Compensation claims in tort law require substantiation of damages; permanent disability claims must be backed by appropriate evidence to be awarded.

JUDGMENT :

SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO, J.

The instant appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant challenging the order, dt.10.11.2021, in MVOP.No.2772 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad(for short ‘the Tribunal’), seeking enhancement of compensation from Rs.1,40,750/- to Rs.7,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant in the accident that occurred on 15.01.2013.

2. For brevity, parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the learned Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that, on the fateful day, at about 4:30 p.m., the claimant was riding his motorcycle bearing registration No. AP 11 AE 0018, with one Pavan as a pillion rider, proceeding from Satyanarayanapuram towards CPRI, Medipally, on the extreme left side of the road and when they reached the place of accident, the driver of a lorry bearing registration No. AP 04 Y 9070 came from behind in a high speed, driven in a rash and negligent manner, and dashed against the motorcycle, as a result, the claimant and the pillion rider fell out from the motorcycle, and the claimant sustained severe injuries. Immediately after the accident, the claimant was taken to Spark Hospital near Uppal and was subsequently shifted to Sai Sanjeevini Hospital, Kothapet, for better treatment.

4. The police, Madipally registered a criminal case in Crime No. 33 of 2013 against the driver of the offending vehicle owned by the 1^st respondent for the offences punishable under Section 337 IPC .

5. It was further contended by the claimant that he was aged 24 years at the time of accident and was hale and healthy prior to the accident and earning about Rs.12,000/- per month as a car driver. However, due to the fractures and multiple injuries sustained in the accident, he suffered physical deformity, incurred medical expenses to the tune of Rs.2,25,000/-, and also suffered permanent disability, rendering him unfit to drive a vehicle, and that due to the grievous nature of the injuries, the claimant was unable to attend to any work for a period of six months and was required to engage a permanent attendant during the said period, besides it, he incurred transportation charges. Thus, it was contended that the claimant is entitled to the total compensation claimed of Rs.7,00,000/- under various heads from respondent Nos.1 and 2, being the owner and insurer of the offending lorry, as jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation.

6. The 1^st respondent, who is the owner of the offending vehicle remained ex-parte before the Tribunal.

7. The 2^nd respondent–Insurance Company filed its counter denying all the material averments relating to the age, occupation, income, and health condition of the claimant, the manner of the accident, and the alleged consequences arising therefrom. It was contended that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident and that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by the claimant himself at a high speed. It was further contended that the compensation claimed and the rate of interest sought were excessive. It was also contended that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence and that the offending vehicle was not fit for plying at the time of the accident, and therefore 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 petitioner sustained injuries in the accident occurred on 15.01.2013 due to rash