The court emphasized the necessity of just and reasonable compensation in injury cases, enhancing the awarded amount based on established negligence and medical expenses.

JUDGMENT :

The claimant in M.V.O.P.No.160 of 2012 on the file of learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-I Additional District Judge, Ongole (for short “MACT”) is before this Court, filed the present appeal invoking Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the M.V. Act”), feeling dissatisfied with the compensation of Rs.1,69,473/- with interest @ 6% per annum awarded to him as against his claim made for Rs.5,00,000/- under the impugned award and decree dated 26.07.2013, contending that the learned MACT failed in properly considering the oral and documentary evidence placed by him in proper perspective.

2. As per the observations in the impugned award and decree, all the respondents remained ex parte. Respondent No.1 is the driver of a car bearing No.AP 03 AJ 4517 (hereinafter referred to as “offending vehicle”). Respondent No.2 is the owner and respondent No.3 is the Insurance Company, with which the vehicle was insured.

3. In this appeal, for 3^rd respondent, appearance is made by the counsels.

4. Heard Advocate Ms.Sanisetty Soumya representing Sri Sanisetty Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for the appellant and Advocate Sri M.S.Bhanu Prasad Rao representing Sri V.Hemanth Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company.

5. For the sake of convenience, parties will be hereinafter referred to as claimant and respondents as and how they are arrayed in the impugned order.

Case of the claimant in brief:

6. On 28.09.2011, when the claimant was present in front of Nimra Engineering College, on NH-5 road, for travelling to Ongole and waiting for an auto, the crime vehicle came in a rash and negligent manner driven by the 1^st respondent, dashed the claimant causing multiple injuries. Immediately after the accident, the claimant was shifted to RIMS Hospital, Ongole, from there to Suraksha Hospital at Vijayawada, where operation was conducted and two surgeries were done. Subsequently, he was referred to Akruthi Surgery center and plastic surgery was done there. In all, the claimant incurred expenditure of Rs.1,70,000/- towards treatment, Rs.25,000/- towards transportation, suffering disability apart from mental agony, loss of income etc. Hence, he is entitled for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. Further, it is also claimed that the claimant was aged about 34 years, lorry driver by profession, used to get a salary of Rs.15,000/- per month, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of crime vehicle by the 1^st respondent and the same was owned by the 2^nd respondent and insured with the 3^rd respondent. Hence, all the respondents are liable to pay the compensation.

7. It can be seen from the record, no counter is filed for the respondents and they remained ex parte. No cross-examination is done on the witnesses examined for the claimant.

Findings of the learned MACT:

8. The learned MACT formulated the following points for consideration:

1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in a road accident which took place on 28.09.2011 at 11.15 A.M. during the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Car bearing No.AP 03 AJ 4517 by its driver?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as prayed for? If so, to what amount and against whom?

3. To what relief the petitioner is entitled?

9. Relying on the evidence of claimant as P.W.1, Ex.A1-copy of FIR, Ex.A2-certified copy of charge sheet, Ex.A3-wound certificate, learned MACT believed the occurrence of accident, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, observing that there is no rebuttal evidence from the respondents side, accordingly concluded that the accident occurred due to negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. With regard to entitlement and quantification of compensation covered by point No.2, the learned M