IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the necessity of considering disability and actual income in compensation claims, enhancing the awarded amount based on these factors.

JUDGMENT : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao)

This Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant-claimant aggrieved by the order and decree dated 10.05.2013 passed in O.P.No.2567 of 2008 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’)

2. For convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the case are as follows :-

On 09.06.2008 at about 10.00 p.m., while the petitioner was proceeding in a Tata Safari Car bearing No.TR.No.KA-25/5490 along with three others and the driver, and when they reached near Andhra Balaji Dhaba, the driver drove the said vehicle at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to a tree, as a result of which, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries all over the body. He was immediately shifted to the Government Hospital, Basawakalyan, and thereafter, he was shifted to Yashoda Hospital, Secunderabad. He was admitted as an inpatient and underwent a major operation. The Police Basawakalyan registered a case in Cr.No.63 of 2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 338 and 304-A IPC against the driver of TATA Safari Car. The petitioner stated that he used to do business under the name of M/s.Kalyani Roadways and used to earn Rs.12,000/- per month. The petitioner filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-, which was later enhanced to Rs.15,00,000/- by way of order in I.A.No.3841 of 2010 dated 28.04.2011.

4. Before the Tribunal, Respondent No.1 filed a counter denying the allegations made in the claim petition.

5. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company filed a counter denying the allegations made in the claim petition. It is stated that the petitioner was not a third party and was a gratuitous passenger. Hence, the respondent’s Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. The policy issued by the respondent’s Insurance Company does not cover the petitioner. The premium collected covers only the owner’s damage cover, towards TP liability cover and PA cover for the owner driver. The insured paid no additional premium to cover the risks of inmates in any manner. Further, the driver of the Tata Safari bearing TR.No.KA 25-5490 was not holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident, which is a contravention of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. Hence, the 1st respondent alone is liable to pay the compensation. Further, the rate of interest claimed is excessive and accordingly, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

6. To prove the petitioner’s case, PWs.1 to 5 were examined, and Exs.A1 to A9 were marked. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents, but Ex.B1-Copy of the Insurance Policy was marked.

7. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, allowed the claim petition in part by granting a sum of Rs.3,69,500/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization and the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed the present appeal.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner contended that the Tribunal erred in taking the monthly income of the petitioner as Rs.4,500/- per month instead of Rs.12,000/- per month based on Ex.A-6, which is a public document. The Tribunal failed to consider Ex.A5-Disability Certificate issued by the Medical Board. PW.5-the Doctor issued the Medical Certificate, and he assessed the disability at 50%, but the Tribunal failed to consider the same. As the petitioner has sustained injuries and disability, the Tribunal ought to have awarded just compensation under various heads as claimed by the petitioner and the amount awarded by the Tribunal is very meagre and unjustifiable.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has contende