The court emphasized the necessity of just compensation for injuries sustained in an accident, correcting the tribunal's inadequate award.

JUDGMENT:

1. This appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is filed by the appellant impugning the order dated 08.05.2007 of the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – Cum – IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati in MVOP.No.308 of 2005.

2. Heard arguments of Kumari Shalini, the learned counsel appeared on behalf of Sri O.Uday Kumar, the learned counsel for appellant and Sri Gudi Srinivasu, the learned counsel for respondent No.2/ insurance company.

3. An injured claimant filed his claim for Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. A Tata Sumo bearing registration No. AP 25 J 2805 is stated to be the offending vehicle. It is owned by R1/ Sri Eranna Chettivar and it was insured with R2/ M/s Oriental Insurance Company Limited. The subject matter accident was registered as Cr.No.152 of 2009 by Chandragiri Police Station, Chittor District and FIR was exhibited as per Ex.A1. After due investigation, the driver of the offending vehicle was prosecuted by the State on presentation of its charge sheet/ Ex.A2.

4. On 20.05.2004, the injured claimant/ Sri C.Guru Prasad Reddy was a pillion rider on a motor bike being driven by Sri G.Venkataramanaiah and at about 12 noon, the offending vehicle travelling on Tirupati – Bhakarapet Road came at a menacing speed in rash or negligent manner by its driver and dashed the two wheeler. Both the riders of the motorcycle fell down. The claimant suffered a fracture on his right thigh and suffered two more injuries to his body. He was initially admitted to SVRR GG hospital, Tirupati where Ex.A3 wound certificate was issued and thereafter, he was shifted to Prasanth hospital, Tirupati where a surgery was conducted and GK interlocking nail was fixed for the right femur. He was in hospital from 21.05.2004 to 31.05.2004.

5. In response to his claim, the owner of the offending vehicle/ R1 did not choose to appear and contest. The insurance company filed its counter refuting the narration made in the claim petition.

6. Based on the rival pleadings, learned claims tribunal settled the following issues for trail:

1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident caused on 20-5-2004 at about 12-30 P.M,, 2 K.Ms after Kalyani Dam towards Bhakarapet due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of TATA Sumo bearing No.AP25-J 2805 belonging to the respondent No.1 insured with second respondent?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as prayed for in the petition?

3. To what relief?

7. On behalf of the claimant/ PWs.1 and 2 testified and Exs.A1 to A10 and Exs.X1 and X2 were marked. Insurance company/ R2 therein did not produce any oral evidence but produced a copy of the insurance policy as per Ex.B1. It is found undisputed that by the time of the subject matter accident, the offending Tata Sumo was having valid and effective insurance policy. PW.2 was the doctor who conducted surgery to the injured claimant. Ex.A4 is the discharge summary issued by Prasanth Hospital and Exs.A5 and A6 are the medical bills and receipts and Ex.A8 is surgery bill. Ex.A9 is salary certificate of the injured claimant. Exs.X1 and X2 are the case sheets issued by the Prasanth Hospital. Ex.A7 is the certificate of disability. On assessment of the oral and documentary evidence and the rival pleadings and contentions led by both sies, the learned claims tribunal granted the award under various heads and they are mentioned below: -

Thus, a total compensation of Rs.53,267/- was found as just compensation.

8. It passed the award in the following terms:

“In view of the result on Issue Nos 1 and 2, the petition is allowed partly with proportionate costs directing the respondents 1 and 2 to pay compensation amount of Rs.53,267/- to the petitioner with interest at 7.5% P.A., from the date of petition till the date of payment A