The court emphasized a holistic approach to compensation measurement, modifying awarded damages to reflect the claimant's actual medical expenses and injury severity.

JUDGMENT :

A.HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J.

Introductory:

1. This appeal is directed against the order and decree dated 23.04.2012 passed in M.O.P.No.99 of 2010 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam (for short “the MACT”). The claimant before the learned MACT is the appellant herein.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the quantum of compensation of Rs.12,000/- awarded as against the claim made for Rs.2,00,000/-, the present appeal is filed.

3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein are the owner and the insurer of the Lorry bearing Registration No.AP 31 TT 6993 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”).

Case of the Claimant:

4(i). On 12.11.2007, at about 10:00 p.m. the claimant boarded the offending vehicle at Lala Chereuvu, Rajamundry, to go to Kothavalasa. When the vehicle reached near Weavers Colony, Kothavalasa at about 04:30 a.m. on 13.11.2007, due to rash and negligent driving of its driver, it fell into a drainage. As a result, the claimant sustained grievous injuries to the right knee, left leg and other parts of the body.

(ii). Immediately after the accident, the claimant was shifted to the Medical Centre, Nakkapalli. He subsequently underwent treatment as an inpatient for about two months and incurred an expenditure of Rs.85,000/- towards medical treatment, extra nourishment, transportation etc.

(iii). A case in Cr.No.125 of 2007 was registered by the Nakkapalli Police Station against the driver of the offending vehicle for the offence under Section 337 IPC .

(iv). As on the date of the accident, the claimant was aged about 33 years, hale and healthy, working as a Senior Technician in Electrical Manufacturers, Kothavalasa, Visakhapatnam and earning Rs.12,000/- per month. 5. Respondent No.1, the owner of the offending vehicle, remained ex parte before the learned MACT.

Case of the respondent-Insurance Company:-

6(i). Age, occupation and income of the claimant, nature of treatment taken and expenditure incurred are all incorrect and shall be strictly proved.

(ii). The factum of insurance and compliance of the conditions of the policy, including a valid and effective driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle, shall be proved.

(iii). In any event, the quantum of compensation claimed is excessive and respondent No.2 / insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation.

7. On the strength of pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial by the learned MACT:

(i). Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle lorry bearing No.AP 31 TT 6993?

(ii). Whether petitioner is entitled for compensation as claimed for, if so, from whom and how much?

(iii). To what relief?

Evidence before the learned MACT:

8(i). Claimant has taken the witness stand as P.W.1 and one Dr. B.D. Naidu, who treated him, was examined as P.W.2.

(ii). On behalf of the respondents, one K. M. Madhav, working as Manager in the respondent Insurance Company and one V.A. Krishna Mohan, Senior Assistant, RTA Office, Visakhapatnam were examined as R.Ws.-1 and 2.

9(i). The claimant relied on Ex.A1-FIR, Ex.A2-Wound Certificate and Ex.A3- copy of registration certificate of the offending vehicle, Ex.A4: Policy issued by Respondent No.2 in the name of Respondent No.1. Exs.A5 to A9 are medical records.

(ii). Respondents relied on the policy copy, legal notice issued to respondent No.1 by the Insurance Company, returned postal cover from respondent No.1, copy of the charge sheet and permit for the vehicle corresponding to Ex.X2.

Findings of the learned MACT:

10(i). P.W.1 is the injured cum eye witness. Ex.A1-FIR was registered based on his complaint.

(ii). No evidence was adduced by the respondents, including the driver of the offending vehicle, to rebut the allegation of negligence. Hence, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of respondent No.1.

(iii). In the absence of any official or Govern