The court established that a motor accident claim must consider the actual injuries and losses incurred, resulting in an enhanced total compensation of Rs.60,000/- due to inadequate initial award.

JUDGMENT:

B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J.

1. This Memorandum of Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the MV Act, 1988’) assailing the Award passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court) Nizamabad, in O.P.No.1446 of 2002 dated 24.04.2006.

2. Appellant is the petitioner and respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the respondent Nos.1 and 2 in O.P.No.1446 of 2002.

3.1. Appellant-petitioner has filed claim petition under Section 166(1) (a) of the M.V.Act read with Rule 455 of APMV rules, 1989, claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest at 24% per annum from the date of filing the petition till realization, payable by respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally.

3.2. It is stated in the claim petition that on 21.09.2002 at about 10.30 a.m., while the appellant-petitioner was going on his cycle from Saleem farm to Navipet, on the way when he reached Abangapatnam village shivar, the driver of a jeep bearing No.AP25U3056 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner came in opposite direction and dashed the cycle of the appellant- petitioner due to which he fell down and sustained fracture to left hand and injuries to shoulders, head, chest and legs and he was shifted to Government hospital, Nizamabad for treatment. Later he was admitted in private hospital as inpatient and took treatment. Appellant-petitioner has incurred an amount of Rs.60,000/- towards treatment and still he is taking treatment before private Doctors. Due to the injuries to the right eye, appellant-petitioner is unable to see and due to injury to nose, he is unable to breath properly and due to fracture of left hand and injuries to shoulders, he is unable to attend his regular work and sustained permanent disability.

3.3. Appellant-petitioner was attending agriculture works and earning Rs.4,000/- per month and also doing milk vending business and earning Rs.5,000/- per month and he was aged about 18 years as on the date of accident, he is entitled for compensation of Rs.25,80,000/- under various heads but he has restricted his claim for Rs.2,00,000/- in lump sum and prayed to allow the O.P as prayed for.

4.1. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte before the learned Tribunal.

4.2. Respondent No.2 has filed counter and denied the manner in which the accident has taken place, the age and income of the appellant-petitioner and also contended that the claim made by the appellant-petitioner is excessive out of all proportions and prayed to dismiss the OP.

5. Learned Tribunal has framed the following issues.

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

ii. To what relief?

6. Appellant-petitioner is examined as PW-1 and also examined PW-2 – Dr. L. Ramulu and got marked Exs.A1 to A8. No oral evidence is adduced by the respondent No.2 and no documents are marked.

7. Learned Tribunal after analyzing the evidence adduced by the appellant-petitioner with that of the documents marked thereon has partly allowed the O.P and awarded compensation of Rs.20,000/- payable by respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally with costs and interest at 7.5% from the date of petition till the date of realization.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner submits that the learned Tribunal failed to decide the quantum of compensation and has not taken into consideration the evidence of PW-2 coupled with Ex.A8. Learned Tribunal also failed to see that the appellant- petitioner has incurred an amount of more than Rs.60,000/- towards medical expenses and age of the appellant-petitioner is 18 years as on the date of accident, he was hale and healthy and due to injuries and fracture, he has sustained permanent disability. Learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards injuries and loss of income. Appellant-petitioner is entitled for the same and prayed to allow the appeal.

9. Notice got issued to r