The court established that compensation for permanent disability must reflect actual loss, justifying an increase from Rs.1,70,000/- to Rs.7,04,000/-.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Sri G.V.Mehar Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and Sri Shaik Rafi, learned counsel representing Sri T.V.P.Sai Vihari, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/New India Assurance Company.

2. This appeal directed by the appellant/claimant, challenging the Order and Decree dated 09.02.2012 passed in M.V.O.P.No.464 of 2010 before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – I Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram.

3. Parties are referred to as they were arrayed in the proceedings before the learned Tribunal, for the sake of convenience.

4. The petitioner/claimant filed the petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for personal injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 07.03.2010.

5. The case of the appellant/claimant is that he was aged 57 years and working as Archaka in a Sivalayam at Chollapadam Village, Vizianagaram District; on 07.03.2010 he was going on his bicycle to attend duty at Sivalayam; he reached a place located opposite to Sivalayam at about 07.00 a.m.; a lorry (offending vehicle) bearing No.AP31 TA2617 came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner; dashed the cycle, as a result, the claimant fell down and sustained injuries on the head, right hand knee joint; he was shifted to Area Hospital, Parvathipuram; and later to K.G.Hospital, Visakhapatnam; he was admitted in the Hospital for about three (03) months as in-patient lying in coma; he suffered permanent physical disability of 80% as per the opinion of the doctor who, issued the physical disability certificate; on account of the permanent physical disability, the claimant suffered paralyses to both legs and hands; he is lying on the bed; he lost eye sight; he lost speech; he lost memory; and also lost control over nature calls; therefore, he suffered loss of earning capacity; hence, filed application U/s.166 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988, claiming compensation for Rs.2,00,000/- under various heads, including loss of future earnings on account of physical disability.

6. The 1st respondent/owner of the offending vehicle remained exparte.

7. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company filed counter traversing the material averments with regard to manner of accident; rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle; nature of injuries; medical expenditure; age and avocation of the claimant; alleged permanent disability; liability to pay compensation, and contended that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the claimant; driver of the offending vehicle is not having valid driving licence at the time of accident; and the compensation claimed by the claimant is on higher side.

8. Basing on the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:

1. Whether the accident occurred resulting in injuries to the petitioner, due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle (lorry) bearing No.AP 31 TA 2617 by its driver?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation and, if so at what quantum and from which of the respondents?

3. To what relief?

9. To substantiate claim, the claimant examined three witnesses as P.Ws-1 to 3 and during their evidence marked Exs.A-1 to A-7. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company.

10. The learned Tribunal basing on the evidence placed before it, on issue No.1 held that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the driver of the lorry. This finding is not challenged either by the owner of the vehicle or the insurer of the vehicle i.e., Insurance Company. In that view of the matter, there is no necessity to go into the merit of the finding of the learned Tribunal on the said issue.

11. The learned Tribunal considering the evidence of P.W-1 (wife of the claimant), and the evidence of the doctor (P.W-3), who treated the petitioner/claimant and also issued Ex.A-6-disability certificate,