Court held that compensation must reflect the severity of injuries and permanent disability, emphasizing a reassessment of damages based on evidence and applicable legal principles.

JUDGMENT :

SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO, J.

The instant appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant challenging the Award, dt.02.08.2017, in MVOP.No.75 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Judge, Family Court-cum-VI Additional District Judge, at Khammam(for short ‘the Tribunal’), seeking enhancement of compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident that occurred on 28.04.2011.

2. Heard Sri Kadaru Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant, Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent-Insurance Company. None appeared for the 1st respondnet/Owner.

3. For better understanding, parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the learned Tribunal.

4. The brief facts of the case are that, on 28.04.2011 at about 06:30 hours, while the claimant was transporting goods on his trolley auto bearing No. AP 20/W-2522, to Bharat Motors Taffee Tractor Showroom, a lorry bearing No. AP-28/TA 1998, which came from the opposite direction of the deceased-auto in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the claimant’s auto, which resulted in the claimant sustaining severe head injuries. Immediately, the claimant was taken to Government Hospital, Khammam, and due to his precarious condition, he was shifted to Mamata General Hospital, Khammam, for better treatment.

5. The police, Khammam Rural, registered a criminal case in Crime No. 103 of 2011 against the driver of the offending vehicle and after completion of the investigation, laid char4ge sheet before the competent Court.

6. It is further contended that the claimant was hale and healthy prior to the accident, and earning Rs. 500/- per day as an auto-trolley driver, but due to the fractures and multiple injuries sustained in the accident, he suffered a permanent disability of 71%, rendering him unfit to drive any vehicle and remained bedridden for a period of 12 months, incurring medical and ancillary expenses amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/-. Further, due to the severity of injuries, the claimant had to take the assistance of an attendant and also incurred transportation expenses. Therefore, the claimant contended that he is entitled to be granted just and fair compensation under various heads along with future prospects payable by respondent Nos.1 and 2, being the owner and insurer of the offending lorry, along with interest and costs.

7. The 2nd respondent–Insurance Company filed its counter denying that the 1^st respondent was the owner and the 2^nd respondent as insurer of the offending vehicle. It was further contended that, although the claimant did not possess a valid driving license at the time of the accident, the 1st respondent willfully and knowingly handed over the vehicle to him, and therefore, the 2^nd respondent was not liable to pay any compensation. It was also contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the claimant himself, and that the compensation and interest claimed are excessive, and thus, the counsel for the insurance company prayed for dismissal of the claim petition with costs.

8. Basing on the pleadings of both the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:

1) Whether the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No.AP-28/TA 1998 by its rider?

2) Whether the claim petitioner is entitled for the compensation, if any? If so, to what amount and from which respondent?

3) To what relief?

9. The Tribunal, after considering the oral evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and the documentary evidence marked as Exs.A1 to A9 produced on behalf of the claimant, along with Ex.B1 (insurance policy) marked on b