JUDGMENT :

1. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the order and decree, dated 07.11.2006, passed in O.P.No.818 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (VIII-Additional District Judge), Nizamabad, the appellant/claimant preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.

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

3. The appellant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident that occurred on 13.05.2002 at about 11.00 A.M. It is stated that on that day, the appellant, along with others, was boarded the Auto bearing No. A.P 25 T 6051 and when the Auto reached near Jakranpalli Village Thanda, the driver of the said Auto drove it in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed one Nunavath Pram Kumar, who was going on a cycle towards Padkal Thanda, and thereafter to a bullock cart and the Auto was turned turtle, as a result of which, the appellant and other inmates of the Auto sustained injuries. The appellant filed claim-petition against the respondents 1 and 2, being the owner and insurer of the said Auto.

4. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent filed written statement denying the contentions of the appellant. It is admitted by the 1st respondent that he is the owner of the Auto, which was duly insured with the 2nd respondent and in case any compensation is granted, the same will be paid by the 2nd respondent.

5. The 2nd respondent filed written statement denying all the allegations made in the claim-petition and the compensation claimed is exorbitant, baseless and against law and prayed to dismiss the claim-petition.

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

1) Whether the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No. A.P 25 T 6051 by its driver?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation. If so, what just amount and against whom?

3) To what relief?

7. In support of his claim, the appellant examined himself as P.W.1 besides examining the Doctors, who treated the appellant, as P.Ws.2 and 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.B1-Insurance Policy Copy was marked.

8. After analyzing the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the driver of the Auto was responsible for the accident and accordingly awarded an amount of Rs.1,49,400/- as compensation to be paid by the respondents. Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded, the present appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant.

9. Learned Counsel for the appellant/claimant mainly submits that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on lower side and seeks enhancement of the same. He further submits that the Tribunal erred in deducting 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses. He also submits that the evidence of P.W.3 and Exs.A7, Disability Certificate, amply established that the appellant has sustained 70% permanent disability as his right hand was amputated. It is further submitted that the Tribunal erred in fixing the income of the appellant as Rs.15,000/- per annum without considering the age and avocation of the appellant and, therefore, prayed to enhance the compensation.

10. Vide Order, dated 21.04.2017, the case against the 1st respondent, who is the owner of the Auto, was dismissed.

11. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company submits that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is based on evidence and the same needs no interference.

12. The finding of the Tribunal with regard to the manner in which the accident took place has become final as the same is not challenged either owner or insurer of the vehicle.

13. The short question that arises for consideration is “whether the compensation awarded by th