JUDGMENT :

By order, dated 07.04.2014, the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional chief Judge, City Civil Courts at Hyderabad (for short, ‘the tribunal’) partly allowed O.P.No.2887 of 2011 awarding total compensation of Rs.19,02,140/- in favour of the claimant towards compensation. Seeking enhancement of compensation, the claimant preferred MACMA No. 4015 of 2014 and challenging the quantum of compensation as excessive, the Insurance Company-M/s. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, respondent No. 2 before the tribunal, preferred MACMA No. 4277 of 2015.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties have been referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 01.12.2011. It is stated that on 01.12.2011, at about 13:45 hours, while the claimant was proceeding on his motorcycle towards Hi-tech city and when he reached the railway station flyover of high-tech city, the offending vehicle i.e., Car bearing No.AP 37 BD 4116, owned by respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.2, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, dashed the motorcycle of the claimant, as a result of which, the claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident, the claimant was shifted to Anupama Hospital; from there he was shifted to Sunshine Hospital, where he underwent operation to his spinal cord and incurred Rs.5,00,000/- towards medical expenses. It is further stated that due to the injuries on the spinal cord, the claimant is unable to do any work, confined to bed and therefore, he laid the claim-petition claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-.

4. Considering the claim-petition, counter filed by the Insurance Company and the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of the Car and awarded total compensation of Rs.19,02,140/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum payable by respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally. Aggrieved by the said order, the Insurance Company as well as the claimant filed the present appeals.

5. Heard both sides and perused the material on available on record.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant, claimant, submits that the claimant has sustained grievous injuries i.e., (i) spinal cord fracture (traumatic paraplegia) curved by D-12 compression; (ii) fracture with cord edema and proximal tibia fracture right apart from other injuries. The claimant had underwent for spinal cord surgery; that he had taken follow up treatment; prolonged physiotherapy; that due to the injury to the spinal cord fracture, the claimant is confined to bed; that his limbs became defunct; his movements are restricted and still undergoing treatment. It is contended that subsequent to the operation at Sunshine Hospital on 01.12.2011, he was again admitted at Ravi Helios Hospital on 27.12.2011 and discharged only on 22.03.2012. Even thereafter, he was again admitted at Udai Clinic on 03.10.2012 and was discharged on 04.10.2012. It is contended that though P.W.5, the Associate Professor at Gandhi Medical College, deposed that the claimant is suffering with post-traumatic para paralysis i.e., weakness in both lower limbs and suffered with permanent disability at 50%, the actual functional disability is 100% as the claimant is completely confined to bed. It is further submitted that though the tribunal has taken the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.10,000/-, did not add future prospects to the established income of the claimant and since the claimant has been completely confined to bed, the tribunal ought to have awarded the compensation duly adding future prospec