The court clarified compensation calculation principles, emphasizing proper disability assessment and multiplier application for just compensation in motor vehicle accident cases.

JUDGMENT :

B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J.

1. This Memorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘MV Act’) assailing the Award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Nizamabad in OP No.2048 of 2001, dated 01.04.2008.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondent No.1 remained ex parte before the Tribunal, hence he is not a necessary party to the Appeal.

3. Appellant is the petitioner and respondents are the respondents in the O.P.

4.1. Appellant-petitioner has filed claim petition under Section 166 (i)(a) of the M.V. Act r/w Rule 455 of A.P.M.V. Rules claiming compensation of Rs.4 Lakhs with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of filing the petition till realization for the injury sustained by him in the accident.

4.2. It is stated in the petition that on 31.10.2001 while the appellant- petitioner was proceeding towards the Market and when he reached near N.J. Complex at 10.30 P.M., meanwhile Jeep bearing No.APC 5857 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, lost control and dashed the appellant-petitioner due to which he sustained injuries all over the body. He was taken to Government Head Quarters Hospital, Nizamabad where he was treated as inpatient and thereafter he has taken treatment with Private Doctors and has incurred an amount of Rs.1 Lakh. Appellant-petitioner was aged about 25 years as on the date of accident (31.10.2001) and was earning Rs.8,000/- to 10,000/- per month by running Kirana and General Stores. Due to the accident he has sustained permanent disability and unable to do the work as usual, prayed to allow the O.P. as prayed for.

5. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte before the Tribunal.

6. Respondent No.2 filed counter and denied the manner in which the accident has taken place and also denied the age and income of the appellant-petitioner, it is the appellant-petitioner who contributed to the accident by negligently walking on the road, prayed to dismiss the OP.

7. The learned Tribunal has framed the following issues:

1. Whether the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the Jeep bearing No.APC 5857 by its driver as per?

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

3. To what relief?

8. Appellant-petitioner is examined as PW.1 and also examined PW.2 - Dr.L.Ramalu, got marked Exs.A1 to A27. Respondent No.2 did not lead any evidence but got marked Exs.B1 and B2.

9. The learned Tribunal after analysing the evidence adduced by the appellant with that of the exhibits marked thereon has awarded an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- towards compensation with interest @ 7.5% per annum payable by respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner submits that the Tribunal erred in granting Rs.5,000/- each for two grievous injuries and failed to consider the evidence of PW.2 who stated that the appellant- petitioner has suffered 50% permanent disability and the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation as prayed for. The Tribunal has not awarded amounts as claimed under different heads. Counsel to substantiate his contention has relied on the decision in the case of MD.Raheem Vs. L.Bhoom Rao and Another , MACMA No.1709 of 2010, dated 08.11.2024 of the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

11. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the Tribunal has rightly awarded just compensation, no interference is called for and prayed to dismiss the Appeal.

12. Learned counsel for the appellant has filed Calculation Memo showing the enhancement of compensation.

13. Heard learned coun