The court established that compensation for injuries must be just and reasonable, reflecting the severity of injuries and loss of earning capacity, with a broad-based approach in assessment.

JUDGMENT :

A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. This appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('M.V.Act' for short), questioning the just and adequate nature of quantum of compensation granted under award dated 23.09.2011 in (Motor Vehicle Original Petition) M.V.O.P. No. 146 of 2008, by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- II Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, [‘for short ‘MACT’]. The claimant is the appellant. Learned MACT granted a compensation of Rs.4,06,400/- with interest @6% per annum as against the claim made for Rs.9,00,000/- against respondents No.1 and 2.

The case of the appellant/ claimant, in brief, is that –

3. [i] He was working as a driver for the Lorry bearing No.AP 16 TV 2408. On the fateful day, i.e., on 14.04.2006 while he was driving the Lorry from Vizag to Gujarath with a load of iron, at about 3.30p.m., he suddenly observed that a lorry bearing No.16 TV 6135 was stationed near Kallupakalu, Dwaraka Nagar, on outskirts of M. Nagulapalli Panchayat, within the limits of Dwaraka Tirumala Police Station. But he could not control and dashed the stationed lorry. In the said accident, he has sustained severe fractures and multiple injuries all over the body. Along with him, cleaner was also travelling in the lorry.

[ii] Respondent No.1 is the owner of the lorry bearing No.AP 16 TV2408 and respondent No.2 is the insurer. Respondent No.3 is the Insurer of the stationed lorry bearing No.AP 16 TV 6135 and respondents 4 and 5 are the driver and owner of said lorry respectively, all the respondents are liable to pay compensation.

4. Respondents No.1, 4, 5 remained ex-party before the Tribunal. Respondents 2 and 3 contested the matter.

Contention of the respondent No. 2 Insurance Company:-

5. The claimant shall prove that, he is the driver of the vehicle bearing No.AP 16 TV 2408 at the relevant time, the occurrence of the accident, claimant sustaining injuries, nature and effect of injuries contributing permanent disability, age, occupation, income, treatment, medical expenditure incurred disability, the valid and effective driving license for the drivers of both the vehicles involved in the accident. It is further contended by the respondent No.2 that the claim is exaggerated and that petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. The contention of the respondent No.3/Insurance Company, of stationed lorry, in brief is that, respondent No.4 is not the driver of the said vehicle and that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the said vehicle and he has been implicated unnecessarily. The claimant shall prove the pleaded accident, injuries, disability, etc. and that the respondent 3 is not liable, as there is no cause of action against the Respondent 3.

7. On the strength of pleadings, learned MACT settled the following issues for trial:

1) Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the Motor Vehicle Accident dated 14.04.2006 due to his speedy driving while he was discharging his st duties on the lorry bearing No.AP TV 2408, owned by 1 respondent?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

3) To what relief?

8. During the trial, claimant was examined as PW1 and he got one Katarapau Suresh examined as PW2, who is said to be the cleaner at relevant point of time.

9. Respondent No. 3 and 4 did not choose to lead any oral evidence, the Insurance policy pertaining to vehicle (stationed vehicle) bearing No.AP 16 TV 6135 is marked as Ex.B1 and Insurance policy for the vehicle bearing number AP 16 TV 2408 marked as Ex.B2.

Arguments in the Appeal:-

10. For the appellant:

(i) Learned MACT failed to consider the case sympathetically, keeping in view of the nature of the accident and the injuries sustained. The compensation granted under heads of medical expenditure of a sum of Rs.25,000/- as against Rs.45,000/- and loss of future