The court ruled that a claimant's future loss of earnings due to permanent disability must be properly assessed, emphasizing the need for adequate compensation reflecting pain and suffering beyond initial awards.

JUDGMENT :

B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J.

1. Being aggrieved by the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Cum III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in MVOP.No.707 of 2015, dated 27.05.2022, the claimant has filed this Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. It is stated in the claim petition that the claim petitioner is working in Military Engineering Services as Electrician for the past 7 years and drawing a salary of Rs.28,000/- per month. On 19.09.2013, while the petitioner was returning from Tummukunta Village to his house at Bollaram on his motor-cycle bearing Hero-Honda CBZ vide Registration No.AP-29-B-2133, when he reached Vyjayanthi Petrol Pump at Tummukunta Village, suddenly a car bearing Registration No.AP-09-BU-0189 came in a rash and negligent manner from the opposite side and dashed the petitioner on the left side, ran on the motor-bike. Due to the sudden impact, the petitioner was thrown off from the motor-bike. The driver of the Indica car has driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit the petitioner due to which his right leg got crushed and fractured. Petitioner was taken to Yashoda Hospital, Secunderabad from there for better treatment he was shifted to Krishna Institute of Medical Sciences Ltd., (KIMS) at Minister Road, Secunderabad and he underwent emergency surgery. He was admitted in the Hospital for 10 days and thereafter he was discharged. The Orthopedic Surgeon has certified that the extent of disability is 30% permanent and issued certificate to that effect on 18.08.2014. Petitioner claimed an amount of Rs.10,00,000/-.

3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were set ex parte before the Tribunal.

4. Respondent No.3 filed his counter and contended that contributory negligence cannot be ruled out and the petitioner should furnish the registration certificate of the vehicle of which he was riding along with driving license to prove that he has not violated any provisions of the Motor-Vehicles Act. The compensation claimed by the petitioner is imaginary and disproportionate and it is on the higher side. Without producing documents, no compensation can be awarded to the petitioner.

5. The learned Tribunal has framed the following issues:

1. Whether the accident occurred on 19.09.2013 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Car bearing No. AP 09/BU 0189?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation for injuries sustained? If so, to what amount and from whom?

3. To what relief?

6. Claim petitioner is examined as PW.1, got marked Exs.A1 to A9 and also examined PWs.2 and 3, got marked Ex.X1 through PW.3. Respondent No.3 did not choose to lead evidence but marked Ex.B1-Insurance Policy.

7. The Tribunal after going through the evidence and documents awarded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- under pain and suffering and Rs.2,00,000/- for the loss of pleasure of amenities of life. In total the Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,00,000/- with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit directing respondent Nos.1 to 3 to pay the amount jointly and severally with costs.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal has wrongly arrived at a conclusion and awarded Rs.3,00,000/- against the claim of Rs.10,00,000/-. The Tribunal has not considered the disability of the petitioner in toto and could not have rejected the claim of future prospects of the injured. Counsel further submits that the Tribunal ought not to have taken notional earning of the injured in computing the compensation in