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the alleged accident occurred on 19.02.2