The court confirmed the claimant's entitlement to enhanced compensation due to the exclusive negligence of the driver, raising the awarded amount to Rs.2,73,000.

JUDGMENT :

(A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J.)

1. Heard both sides.

2. One Sri Dalichad Krishna, claimant in M.V.O.P.No.27 of 2014 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Kakinada (for short “the MACT”) is before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation awarded to him under the impugned award and decree dated 26.12.2016. A claim was made for awarding compensation in a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for the injuries suffered by claimant in the Motor Vehicle accident but the learned MACT granted Rs.2,00,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum with some incidental benefits like costs.

3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the driver and owner of the lorry bearing No.AP 05 TU 5247 (hereinafter refer to as offending vehicle) and Respondent No.3 is the insurance company. Learned MACT directed all the Respondents to pay the compensation.

4. For the sake of convenience herein after parties will be referred to as and how they are referred in the impugned proceedings.

Case of claimant:

5(i). On 06.08.2013 at about 12:00 Noon when the claimant along with his friend riding motor cycle bearing No.AP 5 BV 6781 near Gas Company at Ward road at Kakinada within the limits of I Town, Law and Order Police Station, Kakinada, the driver of the offending vehicle came in rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the motor cycle causing the accident. The claimant sustained head injury, fracture on right hand and pillion rider also sustained swelling injury. The claimant was shifted to Government General Hospital, Kakinada from there to Apollo Hospital, Kakinada for better treatment.

5(ii). A case in crime vide Cr.No.131 of 2013, for the offence under Sections 337 and 338 IPC, was registered against the Respondent No.1 / driver of the offending vehicle. The accident has occurred due to exclusive negligence of Respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 being the employer and Respondent No.3 being insurer for the offending vehicle liable to pay compensation to the claimant.

5(iii). The claimant was working in Tea stall and engaged business at Cinema Road, Kakinada and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. He is the sole bread winner for his family, incurred huge expenditure for the treatment. He had to visit the hospital again and again for follow up. Even after discharge two months bed rest was advised to him by the doctors. He is suffering with permanent disability on account of accident. Hence, entitled for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.

6. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 driver and owner of the offending vehicle remained ex-parte. Respondent No.3 Insurance Company alone contested the case.

Case of the Insurance Company:

7(i). The claimant shall prove all the assertions and allegations made by him like; valid and effective driving licence of Respondent No.1, valid Insurance Policy issued for the offending vehicle by Respondent No.3 / Insurance Company, compliance of conditions of policy, age, occupation, income of the Claimant, nature and effect of injuries, including disability, if any.

7(ii) Further Respondent No.3 Insurance Company has claimed that negligence on the part of the claimant in riding motor cycle cannot be ignored and contributory negligence on his part shall be considered, while quantifying the compensation.

8. On the strength of pleadings learned MACT settled the following issues for trial:-

1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing Registration No.AP 5 TU 5247 by Respondent No.1, resulting in injuries to the petitioner?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?

3) To what relief?

Evidence before the learned MACT:

9. Respondent No.3 Insurance Company did not choose to adduce any oral evidence but relied on Ex.B1 Insurance Policy.

10. Claimant was examined as P.W.-1, Dr. M.V. Kiran Kumar, who treated the claimant has examined as P.W.-2, Dr. P. P. Chatterjee of Appollo Hospital who attended and treated on behalf of the claimant was exami