The court emphasized the necessity of just compensation for personal injuries, considering various factors including loss of income and future medical expenses.

JUDGMENT :

Questioning the inadequacy of compensation, the injured claimant preferred this Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 impugning the award dated 21.06.2012 of the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge) at Rajahmundry (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.466 of 2010.

2. Heard arguments of Sri Parimi Rama Rayudu, the learned counsel for appellant and Sri Mangena Sree Rama Rao, the learned counsel appearing online for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Smt. S.A.V.Ratnam, the learned counsel for respondent No.3- Insurance Company.

3. The following facts are required to be noticed:

On 27.01.2009 at about 4:15 P.M. a lorry bearing registration No.AP-37-Y-1679 was driven by Sri P.Ramesh and by his rash or negligent driving he dashed an opposite coming motorcycle and in the collision the rider of the motorcycle Sri S.Rajesh fell down and he suffered a crush injury of the right foot involving right ankle which ultimately led to the amputation upto right ankle. He also suffered grievous injuries to his upper limbs and a simple injury on his forehead. The injured claimant Sri S.Rajesh filed M.V.O.P.No.466 of 2010 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs.9,00,000/-. The driver of the offending vehicle was made as respondent No.1 and its owner as respondent No.2 and its insurer as respondent No.3. Driver/respondent No.1 therein filed a counter and stated that he was falsely implicated in the case. The owner/respondent No.2 did not file any counter. Respondent No.3-insurance company therein questioned the narration of events as mentioned in the claim petition and further contended that there was no valid and effective driving licence for the driver of the offending vehicle and contended that the accident was out of rash or negligent driving of the injured.

4. The learned Claims Tribunal settled the following issues:

1) Whether the petitioner Sallapudi Rajesh sustained injuries in the road accident on 27.01.2009? If so, whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the HGV Lorry bearing registration No.AP-37-Y-1679 by the driver?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation?

3) Whether the respondents 1 to 3 are liable to pay compensation, if any the petitioner is entitled?

5. PWs.1 to 3 and Exs.A.1 to A.9 and Ex.X.1 was the evidence brought on record for the claimant. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of any of the respondents. A copy of the insurance policy as per Ex.B.1 was brought on record by consent of both sides.

6. After a detailed analysis of the evidence on record and after considering the fact that the subject matter accident was also registered as a crime as per Ex.A.1-F.I.R. in Crime No.8 of 2009 of Kovvur Rural Police Station and after considering Ex.A.3- charge sheet filed against the driver of the offending lorry and based on the oral testimony of the eye witness-cum-injured/PW.1, the learned Claims Tribunal concluded that the accident was not out of rash or negligent driving of claimant and it was solely of the rash or negligent driving of driver of the offending lorry. It found that Ex.B.1-insurance policy was in force at the material point of time. It was also found that there was no material to think that the driver of the offending lorry did not have valid and effective driving licence at the material point of time. It observed that there were no policy violations. After considering the evidence of PWs.2 and 3-the doctors and the documents filed on behalf of the claimant, it granted compensation under the following heads: