The court confirmed the liability of the Insurance Company for compensation due to negligent driving, while modifying the awarded amount to Rs.14,50,000 based on the severity of injuries and treatment costs.

JUDGMENT :

(A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J.)

1. Heard both sides.

2. Shriram General Insurance Company Limited / Respondent No.2 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa (for short “the MACT”) in M.V.O.P.No.454 of 2013 feeling aggrieved by the Award and decree dated 31.12.2015 passed therein preferred the present appeal.

3. Respondent No.1 herein is the claimant (minor represented by next friend, his father-natural guardian). Respondent No.2 herein is the owner of the Tipper Lorry bearing No. AP 04 W 5280 (herein after refer to “the offending vehicle”). As against the claim made for Rs.15,00,000/-. Learned MACT although found entitlement of claimant for compensation in a sum of Rs.15,96,000/- awarded Rs.15,00,000/- only with interest @ 7.5% per annum. Disputing both the liability of the Insurance Company and justification in quantifying the compensation this appeal is filed and arguments are advanced touching both aspects by both sides.

Case of Claimant :

4(i). Claimant Sri Karnati Narasimha Reddy alias Sri Bharath Simha Reddy aged about 12 years on the date of accident i.e. on 16.03.2013 along with other boys boarded bus No.AP 04 U 7008 to go to Rajeev High School, Yellatur. At about 07.15 A.M. when the bus was near Anjani Mines cross road on Thummaluru-Pendlimarry main road, offending vehicle came from 'Pendlimarri' side i.e. in opposite direction driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the school bus in which the claimant was travelling, whereby, the accident occurred and the claimant and others suffered injuries. Immediately after the accident, the claimant was shifted to RIMS Hospital, Kadapa, for treatment where first aid was given. In view of the serious condition and head injury, the claimant was referred to SVIMS Hospital, Tirupati on the same day and he was treated there. Surgery was done for right frontal bone as fractures are found in CT scan. Facial injuries, complications as well as attentive optic neuropathy etc. were found and the claimant was treated at SVIMS Hospital till 22.03.2013.

4(ii). Later, the claimant was taken to L.V.Prasad Hospital, Hyderabad for further follow up treatment where from the claimant was referred to NIMS Hospital-Neuro Surgeon, Hyderabad regarding benefit of surgic decompression, where it was suggested that no benefit. Father of the claimant has spent huge amount for medicines, hiring of vehicles, taking of treatment at various hospitals. The right eye vision is lost, frequent suffering of headache, giddiness, mental disorder, inability to speak, loss of memory power and in ability to read books are the results of the injuries suffered in the accident.

4(iii). Further case of clamant is that he was a brilliant boy in studies. The accident has worstly effected his life including loss of eye vision damaging prospects of employment, marriage and causing social stigma loss of academic year etc. Hence he is entitled for compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-.

Case of Respondent No.1 owner of the offending vehicle:

5. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the Tipper Lorry, he has engaged driver by name Sri S. Mallikarjuna, who is having valid and effective driving licence and offending vehicle was insured with Respondent No.2 Insurance Company covering the period valid from 11.08.2012 to 10.08.2013 (date of accident is 16.03.2013). The policy was in force as on the date of accident. Respondent No.1 did not violate conditions of insurance policy. Respondent No.2 has to indemnity Respondent No.1 as well as the claimant. The liability, if any, shall be on the Respondent No.2, as a valid and effective Insurance Policy was in force as on the date of accident.

Case of Respondent No.2 Insurance Company:

6. Claimant shall prove his age, education, prospects, nature and manner of accident, effect of injuries, valid insurance policy and its subsistence on the date of accident. Further, negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, treatment under gone, expenses incurr