Compensation for personal injuries must be just and reasonable, reflecting the severity of the injuries and future loss of earnings, with adherence to established legal principles.

JUDGMENT :

(Duppala Venkata Ramana, J.)

This is an appeal filed under Section 173 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by the appellant/Insurance Company against the Judgment dated 15.07.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Tirupati in M.V.O.P.No.641 of 2005 whereby the learned Tribunal has directed the Respondents 1 and 2, in the claim petition, to pay an amount of Rs.2,95,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs and Ninety Five thousand only) with interest @ 6% per annum with proportionate costs from the date of the petition till deposit, which includes no fault liability.

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 on 22.04.2004 at about 3.45 a.m., while the 1st petitioner, who was working as a cleaner in a lorry bearing No.AP 26 U 9157 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) belongs to the 1st respondent proceeding to Vayalpadu from Nellore, the driver of the offending vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, lost control over the same and dashed against a tree on the right side of the road due to which, the left leg of the 1st petitioner was fractured below the knee and sustained grievous injuries on chin, right forehead, right leg and all over the body and while taking treatment, his left leg was amputated below the knee. He was shifted to SVRRGG Hospital, Tirupati for treatment. The 1st petitioner was working as a cleaner under the 1st respondent and earning Rs.4,000/- per month and contributed to his family members. Due to the accident, he sustained permanent disability and he was unable to walk.

(ii) The matter was reported to the Station House Officer, Chandragiri Police Station by the 1st petitioner based on which, a case in Crime No.123 of 2004 was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle for the offence under Section 338 IPC. After investigation of the case, a charge sheet was submitted against the accused-driver for having committed the offence punishable under Section 338 IPC.

(iii) The 1st petitioner/injured filed an application claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- before the Tribunal on account of the amputation to his left leg and the injuries sustained by him in the said accident.

(iv) The 1st respondent/owner of the offending vehicle filed a counter denying all the material allegations and contended inter alia that he is the owner of the offending vehicle and that at the time of the accident, the injured was inside the vehicle as a cleaner while the driver Babu was driving the offending vehicle. Further contended that the insurance policy was in force from 03.02.2004 to 02.02.2005, as such the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation.

(v) The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company filed a counter denying the age, occupation and income of the 1st petitioner and the petitioners are put to strict proof of the same. The injuries sustained by the 1st petitioner are not grievous in nature and he did not sustain any permanent disability. Further contended that the 1st petitioner is a cleaner of the offending vehicle and drove the same without