The court can award compensation exceeding the original claim in motor vehicle accident cases, emphasizing the necessity for assessing disability based on the claimant's specific occupational role and its impact on earning capacity.

JUDGMENT :

A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J.

Introductory:

1. Claimant in M.V.O.P.No.528 of 2006 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Family Court-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa (for short “the learned MACT”) filed M.A.C.M.A.No.737 of 2012 and Respondent No.2 (the New India Assurance Company Limited) before the learned MACT filed M.A.C.M.A.No.2224 of 2012.

2. The petitioner/claimant i.e. Jyothi Pratap, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 18.08.2005.

3. The learned MACT partly allowed the claim and awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,53,600/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, while dismissing the claim against respondent Nos.3 and 4.

4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/claimant preferred M.A.C.M.A.No.737 of 2012 contending inadequacy of compensation, while respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed appeal i.e. M.A.C.M.A.No.2224 of 2012 disputing liability and challenging the quantum of compensation.

5. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as the claimant and the respondents as and how they are arrayed before the learned MACT.

Case of the Claimant:

6(i). The claimant, working as a driver of a bus bearing No.AP 04 U 3979 under respondent No.3 and was earning Rs.3,000/- salary per month and Rs.60/- per trip towards batta. The claimant used to drive bus owned by Respondent No.3 for 15 nights in a month from Kadapa to Hyderabad and vice versa and he was earning Rs.3,900/- per month.

(ii). While the claimant was driving the bus of respondent No.3 from Hyderabad to Kadapa on the night of 17.08.2005, when he reached the 195 KM stone on Hyderabad to Kurnool Highway at about 02:00 a.m. on 18.08.2005, a Volvo bus bearing No.AP 04 U 9090 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) driven by respondent No.1, came in the opposite direction and dashed the bus driven by the claimant and the accident occurred. As a result, the glasses of both the vehicles broken and the broken glass pieces pierced into the eye of the petitioner. The passengers of both vehicles also sustained grievous injuries. Soon after the accident, the petitioner was shifted to Government General Hospital, Kurnool and after initial treatment, he was shifted to Sarojini Devi Eye Hospital, Hyderabad, where he took treatment from 18.08.2005 to 27.08.2005 as an inpatient, during which his left eye was operated upon. Thereafter, he joined Medivision Eye and Health Care Hospital, Hyderabad, wherein he took treatment for one month as an inpatient and second surgery was conducted.

(iii). The petitioner/claimant sustained grievous injuries resulting in total loss of vision in the left eye. He has incurred huge expenditure towards medicines, treatment, transport, attendant charges and extra-nourishment etc.

(iv). Due to the accident, the petitioner became disabled and is unable to work as a driver. He was a skilled worker prior to the accident and the disability is permanent in nature. Charge sheet was laid against the driver employed by respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 is the insurer. Respondent No.3 was the owner of the bus which the claimant was driving. Respondent No.4 was the Insurance Company with which the said vehicle was insured. The petitioner is entitled for just and reasonable compensation from all the r