Compensation for personal injuries must be just and reflective of medical expenses, pain, and suffering, with judicial scrutiny against past tribunal awards.

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 Accident Claims Tribunal (III Additional District Judge), (Fast Track Court), Nizamabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’), in O.P.No.1490 of 2004 dated 28.01.2008.

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

3. Appellant – petitioner has filed petition under Sections 166 (1)(a) and 163(A) of MV Act read with Rule 455 of A.P.M.V Rules, claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident with motorcycle bearing No. AP-25-G-1236. Appellant has confined the O.P. under Section 166 (1)(a) of MV Act by filing a memo.

4.1 On 16.12.2002 the appellant - petitioner was proceeding on his scooter bearing No.AP-25-E-5294 from Kurnapally village towards Nizamabad on his left side of the road, when he crossed Shakkarnagar cross road at Bodhan, the other motorcycle bearing No.AP-25-G-1236 came in a negligent manner at high speed in opposite direction and dashed his motorcycle. Due to which he sustained grievous injuries such as fractures, he was immediately taken to Government Hospital, Bodhan where he was given first aid, thereafter he was shifted to Government Headquarters Hospital, Nizamabad and took treatment as inpatient and thereafter at Tirumala Hospital, Nizamabad, underwent operations and fixtures were implanted and he spent Rs.1,50,000/- for his treatment and medicines.

4.2 Prior to the accident appellant-petitioner was hale and healthy, was aged about 40 years, was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by doing agriculture and milk business and contributing the same for the welfare of his family. Due to the accident he could not attend the work, thereby he lost his income and prayed to award compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.

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

5.2 Respondent No.2 filed counter and contended that the driver of the crime vehicle do not possess valid driving license as on the date of accident, the amount claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the same.

6. The learned Tribunal has framed the following issues:

1. Whether the accident occurred on 16-12-2002 due to rash and negligent driving of motor cycle bearing No.AP25-G-1236 driven by its driver as per S.166 of MV Act?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so to what amount and from whom?

3. To what relief?

7. Appellant - petitioner is examined as PW1, got marked Exs.A1 to A4. Respondent No.2 did not adduce any evidence but got marked Ex.B1-policy.

8. The learned Tribunal after analyzing the evidence of the appellant-petitioner coupled with the documents marked thereon with that of Ex.B1, awarded a sum of Rs.6,700/- towards compensation payable by the respondents Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally with costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant - petitioner submits that the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the grievousness of the multiple injuries suffered by the appellant-petitioner and ought to have granted the whole amount incurred for his treatment. The Tribunal has erred in taking Rs.60/- per day as earnings of the appellant - petitioner. The Tribunal ought to have considered granting of compensation for future treatment and the interest ought to have been 18% per annum instead of 7.5% per annum and prayed to allow the appeal.

10. Notice issued to respondent No.1 in the appeal is served on 22.12.2008 and non-appeared for him.

11. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the learned Tribunal has properly appreciated the contentions raised by the parties, rightly awarded the compensation, no interference is called for and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

12. Heard learned counsel