JUDGMENT:

A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J.

Introductory:

1. This appeal is directed against the order and decree dated 04.08.2014 passed in M.V.O.P.No.192 of 2013 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram (for short “the learned MACT”). The petitioner before the learned MACT is the appellant herein.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation of Rs.5,81,053/- awarded as against a claim made for Rs.12,00,000/-, the present appeal is filed seeking enhancement.

3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the driver and owner of the lorry bearing No.AP 35 U 1548 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) and respondent No.3 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. The claim was allowed against all the respondents, fixing joint and several liability.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as “the claimant” and “the respondents” as arrayed before the learned MACT.

Case of the claimant:

5(i). On 06.01.2013 at about 01:00 PM, while the claimant was proceeding on his motor cycle on the left side of the road near CMR Shopping Mall, Railway Station Road, Vizianagaram, the offending vehicle, driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner, came in the opposite direction and dashed the motor cycle.

(ii). As a result of the accident, the claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries. He was initially shifted to Sukhibhava Critical Care Hospital, Vizianagaram and thereafter referred to Indus Hospital, Visakhapatnam for better treatment.

(iii). The claimant sustained crush injury to his left leg and other injuries all over the body, his left leg was amputated below the knee.

(iv). At the time of the accident, the claimant was aged about 35 years, hale and healthy, and working as an electrician, earning Rs.10,000/- per month.

(v). Due to the amputation of his left leg, the claimant became permanently disabled and lost his earning capacity and also suffered loss of amenities of life, apart from incurring huge medical expenses.

(vi). The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1, and hence, the respondents being driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

Case of the respondents:

6. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex parte before the learned MACT.

Case of respondent No.3 / Insurance Company:

7(i). The age, occupation and income of the claimant, the nature and manner of the accident, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, the nature and effect of injuries and the expenditure incurred for treatment etc. shall be strictly proved.

(ii). The driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence and that the vehicle was not having proper permit and fitness certificate.

(iii). The petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and that the compensation claimed is excessive.

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

1) Whether the accident occurred resulting injuries to the petitioner due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle (lorry) bearing No.AP 35 U 1548, by its driver?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation and, if so at what quantum and from which of the respondents?

3) To what relief?

Evidence before the learned MACT:

9(i). The claimant was examined as P.W.1 and the doctor, who treated the claimant, was examined as P.W.2.

(ii). The claimant relied upon Exs.A1 to A9 and Ex.X1, which include FIR, wound certificate, MVI report, charge sheet, medical bills, disability certificate and case sheet.

(iii). On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.B1- insurance policy was marked.

Findings of the learned MACT:

10(i). The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle.

(ii). Monthly income of the claimant is acceptable at Rs.3,000/- notionally, as proof is not placed.

(iii). The disability o