The court ruled that the absence of the Tata van's driver and insurer did not invalidate claims against the lorry driver, who was solely at fault, and emphasized the need for just compensation reflecting the severity of injuries.

JUDGMENT :

(V.R.K. KRUPA SAGAR, J.)

1. MACMA.No.2320 of 2012 under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the MV Act”) is filed by the appellant/ insurance company impugning the order dated 31.01.2012 of the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims tribunal – Cum – V Additional District Judge, Vijayawada in MVOP.No.1000 of 2007.

2. MACMA.No.2325 of 2012 under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is filed by the appellant/ insurance company impugning the order dated 31.01.2012 of the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims tribunal – Cum – V Additional District Judge, Vijayawada in MVOP.No.999 of 2007.

3. MACMA.No.3786 of 2012 under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is filed by the appellant/ claimant impugning the order dated 31.01.2012 of the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims tribunal – Cum – V Additional District Judge, Vijayawada in MVOP.No.999 of 2007.

4. MACMA.No.2274 of 2015 under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is filed by the appellant/ claimant impugning the order dated 31.01.2012 of the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims tribunal – Cum – V Additional District Judge, Vijayawada in MVOP.No.1000 of 2007.

5. Every personal life undertakes certain steps towards the realization of dreams, hold goals and aspirations. However, when they land up in an unfortunate situation for no fault of them the trajectories of life are forever altered. At the core of suffering is the sense that something is irreparably wrong in life. In compensation claims for injuries the judge is tasked to convert the pain and suffering of a given claimant into a monetary award which the court considers to be reasonable by way of compensation. In some injury claims the injured person may not even be able to enjoy the compensation he receives because of the injury which he has sustained, K.S.Muralidhar V. R.Subbulakshmi 2024 2024 INSC 886.

6. This is a case of collision of two vehicles on 24.08.2007. A lorry bearing registration No. AP 27 V 1577 was driven by one Mr.D.Ravi on NH-9 road and the vehicle was proceeding from Vijayawada side to Hyderabad and dashed an opposite coming Tata Van bearing registration No. AP 16 TW 4092. The Tata van turned turtle. Among the inmates in the Tata Van, Sri P.Gowtham Sridhar aged 24 years and Sri P.Rajesh Naidu aged 24 years suffered serious injuries. This incident was registered as Cr.No.98 of 2007 and FIR was issued. After due investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class. During investigation, the rough sketch of the scene of offence and a report describing the scene of offence were prepared by the investigation police. The injured were treated at Area hospital, Suryapet and were then shifted to VINS hospital, Vijayawada. Asserting that the accident was out of rash or negligent driving on part of the driver of lorry bearing registration No. AP 27 V 1577, Sri P.Gowtham Sridhar filed MVOP.No.999 of 2007 praying for compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- under section 166 of the MV Act. Sri P.Rajesh Naidu filed MVOP.No.1000 of 2007 praying for compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- under section 166 of the MV Act. In both the claims, the owner was R1 and the insurance company was R2. At the material point of time, the offending lorry was found duly insured under Ex.B1 insurance policy which was in force by the time of the accident. The driver of the offending lorry was found holding a valid and effective driving licence.

7. Before the claims tribunal, the owner did not choose to appear and contest. The insurance company filed its counter denying the narration of facts and contended that the accident was out of rash or negligent driving of the driver of the Tata van bearing registration No. AP 16 TW 4092 and since the owner and the insurer of the said vehicle were not impleaded as parties, the claim could not be sustained. Various amounts of compensation claimed were challenged as exorbitant.

8. In MVOP.No.999 of 2007, the learned claims