The court confirmed that adequate consideration of disability and future prospects is essential for just compensation, ultimately enhancing compensation from Rs.3,23,400 to Rs.3,48,400.

JUDGMENT :

TIRUMALA DEVI EADA, J.

This appeal is filed by the injured-petitioner aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 10.06.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.2475 of 2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short “the Tribunal”).

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that on 25.12.2014 at about 19:50 hours, the petitioner was going along with his relatives in an auto bearing No.AP-13-X-7151 and when they reached VACS Bakery, Road No.10, Jubilee Hills, one Audi Car bearing No.AP-09-CP-0027 proceeding in the same direction, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, dashed the auto from behind, as a result of which all the inmates of the auto including the petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries and the auto turned turtle. Immediately, the petitioner was shifted to Apollo Hospital, Jubilee Hills and the petitioner took inpatient treatment and incurred huge expenditure. Therefore, she sought a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.

4. The respondents No.1 and 3 remained ex-parte.

5. The Respondent No.2-Insurance Company filed counter denying averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident and contended that there was complete negligence of both the vehicles and therefore, the owner and insurer of the auto are also necessary parties. They further denied the age, avocation and income of the injured-petitioner and further denied the medical expenses also. It is further contended that the driver of the car did not bear a valid driving license as on the date of the accident and that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation.

6. Based on the above pleadings, trial Court has framed the following issues for trial:-

1. Whether the pleaded accident dated 25.12.2014 has occurred owning to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Audi Car bearing No.AP-09-CP-0027 and whether the petitioner has sustained injuries in the said accident?

2. Whether crime vehicle No.AP-09-CP-0027 was owned by the first respondent and insured with second respondent as on the date of accident and whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so to what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents?

3. To what relief ?”

7. To prove their case, the petitioner got examined PW1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. On behalf of the respondents no oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.B1 was marked.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.3,23,400/-. Aggrieved by the said order and decree, the present appeal is preferred by claimant seeking enhancement of compensation.

9. Heard the submissions of Sri Sri P. Chandramouli, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri A. Rama Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.2-Insurance Company.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has awarded a meagre compensation, inspite of the evidence available on record. He further argued that the Tribunal failed to consider the disability of the petitioner and failed to appreciate the evidence adduced with regard to disability sustained by the petitioner and further failed to award future prospects. He further submitted that the Tribunal has awarded meagre amounts under various heads and therefore, prayed to enhance the compensation.

11. The learned counsel for the