The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to award adequate compensation for personal injuries, loss of earnings, future prospects, and loss of amenities in cases of accidents resulting in disability.

JUDGMENT :

1. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the order and decree, dated 11.06.2014, passed in M.V.O.P.No.390 of 2011 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Special Sessions Judge for Trial of SCs/STs (POA) Cases-cum-Additional District Judge, Nalgonda (for short “the Tribunal”), the appellant/claimant preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.

2. The facts, in issue, are as under:

3. The appellant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.13,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident that occurred on 26.09.2000. It is stated that on that day, the appellant was driving his auto for collection of milk and when the auto reached Sarvaram Major Canal, one Toyota Innova Car bearing No.AP-09-BJ-4347 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the auto of the appellant. As a result of which, the appellant sustained spinal injury and other injuries all over his body and immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Kamineni Hospital, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad and Narketpally, Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad and NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad and he spent Rs.2,00,000/- for treatment. Since the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Innova Car, the appellant filed the claim-petition against the respondents 1 and 2, being the owner and insurer of the said Innova Car.

4. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent remained ex parte and the 2nd respondent filed counter denying the averments made in the claim-petition. It is also stated that the appellant shall prove that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Car and the driver of the car was having valid driving licence to drive the Car. It is further stated that the compensation claimed is arbitrary and excessive.

5. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues :

(1) Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in a motor accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Toyota Innova Car bearing No.AP-09-BJ-4347?

(2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?

(3) To what relief?

6. On behalf of the appellant, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A1 to A12 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was adduced but Ex.B1 and Ex.C1 were marked.

7. After analyzing the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the appellant had sustained grievous injuries in the accident caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Car and accordingly awarded an amount of Rs.64,000/- as compensation to be paid by the respondents. Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded, the present appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant.

8. Learned Counsel for the appellant mainly submits that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on lower side. It is further submitted that as per the disability certificate, the appellant had sustained 80% permanent disability, but the Tribunal did not consider the said disability and did not award any amount for the disability sustained by him. It is also submitted that as per the principles laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 ACJ 2700, the appellant is also entitled to the future prospects at 40% and also Rs.3,00,000/- under the heads of loss of expectation of life and loss of amenities in life i.e., marriage prospects. Therefore, it is argued that the income of the appellant may be taken into consideration reasonably and prayed to enhance the same.

9. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company fairly admits that no amount was awarded by the Tribunal for the disability sustained by the appellant and that the appellant is entitled loss of earnings on account of 80% disability sustained by him.

10. A p