Court reaffirmed that amputation leading to 100% functional disability justifies substantial compensation enhancement beyond initial assessment.

JUDGMENT :

V. SUJATHA, J.

The present civil miscellaneous appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, arises out of the order and decree dated 09.01.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.483 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge's Court, Kurnool. By the said order, the Tribunal has partly allowed the said claim petition, awarding a compensation of Rs.4,16,650/- to the petitioner/claimant, as against the claim of Rs.6,00,000/-, for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that occurred on 19.04.2013. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, the petitioner/claimant has preferred this appeal, seeking enhancement of the compensation.

2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows:

a) The petitioner was 38 years old and working as a labourer, attending to loading and unloading work on the tractor of respondent No.1, and earning Rs.6,000/- per month as on the date of incident. On the fateful day i.e., on 19.04.2013, he was travelling in the tractor-tailor bearing registration No.AP 21 Y 7188/7189 belonging to respondent No.1 to load stones at Utkoor quarry and at about 10.30 a.m., when the tractor was reaching near the quarry, the driver of the same drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which the vehicle lost control and fell into a ditch and the petitioner's right leg was crushed in the hydraulic of the said tractor. Immediately, the petitioner was shifted to Renuka Multi Specialty Hospital, N.R.Peta, Kurnool for treatment, where his right leg was amputated below the knee joint and thereafter, he was discharged on 27.04.2013.

b) It was contended by the petitioner that he incurred Rs.1,00,000/- for medical and attendant expenses and was still taking treatment as an out- patient. He filed the claim petition against respondent Nos.1 and 2/owner and insurer of the offending vehicle respectively, initially for a compensation of Rs.11,70,000/-, but subsequently, restricted the claim to Rs.6,00,000/-.

4. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1, owner of the offending vehicle, remained ex parte.

5. Respondent No.2/insurer filed counter resisting the claim of the petitioner. It was contended that the petitioner has to prove that the accident has occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor-trailer driver and that the driver had a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. It was further contended that because of the petitioner's negligence, the accident took place and that the amount claimed was excessive. Further, as the petitioner was an employee under respondent No.1, he ought to have filed a petition under the Workmen's Compensation Act, but not under Motor Vehicles Act. The insurer, therefore, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

6. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:

“1. Whether the accident dated 19.04.2013, took place because of negligence on the part of the driver of Tractor-trailer bearing Nos.AP 21 Y 7188/7189, as stated in the petition?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount, and from whom?

3. To what relief?”

7. On behalf of the petitioner, he himself was examined as P.W.1 and also examined one Dr. J Raghunatha Reddy, Medical Officer, as P.W.2 and Exs.A1 to A8 and Exs.X1 and X2 were also marked. On behalf of the 2^nd respondent, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.

8. After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal partly a