The court upheld the compensation awarded for disability, affirming that functional disability significantly affects earning capacity, meriting consideration beyond mere age and income evidence.

JUDGMENT :

V.SUJATHA, J.

The Insurance Company filed the present appeal against the order and decree dated 26.10.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.228 of 2014 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge's Court, Kurnool, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs only) to respondent No.1 herein/petitioner, as against the claim of Rs.18,00,000/-, for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that occurred on 22.04.2012.

02. Appellant/Insurance Company is the 2^nd respondent, respondent No.1/injured herein is the petitioner and respondent No.2 herein/owner of the offending vehicle is the 1^st respondent before the Tribunal. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

03. The case of the petitioner/claimant, in brief, is as follows:

a) On 22.04.2012 evening, the petitioner was proceeding on his motorcycle from Thummalapenta to M.Uppalapadu village, duly following traffic rules by going on extreme left side of the road, and when he reached near a school at Gorvimanupalli village, one tractor and trailer bearing registration No.AP 21 TT 7987 and AP 21 TT 7988 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, came from his behind without blowing horn and dashed the motorcycle of the petitioner, as a result of which, the petitioner fell down and sustained injuries to his right leg. Immediately, he was shifted to Apple Orthopedic Hospital, Kurnool, where he took treatment as an in-patient from 22.04.2012 to 20.06.2012 and underwent surgery and spent Rs.2,50,000/- towards medical and other expenses.

b) It is further contended that due to the accident, the petitioner sustained permanent disability and despite undergoing treatment, he has not regained normal movements to his right leg and is unable to perform any physical work much less agricultural work. It is contended that the petitioner was aged about 26 years and earning Rs.75,000/- per annum by doing cultivation prior to the accident. Therefore, the petitioner claimed a compensation of Rs.18,00,000/- from the respondent Nos.1 and 2, being the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle respectively.

04. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 remained ex parte.

05. Respondent No.2/insurer filed counter, denying the manner in which the accident occurred as well as age and income of the petitioner prior to the accident. It was the contention of respondent No.2 that the offending vehicle is not covered by insurance policy at the material point of time and that the driver of the offending vehicle had no driving license and therefore, there is violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. It was further contended that the accident occurred due to sole negligence on the part of the petitioner who drove his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner without valid driving license. It was further contended that the report was lodged four days after the incident, which rises suspicion with regard to the occurrence as well as the involvement of the insured vehicle. It was further contended that the claim of the petitioner is highly excessive and exorbitant and thus, prayed to dismiss the petition.

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

“1. Whether the accident dated 22.04.2012 occurred due to rash and negligence on the part of the driver of tractor and trailer bearing No.AP 21 TT 7987 and AP 21 TT 7988 as stated in the petition?

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

3. To what relief?”

07. On behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A9 were marked. On behalf of respondent No.2, no oral evidence was adduced and Ex.B.1 was marked. Ex.X1-c