The court emphasized that compensation must reflect actual losses and expenses incurred due to an accident, enhancing the awarded amount to ensure justice.

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 31.07.2012 of the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Chittoor (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.177 of 2008.

2. Heard arguments of Sri S.V.Muni Reddy, the learned counsel for appellant and Smt. S.A.V.Ratnam, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2-Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Sri Praveen Kumar, the learned counsel representing Sri Challa Srinivasa Reddy, the learned counsel for respondent No.4-United India Insurance Company Limited. Respondent Nos.1 and 3 did not choose to appear and contest.

3. The following facts are required to be noticed:

On 02.09.2001 Tata Sumo bearing registration No.AP-03-D-4277 was travelling on Kadapa-Rayachoty road and when it reached near Masapet entrance at about 3:30 A.M. the driver of it failed to notice a stationed lorry bearing registration No.TN-23- 4577 on the road and by his rash or negligent driving dashed on the back of the lorry. In that automobile accident Sri K.Perumal sustained injuries and his wife Smt. Amaravathi died.

On the death of Smt. Amaravathi her husband and son filed M.V.O.P.No.133 of 2002 and after due contest the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Chittoor allowed the claim and granted compensation of Rs.3,64,500/-.

Sri K.Perumal for the injuries he sustained in the subject matter accident filed M.V.O.P.No.177 of 2008 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming a compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. The owner of the Tata Sumo was made as respondent No.1 and the insurer of the vehicle/the Oriental Insurance Company Limited was made as respondent No.2. The owner of the stationed lorry was made as respondent No.3 and the insurer of the stationed lorry/United India Insurance Company Limited was made as respondent No.4.

Before the Claims Tribunal respondent Nos.1 and 2 and respondent No.4 filed their counters while respondent No.3 did not choose to appear and contest.

4. On these rival pleadings, the Claims Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:

1) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 1^st respondent’s TATA Sumo bearing No.AP-03-D-4277?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation for the injuries sustained by him, if so, to what amount and from whom?

3) Whether the OP is maintainable in view of earlier OP No.133/2002 as contended by 2^nd respondent?

4) To what relief?

5. During trial, the injured claimant testified as PW.1, an eye witness to the accident testified as PW.2 and the doctor who treated and conducted surgeries for the claimant testified as PW.3 and Exs.A.1 to A.8 were marked.

6. Respondent No.2-the Oriental Insurance Company Limited exhibited Ex.B.1 which was a copy of the insurance policy and did not produce any other oral evidence. By the time of subject matter accident, the insurance policy issued by respondent No.2 in Ex.B.1 was in force.

7. After hearing the arguments on both sides and after considering the rival contentions, the learned Claims Tribunal concluded that the subject matter accident was out of rashness or negligence on part of driver of Tata Sumo and accordingly it fastened liability on respondent Nos.1 and 2. It found no fault on part of stationed lorry and therefore, respondent Nos.3 and 4 were absolved of any liability.

8. As against the claim of Rs.6,00,000/- the learned Claims Tribunal granted Rs.2,16,235/- under the following heads:

9. Learned Claims Tribunal passed the award in the follo