The court established that compensation for personal injuries in motor vehicle accidents must consider both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, ensuring the awarded amount reflects the claimant's suffering and loss.

JUDGMENT :

1. This is an appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the claimant in M.V.O.P.No.835 of 2009 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Guntur (for short “the MACT”) seeking enhancement of quantum of compensation awarded by the learned MACT in a sum of Rs.53,000/- as against a claim made for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-.

Case of Claimant / Appellant :

2(i). Appellant/claimant is driver of lorry bearing No.AP 05 U 1917. On the date of accident i.e. on 18.06.2009 with a load of gas cylinders he started at Kondapalli Village to go to Chirala, when the said lorry crossed Budampadu Village at about 12:00 midnight, a lorry bearing No.AP 07 W 1882 (hereinafter refer to as offending vehicle) came in opposite direction in rash and negligent manner in a zigzag way and hit the lorry in which the claimant was traveling on its right side. As a result, the claimant was struck in cabin and sustained fracture injuries to right thigh, right leg above knee, and right knee, bleeding injuries to the right leg, thumb finger, right forehead etc. Immediately, after the accident he was shifted to GGH- Guntur and thereafter for better treatment to Sanjivi Orthopedics Physiotherapy Centers, Guntur, where operation was conducted to right leg. He was treated as impatient and an amount of Rs.10,000/- was spent by him for treatment.

2(ii). Further case of the claimant is that the accident was occurred due to negligent driving of offending vehicle. A case in Crime No.220 of 2009 was registered in Guntur Rural Police Station against its driver and subsequently he was charged sheeted vide C.C.No.417 of 2009 for the offences under Section 338 of IPC.

2(iii). Respondent No.1 is the owner of the lorry, Respondent No.2 is the insurer with whom the offending vehicle was insured.

2(iv). The claimant suffered injuries, disability and unable to work as how he was working earlier. The accident occurred due to negligent driving by Respondent No.1. Hence, Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are liable to pay the compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.

3. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte.

Case of Respondent No.2 Insurance Company:

4(i). The claimant shall prove pleaded accident negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, valid and effective driving licence for the driver of offending vehicle, valid and effective insurance policy issued by Respondent No.2 for the offending vehicle and the same being in force at relevant time. Negligence of claimant in driving the vehicle cannot be ignored and that the claimant himself has no valid driving licence to drive the lorry.

4(ii). Further, it is claimed by the Respondent No.2 insurance company that the age, occupation, income and disability pleaded by the claimant, nature and effect of injuries stated are incorrect and that the Respondent No.2 Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation.

5. On the strength of pleadings following issues are settled by the learned MACT:

i. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.AP 07 W 1882?

ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, and if so, to what amount and against whom?

iii. To what relief?

Findings of the learned MACT:

6(i). With regard to issue No.1 touching the occurrence of accident, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, claimant sustaining injuries in the accident etc, the Learned MACT believed the oral evidence of the claimant with reference to corroboration from the documentary evidence like Charge Sheet, crime record etc. 6(ii). With regard to nature and effect of injuries and quantifica