The distinction between permanent disability and loss of earning capacity is critical, with compensation assessments requiring evidence of actual impact on earnings.

JUDGMENT :

B. S. Bhanumathi, J.

This appeal is preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and the decree, dated 27.04.2005, in O.P.No.243 of 2001 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Ongole.

2. This appeal was preferred by the claimant. The respondents herein are the respondents before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the appellant / claimant, briefly stated, is as follows:

While the claimant, along with other villagers, was proceeding in a jeep bearing No.AP 04 C 6898 of the respondent No.1 insured with the respondent No.2 on the intervening night of 5/6.05.2000, near Gotlagattu village on Podili-Nandyal road, the driver of the jeep drove it in a rash and negligent manner and lost control over it. As a result, the jeep dashed against a stationed tractor-truck and the claimant and others received injuries and one person died. The police of Konakanamitla Police Station registered a case in Crime No.15 of 2000 against the driver of the jeep and filed charge sheet. The claimant sustained multiple injuries, including the fracture to his both hands. He was shifted to the Government Hospital, Ongole, and later treated in Venkata Ramana Nursing Home, Ongole and also in N.I.M.S., Hyderabad. He was treated from 06.05.2000 to 10.06.2000 in N.I.M.S. Steel rods were inserted in his both hands by surgery. He took follow up treatment. He could not lift weights and became permanently disabled. He claimed compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-.

4. The respondent No.1 remained ex parte.

5. The respondent No.2 filed counter denying the claim and further stating that the owner of the insured vehicle violated the terms and conditions of the policy issued by it in respect of the vehicle by using it as a taxi.

6. On behalf of the claimant, PWs 1 and 2 were examined and exhibits A1 to A18 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no witness was examined, however, Ex.B1, attested copy of the policy relating to the United India Insurance Company Limited, dated 22.07.1999, was marked by consent. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of FIR in Crime No.15 of 2000 of Konakanamitla police station, dated 06.05.2000; exhibit A2 is the certified copy of the M.V. Inspector’s report, dated 06.05.2000; exhibit A3 is the certified copy of the charge sheet, dated 12.12.2000, in C.C.No.405 of 2000 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Podili; Ex.A4 is the certified copy of the Medico Legal Record, dated 06.05.2000, issued by N.I.M.S., Ex.A5 is the bunch of medical bills (69) in number; Ex.A6 is the cash receipts, dated 06.05.2000, issued by N.I.M.S., nine in number’ Ex.A7 is the O.P.Chit, dated 06.05.2000, of N.I.M.S.; Ex.A8 is the Medical Equipment bill, dated 29.05.2000; Ex.A9 is the receipt, dated 06.05.2000, of Registration charges issued by N.I.M.S.; Ex.A10 is the Transport receipt, dated 27.07.2000, two in number; Ex.A11 is the Hire charges receipt, dated 06.05.2000; Ex.A12 is the Ultra sound Scan report, dated 07.05.2000; Ex.A13 is the outpatient medical records issued by N.I.M.S., dated 24.07.2000 (two in number); Ex.A14 is the discharge record of the petitioner issued by N.I.M.S., dated 06.05.2000; Ex.A15 is the scanning reports (two) in number; Ex.A16 is the scan X rays (four in number), dated 06.05.2000; Ex.A17 is the X rays (10 in number), dated 06.05.2000; Ex.A18 is the pattadar passbook relating to Bandaru Venkaiah issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur, dated 17.06.2001.

7. After consider