The court determined just compensation for injuries, emphasizing the need for a thorough analysis of medical evidence and disability, ultimately enhancing the awards significantly.

JUDGMENT :

A. Hari Haranadha Sarma, J.

Introductory:

1. M.A.C.M.A.No.4089 of 2012 and M.A.C.M.A.No.2473 of 2014 are directed against the decree and judgment passed in M.V.O.P.No.195 of 2010 and M.A.C.M.A.No.4090 of 2012 is directed against the decree and judgment passed in M.V.O.P.No.157 of 2011.

2. Both M.V.O.P.Nos.195 of 2010 and 157 of 2011 were disposed under common judgment by the District Judge-cum-Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal at Rajahmundry (for short “the learned MACT”).

3. One Nittala Ravindra is the claimant in M.V.O.P.No.195 of 2010 and N.V.N. Pavan Kumar is the claimant in M.V.O.P.No.157 of 2011. Both of them claimed compensation for the injuries sustained by them. The accident referred in both cases is arising out of the same incident.

4. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation granted, Nittala Ravindra, the claimant in M.V.O.P.No.195 of 2010, filed M.A.C.M.A.No.4089 of 2012 and N.V.N. Pavan Kumar, the claimant in M.V.O.P.No.157 of 2011, filed M.A.C.M.A.No.4090 of 2012, seeking enhancement.

5. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 before the learned MACT in M.V.O.P.No.195 of 2011 filed M.A.C.M.A.No.2473 of 2014 disputing the quantum of compensation awarded.

6. All the three appeals are pertaining to the same accident and the awards and decrees questioned were made under common judgment by the learned MACT. Therefore, all the three appeals were heard together and are being considered together and hence the common judgment.

Details:

7. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as the claimants and the Respondents as and how they are arrayed in the impugned proceedings.

Case of the claimants:

8(i). Petitioner in M.V.O.P.No.195 of 2010 is the father. The petitioner in M.V.O.P.No.157 of 2011 is the son. They were travelling on motor cycle /scooter bearing No.AP 05 BA 4155 from Kakinada to Rajahmundry.

(ii). On the fateful day i.e. on 16.02.2009, whey they were near Housing Board Colony, Way Bridge, Lalacheruvu, Rajahmundry a School Van bearing No.AP 28 V 5249 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) belonging to Adarsha Educational Society, arrayed as Respondent No.2 before the learned MACT, came in a opposite direction, driven by its driver arrayed as Respondent No.1 before the learned MACT and dashed the scooter, whereby the accident occurred.

9. A case in Crime No.30 of 2009 was registered at Bommuru Police Station against the driver of the offending vehicle and he was subsequently charge-sheeted.

10. On account of the accident, the scooter was damaged and the father lost his gold chain and suffered seven injuries. Further, his son also suffered seven injuries. They were taken to Swatantra Hospital, but on the advice of the doctor, due to seriousness of injuries, the petitioners were taken to Abhaya Hospital and from there to Apex Emergency Hospital. The father was treated as an inpatient till 20.03.2009 and underwent two surgeries for the injuries to both hands, legs and hips. Cerebral edema was found on brain scan. Treatment was taken from neurosurgeon and jaundice developed due to the accident. In all, the father incurred an expenditure of Rs.3,00,325/- for the treatment and he has became disabled and unable to attend duties and even unable to walk as he was earlier doing. He require hand stick to attend calls of nature etc. and he was forced to go on leave. The son was unable to attend employment and lost his earning power and salary and he is unable to attend normal duties.

11. The negligence was disputed by Respondent No.1 in the written statement filed in M.V.O.P.No.157 of 2011.

Case of the Respondent-Insurance Company in both cases:

12. The father and son have to prove that the rider of the scooter had driving licence. The owner and Insurance Company of t