A light motor vehicle license suffices for driving a transport vehicle under 7500 kg, modifying liability to include the insurance company.

JUDGMENT :

V. R K KRUPA SAGAR, J.

Questioning the inadequacy of compensation and absolving the insurance company from liability, the injured claimant preferred this Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 impugning the award dated 22.09.2012 of the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Madanapalle (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in O.P.No.58 of 2009.

2. Heard arguments of Sri M.D.Saleem, the learned counsel for appellant and Sri N.Ramakrishna, the learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company.

3. The following facts are required to be noticed:

Sri Babu @ S.Venkataramana Reddy and Sri Srinivasulu were walking on CTM road, Madanapalle on 02.01.2008. At about 9:45 P.M. an auto rickshaw bearing registration No.AP-03- X-2231 came rashly or negligently and dashed them causing serious injuries on head and other parts of the body of Sri Babu @ S.Venkataramana Reddy. The victim was treated at Government Hospital, Madanapalle and thereafter at SVRRGG Hospital, Tirupati and thereafter at SVIMS Hospital, Tirupati and CMC Hospital, Vellore. Relating to this accident, Crime No.3 of 2008 was registered and was investigated into and a charge sheet was laid against the driver of the offending auto rickshaw. The owner of the auto rickshaw is Sri S.Lokesh. At the material point of time it was validly insured by M/s. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited. The victim moved a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act praying for Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation and filed O.P.No.58 of 2009 before the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Madanapalle. Respondent No.1/owner of the offending auto rickshaw did not choose to appear and contest. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company filed a counter and denied the facts alleged and sought dismissal of the claim.

4. Basing on the rival pleadings, the learned Claims Tribunal settled the following issues:

1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the Auto bearings its registration No.AP-03-X-2231 involved resulting the injuries to the petitioner by name Babu @ Venkataramana Reddy?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, by whom and to what amount?

3) To what relief?

5. During enquiry, for claimant, PWs.1 to 3 and Exs.A.1 to A.9 were produced. A Senior Assistant of RTA Office, Madanapalle testified on behalf of the insurance company as RW.1 and produced Exs.X.1 and X.2. A copy of the insurance policy was filed as Ex.B.1.

6. Considering the investigative outcome of the State Police and the oral evidence of the eyewitness to this incident/PW.2, who was walking along with the victim, the learned Claims Tribunal concluded that the accident was a clear result of rash or negligent driving of driver of auto rickshaw bearing registration No.AP-03-X-2231. Respondent No.1 being the owner of it was held vicariously liable. The learned Claims Tribunal considering Exs.A.6 and A.8-medical bills and Ex.A.9-X-ray report and Ex.A.5-permanent disability certificate and considering the evidence of the doctor who administered treatment to the victim and testified as PW.3 granted Rs.25,000/- towards pain and sufferings, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of amenities of life, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of expectation of life, Rs.5,000/- towards discomfort and inconvenience, Rs.3,02,936/- towards medical expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards special diet and feedings expenses, Rs.4,200/- towards attendant charges and Rs.5,000 towards transport expenses. It considered the age of the claimant as 45 years and applied multiplier ‘14’ and considered his annual income at Rs.36,000/- and after deducting 1/3^rd of it arrived at Rs.3,36,000/-.