JUDGMENT :

A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J.

M.A.C.M.A.No.1511 of 2017 

Introduction:-

1. [i] The claimant in M.V.O.P.No.562 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam [for short “MACT”], filed the present appeal, dissatisfied by the award and decree dated 18.10.2016, where under a compensation of Rs.6,36,500/- was awarded to him as against a claim made for Rs.10,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 15.11.2009.

[ii] The 1^st respondent herein [insured] is the owner of the vehicle bearing No.AP 30 G 9888 [for short the ‘offending vehicle’], and the 2^nd respondent is the insurer, with which the offending vehicle was insured. Learned MACT imposed the liability on both the respondents .

2. For the sake of convenience, parties will be herein a fter referred to as the claimant and the respondents, with reference to their status before the learned MACT. Sequence of facts that lead to filing of this Appeal:-

3. [i] Claimant is the driver of the offending vehicle. While he was working under 1^st respondent and proceeding from Amadalavalasa to Batteru village in discharging his duties as the driver of the Zeep, due to narrow road and loose soil, the Zeep turned turtle, with the result, the petitioner/claimant sustained multiple fractures on upper and lower limbs. He was shifted to Government Hospital, Srikakulam from there to King George Hospital [KGH], Visakhapatnam. He was treated as in-patient in Neuro surgery ward from 16.11.2009 to 26.11.2009. Even after discharge, treatment was continued for both upper and lower limbs, urinary functioning and he was unable to attend normal duties. Claiming that he has spent amounts towards medical bills and attendant charges etc. and that a case in Cr.No.255 of 2009 is registered and charge sheet also laid for the offences under Section 279 IPC, the claim was made.

[ii] Claim was resisted by the 1^st respondent contending that the petitioner is put to strict proof of all the allegations as to the accident, reasons for the accident, hospitalization treatment, expenditure incurred etc., while admitting that the 1^st respondent is the owner and the claimant was employed as a driver and that the vehicle was insured with the 2^nd respondent. However, 1^st respondent contended that the claim is excessive and in any event the 1^st respondent is not liable to pay any compensation.

[iii]. The 2^nd respondent-Insurance Company resisted the claim contending that the claim is not maintainable under Motor Vehicles Act as the claimant is not a third party, claim if any lies before the appropriate Forum under Workmen’s Compensation Act. The claimant has to prove the necessary facts that entitle him for the compensation claimed.

4. On the strength of pleadings, learned MACT settled the following issues for trial:

1) Whether the petitioner is entitled for the compensation as prayed for? If so, to how much amount and from which of the respondents?

2) To what relief?

Evidence before the learned MACT:

5(i). Documentary evidence:-

(ii) ORAL EVIDENCE:

Findings of the learned MACT:-

6. [i]. The evidence of the claimant and the crime record i.e., F.I.R., Charge Sheet etc. are sufficient to believe that the negligence is the cause for the accident and as the accident has occurred when the vehicle was in use, the claimant is entitled for compensation.

[ii] Further by referring to the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Jasibir Kaur, 2003 ACJ 1800 (SC) that there is no bar for claiming compensation in terms of Motor Vehicles Act, although the claim would lie in terms of Workmen’s Compensation Act, learned MACT found that the choice is left to the claimant or the dependents.

[iii] Further, while referring to the wound certificate-Ex.A3 and case sheet under Ex.A7, evidence of PW.1/claimant and PW.2- Dr.L.Prasannakumar, who stated about the disability at 50%, which is functional and permanent, accepting the inc