The court emphasized the necessity of considering permanent disability and actual medical expenses in determining compensation for injuries sustained in a road accident.

JUDGMENT :

TIRUMALA DEVI EADA, J.

M.A.C.M.A.No.634 is filed by the claimant, while MACMA.No.740 of 2021 is filed by the Insurance Company, which arise out of an Order and Decree dated 26.03.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.338 of 2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Nalgonda (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 claimants before the Tribunal is that on 31.01.2016 at about 7:00 p.m., the petitioner along with labourers went to Kalavapally of Kompakorly and that after loading, they were returning from Kalavapally in order to go to Namathplly Village, and on the way the petitioner was driving the said tractor and trailer at a normal speed, and when they reached Thurkapuram cross roads of Bhongir town, one car bearing No.AP- 29-Q-9992 coming from Bhongir side towards Nalgonda driven by its driver at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner, dashed a Qualis bearing No.AP-09-L-8813 coming in opposite direction and later the said car driver lost control of the said car and dashed the petitioners tractor trailer from behind, as a result of which the said tractor trailer turned turtle, due to which the petitioner and labour travelling in the said tractor, sustained grievous injuries and fractures. Thus, he was shifted to the Kakatiya Hospital at Uppal and later on he was shifted to NIMS, Panjagutta and underwent treatment and incurred huge medical expenses. He therefore, filed a petition seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.

4. The respondent No.1 and 2 remained ex-parte.

5. The respondent No.3 filed counter denying the material averments of the petition with regard to the age, avocation and income of the petitioner and further denied the involvement of Car bearing No.AP-29-Q-9992, it has also disputed the treatment underwent by the petitioner and his medical expenses.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for consideration:-

1. Whether the petitioner sustained grievous fracture injuries in the road accident occurred on 31.01.2016 at about 7:00 p.m., near Thurkapuram cross roads of Nalgonda road of Bhongir town outskirts due to rash and negligent driving of the Car bearing No.AP-29-Q-9992?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation? If so, from which and to what amount?

3. To what relief & costs ?

7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PW1 to 3 and Exs.A1 to A10, C1 and C2 were marked. On behalf of the respondents RW1 was examined and Ex.R1 and R2 were marked.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.4,84,640,/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the claimant has preferred M.A.C.M.A.No.634 of 2021 while the Insurance Company has filed M.A.C.M.A.No.740 of 2021.

9. Heard the submission of Sri C.M.Prakash, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri V. Krishna Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.3 in MACMA.No.634 of 2021 and Sri Pasham Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.3 in MACMA.No.740 of 2021.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant in MACMA.No.634 of 2021 has submitted that the Tribunal failed to consider all the documents filed by the petitioner and that the petitioner sustained grievous injuries, fracture to the left hand, left leg and right hip joint and that the Tribunal failed to consider the said fact. He further argued that the petitioner got permanently disabled and the Tribunal failed to consider the said disability. Learned counsel has further argued that the Tribunal has taken the income of the petitioner to be very low as Rs.8,000/- and also that while awarding the compensation for future prospects, the Tribunal has added only 25% and also that it has awarded very low amount for medical bills. He therefore, prayed to enhance the compensation.

11. The learned appellant counsel in MACMA.No.734 of 2021 appearing for the Insurance Company has argued that the Tribunal failed to