IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the necessity of applying the structured formula for compensation under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, leading to an enhanced award for the claimant.

JUDGMENT :

A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, J.

1. Challenge in this M.A.C.M.A. is to the award, dated 24.09.2014 in M.V.O.P. No. 510 of 2012, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge Guntur, Guntur District (“Tribunal” for short). Whereunder the Tribunal as against the claim of the claimant under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“M.V. Act” for short) claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the injuries received by him in a motor vehicle accident which was occurred on 04.10.2011, awarded a sum of Rs.22,000/- towards the compensation.

2. The present M.A.C.M.A. is filed by the claimant, felt aggrieved that the compensation so awarded by the Tribunal is not just and reasonable and that it is liable to be enhanced.

3. 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.

4. The claim before the Tribunal, lodged by the claimant was under Section 163 (A) of M.V. Act.

The case of claimant, in brief, according to the averments set out in the claim, is that:

(i) He is resident of Barrankula Village of Nagaya Lanka Mandal, Krishna District. On, 04.01.2011, at about 07.00 a.m., while he was crossing the road near Annapurna Hotel, bypass road, Guntur, a lorry bearing No. AP 07 X 9699 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, without blowing the horn, came in a wrong side and hit the petitioner. On account of the same, the petitioner fell down with grievous injuries i.e. (1) fracture injury below the knee on the left leg, (2) stitches injury on his right leg fingers and (3) stitches injury on chin. Petitioner was taken to Government General Hospital, Guntur for treatment. The accident was occurred within the police limits of Guntur Taluk Police Station. It was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver.

(ii) The matter was reported in Guntur Taluk Police Station and the same was registered under Section 337 IPC in Crime No. 492 of 2011, against the driver of the lorry bearing No. AP 07 X 9699. The petitioner was aged about 45 years. He was doing coolie work. He was getting Rs.3,000/- per month. He spent Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses. He cannot do any work now. He lost his earnings and earning capacity. Hence, he is entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation. Respondent No. 1 is the owner of the lorry bearing No. AP 07 X 9699 and respondent No. 2 is the Insurer of the lorry, as such, both of them are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. Hence, the claim.

5. The respondent No. 1-the owner of the offending vehicle remained exparte. Respondent No. 2-Insurance Company filed written statement denying the averments in the petition and contending in substance that respondent No. 2 does not admit the age, avocation and health condition of the petitioner. The vehicle involved in the accident was insured with respondent No. 2 vide policy bearing No. 62100331110100001478, valid from 21.09.2011 to 20.09.2012. Respondent No. 1 did not intimate the factum of accident, so as to cause loss to the Insurance Company. The driver of the offending vehicle had no valid driving license and it is violation of policy condition. Police who investigated the case, filed charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle, for the offence under Section 338 I.P.C. and Section 188 of M.V. Act. The compensation claimed by the claimant is excessive. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal settled the following issues for trial:

(1) Whether the accident occurred was due to the rash and negligent driving of vehicle, i.e. lorry bearing No. AP 07 X 9699?

(2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, and if so, to what amount and against whom?

(3) To what relief?

7. During the course of enquiry before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimant, PWs. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. Further Ex.X1 case