The court emphasized the principle of full compensation in negligence claims, rejecting the contributory negligence finding and recalculating damages based on the appellant's projected future earnings.

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 - cum - XI Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Ranga Reddy District (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in O.P.No.609 of2010 dated 24.01.2014.

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

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that respondent No.1 remained ex-parte before the Tribunal, hence he is not a necessary party in the appeal.

4.1 Appellant – petitioner has filed claim petition under Sections 140(c) and 166 of the MV Act read with Rules 475/1B of APMV Rules, 1989, claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the realization of the claim for the injuries sustained by him in the accident.

4.2 On 30.03.2010 at about 05.30 a.m., the driver of the lorry bearing No.MH-25B-9865 parked his lorry in the middle of the road without taking any precautions and not given any indications of parking in front of Shiva Enclave, Kaveli, Kohir Mandal, Medak district. Due to wrong parking of the lorry, the appellant – petitioner who was riding his motor cycle hit the stationed lorry, as a result he sustained both bones fractures of left leg, fractures to right leg and right hand and multiple fracture injuries all over the body, he was shifted to Mythri Hospital at Kukatpally, R.R. District and later shifted to NIMS hospital Panjagutta, Hyderabad where he was treated as inpatient. On the complaint a case in Crime No.32/2010 under Sections 304-A and 338 of IPC is registered against the driver of the crime vehicle by Kohir police. By the date of accident appellant – petitioner was aged about 21 years, working as labourer and earning Rs.6,000/- per month, due to accident he suffered a lot and prayed to award compensation against respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally.

5.1 Respondent No.1 remained ex-parte before the Tribunal.

5.2 Respondent No.2 filed counter and contended that the accident took place due to negligence of the appellant – petitioner as such he is not entitled for any compensation, the owner and insurer of the vehicle are necessary parties and the O.P. is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. Further it denied the age and income of the deceased.

6. Appellant – petitioner has initially filed O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- in total under different heads and thereafter, he amended the claim petition vide I.A.No.1011 of 2012 which was allowed on 23.01.2013 and claimed enhanced compensation at Rs.10,00,000/-.

7. The learned Tribunal has framed the following issues:

1. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP MH 25B – 9865 by parking lorry without parking indications?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

8. Appellant – petitioner is examined as PW1, examined PW2 – Dr.Chandrasekhar, PW3 – C.Nagesh and got marked Exs.P1 to P15. Respondent No.2 did not choose to lead evidence, but got marked Exs.B1 and B2.

9. The learned Tribunal after analyzing the evidence of the appellant - petitioner coupled with the documents marked thereon has awarded compensation of Rs.2,67,600/- but as there is contributory negligence on the part of the appellant – petitioner has reduced the amount to 50% and awarded compensation at Rs.1,33,800/- rounded off to Rs.1,35,000/- and awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum holding respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay the amount.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant - petitioner submits that the learned Tribunal erred in coming to a conclusion that appellant – petitioner has also contributed to the accident and thereby wrongly reduced the