Court emphasized that proper compensation must reflect true extent of injuries and suffering, modifying initial award to ensure justice is served.

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 learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (III Additional District Judge : Fast Track Court) Khammam (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in M.A.T.O.P.No.220 of 2001 dated 17.03.2005.

2. Appellant is the petitioner and respondents are the respondents before the Tribunal.

3. Appellant – petitioner has filed petition under Section 166 of the MV Act for grant of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of accident till realization for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident.

4. It is stated in the claim petition that on 11.04.1999 the appellant - petitioner along with other fruit vendors was going to Jangareddygudem market to purchase fruits, while he was waiting at Wyra bus stand centre a lorry bearing No.AP-5X-2401 driven by its driver stopped at Wyra bus stand centre and the driver of the lorry informed him that he is going towards Jangareddygudema and asked the appellant – petitioner and other fruit vendors to board lorry by paying Rs.40/- each towards fair. On the request of the lorry driver, the appellant – petitioner and his co-fruit vendors boarded the lorry. When the lorry reached near culvert at the outskrits of Kistaram village, another lorry bearing No.ADT-4118 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed against the lorry in which the appellant – petitioner and others were travelling. The driver of the lorry bearing No. AP-5- X-2401 died on the spot. The appellant – petitioner and other fruit vendors sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Appellant – petitioner was shifted to Government Hospital, Sathupally and he received grievous injuries i.e., (i) fracture to right cheek bone, (ii) Facio Maxillary injuries, (iii) Fracture to Zygamotic latteral wall orbit, (iv) Grevious injury to the right eye, effecting the vision injury to chin, (v) Injury to Mouth and multiple injuries all over the body. Appellant – petitioner was taken to Government Headquarters Hospital, Khammam and thereafter he was referred to NIMS Hyderabad, where he was admitted as inpatient, treated for 20 days and two major surgeries were performed and he had spent an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards medical expenses, transportation and extra nourishment. Bone grafting was done to the fracture of Factio Maxillary bone by taking bone from ribs. The appellant – petitioner was unable to open his right eye for two months and was also unable to open his mouth for a period of three months and he remained on a liquid diet. The appellant – petitioner was aged about 28 years as on the date of accident i.e., 11.04.1999 and was earning Rs.2,500/- by doing fruit vendor business and prayed to allow the O.P. as prayed for.

5.1 Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 remained ex-parte before the Tribunal.

5.2 Respondent No.3 filed written statement and contended that there is no fault on the part of the driver of the lorry bearing No.ADT-4118. Further denied the manner in which the accident has taken place, denied the age and income of the appellant – petitioner. The driver of the lorry bearing No.AP-5X-2401 is responsible for the accident, he drove his lorry in a rash and negligent manner, respondent No.3 is not liable to pay compensation and the claim made is excessive and prayed to dismiss the O.P.

5.3 Respondent No.5 has also filed similar counter with that of respondent No.3.

6. The learned Tribunal has framed the following issues:

1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle (R-1)?

2. Whether t