Court must ensure just and reasonable compensation for personal injuries, enhancing initial awards if found inadequate.

JUDGMENT :

A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J.

1. Claimant in M.V.O.P.No.901 of 2007 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Vijayawada (for short “the learned MACT”), aggrieved by the order and decree dated 03.01.2013, whereunder a compensation of Rs.36,000/- was awarded, filed the present appeal questioning the adequacy of compensation.

2. The claim was laid by the appellant for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 03.06.2007 at about 03:00 A.M., while he was discharging his duties as a driver for the lorry bearing No.AP 16 TU 4547 alleging that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of bus bearing No.AP 16 TU 1666 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) driven by respondent No.1 driver, owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3. The lorry in which the petitioner was travelling is owned by respondent No.4 and insured with respondent No.5.

3. Owners of vehicles, respondent Nos.2 and 4, remained ex parte before the learned MACT. Respondent Nos.1, 3 and 5 contested the case.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as the petitioner and the respondents, as and how they are arrayed in the impugned proceedings.

Case of the claimant:

5(i). The accident occurred at Jaganaik Thanda within the limits of Chivemla Police Station, Nalgonda District, due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the offending vehicle. The petitioner / appellant suffered multiple fractures and injuries to the right leg, forehead and right ankle. The petitioner was shifted to the Area Hospital, Suryapeta, Nalgonda District and from there to Mother Teresa Hospital at Kodada, Nalgonda District for better treatment.

(ii). A case in Crime No.94 of 2007 was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle. The petitioner was working as a driver of lorry and earning Rs.5,000/- per month as salary, apart from Rs.100/- as batta per day. Due to the accident, he suffered permanent disablement and became unable to discharge his duties. He has incurred Rs.30,000/- towards medical expenses. The offending vehicle was taken on hire by respondent No.2 and the same was insured with Respondent No.3. Therefore, Respondent No.3 is liable to pay the compensation. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 are also liable.

Case of Respondent No.1:

6. There was negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. As per the agreement, Respondent No.3 is liable to pay compensation. Respondent No.1 is not liable to pay any compensation.

Case of Respondent No.3:

7. The petitioner shall prove the negligence of respondent No.1, the nature and effect of the injuries, valid and effective driving licence for respondent No.1 and compliance of the terms of the Insurance Policy. There is negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. Respondent No.3 is not liable to pay any compensation.

Case of Respondent No.5:

8. The petitioner shall prove the age, occupation, income and nature and effect of the injuries. Respondent No.5 is not liable to pay any compensation as Respondent No.4 has violated the terms and conditions of the policy.

Findings of the learned MACT:

9. The learned MACT, by referring to the evidence of P.W.1, Ex.A1-FIR, Ex.A3-Charge Sheet etc. and also the evidence of R.W.1, an employee of respondent No.1-Corporation, found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of respondent No.1 and that there was no negligence on the part of the petitioner.

10. With regard to liability, the learned MACT found that Respondent No.1 is the owner of the offending vehicle and that the vehicle was insured with respondent No.3. Extra premium was also collected. Therefore, respondent No.3 is liable to pay the compensation. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 are not liable to pay th