Permanent disability resulting from a motor vehicle accident necessitates comprehensive compensation, including medical expenses, pain, suffering, and loss of future earnings.

Judgment :

(B.S. BHANUMATHI, J.)

1. MACMA 707 of 2005:

This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the order and decree dated 28.10.2004 in MVOP No.1066 of 2002 on the file of Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 therein.

2. MACMA No.1318 of 2008:

This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the order and decree dated 28.10.2004 in MVOP No.1066 of 2002 on the file of Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada by the Claimant therein.

3. Since both the appeals arise out of the same decree and order, a common judgment is pronounced.

4. The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short MV Act), seeking compensation of Rs.25,00,000,/- for the injuries sustained by her in a motor vehicle accident. Her case is briefly as follows:

5. On 18.09.1998, at about 4.30 pm, while she was returning from the college to go to Raman Academy, where she was taking special tuition for BCA course, by travelling as a pillion rider on the scooter driven by her father, at the traffic signals, Bandar Road, RTC city bus bearing No. AP 9Z 6474, being driven by the respondent No.3 in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motor cycle from its rear side. As a result, the claimant fell down and the right front tires of the bus ran over her dragging her for a few yards before the bus stopped. Therefore, the claimant sustained grievous injuries all over her body. Her father also sustained injuries in the accident. They were shifted to Pinnamaneni Poly Clinic where they were admitted as inpatient. The claimant was, later, shifted to Madras for better and advanced treatment. A case in CC No.38 of 1998 was laid against the 3^rd respondent. The claimant was aged about 21 years and a student. Though the claimant survived the accident, her life became miserable and she underwent a number of surgeries and became permanently disabled so that she cannot walk, sit or sleep as earlier. As the respondent No.3 is an employee of the respondents Nos.1 and 2, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable.

6. The respondent No.1 alone filed written statement denying the claim. The respondents Nos.2 and 3 remained ex-parte. The respondent No.1 contented that there was no rash and negligence of the respondent No.3 and that the father of the claimant alone was responsible for the accident and also that the amount claimed is excessive.

7. On behalf of the claimant, she got herself examined as PW1 and A.V.Gurunadha Rao was examined as PW2 and Dr.G.Bala Krishna was examined as PW3. On behalf of the claimant, Ex.A1 to A27 were filed. On behalf of respondent No.1, P.Srinivasa Rao was examined as RW1 and B.Bala Samudra Rao was examined as RW2, but, no document was filed.

8. After considering the contentions of both parties, in the light of the evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.3 for the claim of Rs.2,95,428/-, the claimant filed medical bills for an amount of Rs.2,17,778/-. Out of Rs.2,95,428/-, 75% would be reimbursed by the employer of the father of the claimant, the Tribunal awarded Rs.73,857/- towards compensation for the medical expenses. Similarly, the medical claims and several documents vide Ex.A8, A9, A20 to A27, the Tribunal held that the claimant is entitled to 25% of such amount. Thus, finally an amount of Rs.1,49,452/- was held to be the entitlement under the medical expenses and rounding the figure to Rs.1,50,000/-, the Tribunal awarded the same amount as compensation.

9. With the evidence of the doctor, the claimant could establish that she suffered permanent disability. Though percentage was not ascertained, the Tribunal held that the claimant lost her marital life and career prospects. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs.7,50,000