The court ruled that compensation must reflect actual losses and expenses, emphasizing the need for thorough consideration of evidence to avoid arbitrary decisions.

JUDGMENT :

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

Questioning the inadequacy of compensation, the injured claimant preferred this Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 impugning the award dated 24.03.2015 of the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-XIII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.327 of 2013.

2. Heard arguments of Sri V.Padmanabha Rao, the learned counsel for appellant and Sri P.Raja Sekhar, the learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company.

3. The following facts are required to be noticed:

The appellant, aged 50 years, has been a lecturer in mathematics at Chaitanya College earning a monthly salary and has also been conducting private tuitions to students and was earning money. On 19.12.2012 during daytime at about 3:30 P.M. he was crossing road in Currency Nagar, Vijayawada. At that time an Innova Car bearing registration No.AP-16-BC-1234 was driven by its driver rashly or negligently and the vehicle dashed the pedestrian causing him serious injuries. The injured person was treated at Vijaya Super Specialty Hospital at Vijayawada and thereafter at Asram Hospital at Eluru. The incident of accident was registered as Crime No.917 of 2012 by Patamata Police Station, Vijayawada/Ex.A.1. After due investigation, police filed a charge sheet against the driver of the offending Innova Car as per Ex.A.6. The offending vehicle was examined by the Motor Vehicles Inspector who issued Ex.A.3 report stating that the accident was not out of any mechanical defect of the vehicle. The person who was driving the offending vehicle at the material point of time was shown to have valid and effective driving licence as per Ex.A.4. At the material point of time the vehicle was owned by respondent No.1 herein and he got it insured, which is evidenced by Ex.A.5. Copy of insurance policy equivalent to it is Ex.B.1 which is attested true copy of insurance policy. During investigation the scene of offence was inspected by the police, and they drew a rough sketch evidenced by Ex.B.2. The injured claimant filed M.V.O.P.No.327 of 2013 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and prayed for compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. Respondent No.1 therein was the owner of the offending vehicle. Respondent No.2 therein was the insurance company.

Before the Claims Tribunal the owner did not choose to appear and contest. The insurance company filed its counter wherein it denied all the allegations mentioned in the claim petition. It further raised a contention that the accident was not out of rash or negligent driving of the driver of the Innova Car but it was out of negligent act of the claimant in coming onto the road all of a sudden. It prayed for dismissal of the claim.

4. The learned Claims Tribunal settled the following issues for trial:

1) Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in a road accident that occurred on 19.12.2012 at about 15:30 hours near Currency Nagar, Vijayawada due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Innova Car bearing No.AP-16-BC-1234 and caused injuries to the petitioner or not?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation as prayed for? If so, from whom and from which of the respondent?

3) To what relief?

5. PWs.1 to 4, Exs.A.1 to A.16, Exs.X.1 to X.7 for claimants and RW.1 and Exs.B.1 and B.2 for respondent No.2-insurance company was the evidence placed for consideration.

6. After a detailed analysis of facts, the learned Claims Tribunal considered the evidence of PW.2 and the evidence of the injured claimant/PW.1 and the investigative record of the police and concluded saying that the injured claimant was not at fault and the accident was result of rash or negligent driving of Innova Car by its driver. It found existence of valid and effective insurance policy by the date of accident and stated that the owner and the insurance company were liable to pay compensation.

It assessed the evidence produced on both sides and