The court upheld that negligence in motor vehicle accidents is assessed on the preponderance of probabilities, enabling claims even with issues like delay in FIR lodging, affirming broader judicial discretion in awarding just compensation.

JUDGMENT :

A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J.

I. Introduction:-

1. [i] National Insurance Company Ltd., the 2^nd respondent before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- VIII Additional District Judge, Chittoor [for short “MACT”], in M.V.O.P.No.47 of 2014, feeling aggrieved by the Award and Decree dated 10.01.2017 passed therein, filed the present appeal.

[ii] The 1^st respondent herein is the claimant and the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents herein are the owner and driver of the vehicle bearing No.AP 03 AA 5224 [for short the ‘offending vehicle’] and the appellant herein is the Insurance Company with which the offending vehicle was insured.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties will be herein after referred to as the claimant and the respondents, with reference to their status before the learned MACT, as and how they are arrayed in the impugned proceedings.

II. Case of the claimant in brief:

3. [i] Claimant suffered accident on 18.01.2012 on Chittoor – Puttur road, near Ramanaidupalle village, G.D. Nellore Mandal, within the limits of G.D.Nellore Police Station.

[ii] By the date of the accident, the claimant was studying II year B.Tech., at ChandraSekharendra Saraswathi Viswa Maha Vidyalaya, Kancheepuram, Tamil Nadu and aged about ‘19’ years. While the claimant was travelling on a motor Cycle Bajaj Pulsar bearing No.KA 01 EH 5945, the 3^rd respondent, driver of the offending vehicle/ Indica Car bearing No.AP 03 AA 5224, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motor cycle of the claimant from rear side. Whereby the claimant fell down and sustained multiple bleeding injures and fractures. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to CMC Hospital, Vellore, from there he was taken to Sri Ramachandra Medical Center, Chennai. He has undergone initially treatment at CMC Hospital and after shifting to Sri Ramachandra Medical Center, Chennai undergone operation on 15.02.2012 to D7-D9, D10 pedicle screw fixation and instrumented stabilization for D8 and D9 wedge compression of the vertebral body fractures. Doctors have diagnosed of deep vein thrombosis of the right lower limb. Due to critical injury on his head, the claimant was in ICU Unit for 15 days.

[iii] He has spent more than Rs.10,00,000/- for his treatment, surgery and medicines etc., taken the treatment from 18.01.2012 to 24.02.2012 as in-patient at first instances and again he was admitted on 14.03.2012 and visited on 16.03.2012. Even after discharge he is continuously taking treatment as outpatient as advised by the doctors. Due to the accident, he has sustained multiple injuries. Though he has taken treatment, unable to concentrate on his studies. He has to take medicines throughout the life. Even after discharge, as per doctors’ advice, he has continuously taken treatment and visited as outpatient even on 25.10.2013. For about 16 times he has attended the Hospitals, for investigation etc. Although the clamant is survived, there is no scope for complete recovery. During treatment he has struggled for survival. He cannot travel long distances, he has to use spinal belt for his journeys. He cannot sit or stand for long time. He is not fit for driving any vehicle.

[iv] The disability of the claimant is assessed at 55%. The claimant is getting headache, giddiness, defective memory, anger, inability to concentrate on studies etc. The disability is permanent in nature. The misery is inexplicable.

[v] The negligence of the 3^rd respondent-driver of the offending vehicle, is the sole cause for the accident. The offending vehicle is owned by the 1^st respondent and insured with 2^nd respondent. Therefore, all the respondents are liable to pay just and reasonable compensation.

4. The 3^rd respondent-driver of the offending vehicle remained ex parte.

1^st and 2^nd respondents contested the case. III. Case of the respondents 1 and 2:-

Common Defence:

5. [i] The nature, manner and effect of the accident as well as negligence of the 3^rd respondent-driver of the offending vehicle are denied. Equally, age, o