IMPORTANT POINT
The court modified the compensation awarded for permanent disability and medical expenses in a motor accident case, emphasizing the need for evidence-based assessment.

JUDGMENT :

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao)

This Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the United India Insurance Company Limited aggrieved by the order and decree dated 05.08.2013 passed in O.P.No.310 of 2010 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Asifabad (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 :-

(i) On 26.01.2009 at about 01.00 p.m., while the petitioner was proceeding on the motor cycle bearing No.AP-01P-6908 along with his friend one Mr.K.John and when they reached Chopparipalli village, the 1st respondent came in the opposite direction on his Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing No.AP-28P-6603 at high speed in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the petitioner’s Motor Cycle and as a result of which, the petitioner and his friend fell from the motor cycle. They sustained bleeding injuries to their legs, head, stomach and other parts of the body. The Police Kazipet registered a case in Cr.No.2 of 2009 for the offence punishable under Section 337 IPC. The pillion rider K.John died while undergoing treatment at Government Hospital, Mancherial. The petitioner was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, for treatment. Thereafter, the petitioner was shifted to Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad, for better treatment. He underwent amputation for below knee right lower limb, vascular of left lower limb, fasciotomy and external fixation of left lower limb with AAP under GA, comminuted fracture right tibia, stabilized with an external fizator, and fasciotomy of the left leg was carried out. Further, the petitioner underwent debridement and SSG left leg on 30.01.2009 and regular dressing continued. Re-debridement and SSC left leg was done under SA on 27.02.2009. Later, the petitioner underwent physiotherapy.

(ii) The petitioner is an agriculturist having Ac.2-05 cents in his name, an extent of Ac.12-15 cents in the name of his father, Ac.2-03 cents in the name of his mother-in-law and he has taken 10 acres on lease from Gruhalakshmi and Satyashri in the year 2006. Due to the accident, the petitioner lost his right leg and is suffering with severe injuries and wounds, as a result of which, the petitioner suffered permanent disability. Therefore, the petitioner filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-.

4. Before the Tribunal, Respondent No.1 remained ex-parte.

5. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company filed a counter denying the allegations made in the claim petition and stating that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Motorcycle bearing No.AP-01P-6908. The amount claimed is excessive and exorbitant.

6. To prove the petitioner’s case, PWs.1 to 5 were examined, and Exs.A1 to A25 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents.

7. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, allowed the claim petition granting compensation of Rs.31,82,000/- with interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount. Challenging the same, the Insurance Company filed the present appeal.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal ought to have held that there is no involvement of the vehicle bearing No.AP-28-P-6603. The Tribunal failed to consider the fact that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, who drove the motorcycle bearing No.AP-01-P-6908 in a rash and negligent manner. The Tribunal erred in awarding the amount of compensation of Rs.31,82,000/- when the claim was made under Section 163-A of the Act. The Tribunal ought to have restricted the income of the petitioner to the amount of Rs.40,000/- per annum as p