The insurance company failed to substantiate its challenge against the Tribunal's compensation award, which was justified based on the evidence presented regarding negligence and injury.

JUDGMENT :

SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO, J.

1. Heard Mr. Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for appellant-insurance company. None appears on behalf of the respondent/claimant.

2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company challenging the award passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak (for short ‘Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.29 of 2015, dated 28.07.2021, seeking to set-aside the award passed against the insurance company and though liability is not finally challenged, but the main ground of challenge was the quantum of compensation.

3. The Tribunal after due enquiry has partly allowed the above MVOP filed by the respondent No.1/claimant, and awarded compensation of Rs.4,64,973/- against a claim of Rs.8,00,000/-.

4. The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is as under.

4.1. On 08.10.2012 at about 1400 hours, the respondent No.2/claimant and his friend were proceeding on their motorcycle bearing registration No.AP-10-AS-9174 from Sangareddy towards Parigi. When they reached near Pulimamidi village after curve road, one auto bearing registration No.AP-28-TE-1320 (hereinafter referred to as ‘crime vehicle’), came from opposite direction in rash and negligent manner and hit their motorcycle. Due to which, the claimant received fracture injuries and the motorcycle was also damaged. The claimant was shifted to Sri Laxmi Venkateswara Hospital, later to Udai Clinic and also to Balaji Hospital, Sangareddy for better treatment, where he was admitted as inpatient, surgery was conducted by fixing nails to his right leg as the injured sustained bone fracture.

4.2. The Police, Nawabpet P.S., registered a case in Crime No.116 of 2012 under Sections 337 and 338 of IPC against the driver of the crime vehicle and filed charge sheet and investigation was taken up.

5. The Tribunal, on due consideration of oral evidence and material placed on record, came to conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the Auto and awarded compensation of Rs.4,64,973/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit of amount. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant/insurance filed the present Appeal seeking to set aside the said award and though feeble attempt was made questioning the liability, the main ground of challenge is to the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal though effort was made to challenge the liability on their part.

6. Learned counsel for appellant-insurance company, while reiterating the averments made in the counter-affidavit before the Tribunal, has mainly contended that the Tribunal has erroneously taken 14 months period for assessing the loss of income by taking Rs.6,000/- per month towards his earnings, without there being any evidence produced on record. He further contended that the Tribunal has erroneously awarded an amount of Rs.84,000/- towards loss of future earnings and Rs.150,000/- towards future treatment, Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.50,000/- towards extra nourishment and medicine, Rs.20,000/ towards transport charges and Rs.10,000/- towards damage of clothing and article and, prayed to set aside the award passed by the Tribunal.

7. Though notice was served on respondent No.1/claimant, none has appeared on his behalf. Therefore, this Court proceeds to dispose of the Appeal based on the material available on record.

8. This Court, upon perusal of the record, holds that there is no contra evidence produced by the appellant-insurance company to dispute the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle and i