The compensation awarded for injuries in an accident must reflect the severity of injuries and documented evidence, with the court emphasizing the need for proper assessment of permanent disability.

JUDGMENT :

B.R. Madhusudhan Rao, J.

1. This memorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the MV Act’) assailing the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (IV Additional District Judge) (Fast Track Court) at Nizamabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in MVOP No.1411 of 2001 dated 08.12.2005.

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

3. Appellant - petitioner has filed petition under Section 166 (i)(a) of the MV Act read with Rule 455 of ANDHRA PRADESH MOTOR VEHICLES RULES , 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 24% per annum in a motor vehicle accident caused on 01.08.2001.

4.1 On 01.08.2001 at about 11.30 a.m. while the appellant - petitioner was traveling on a motorcycle bearing No.AP-25-A-575 as a pillion rider from Degloor towards Nizamabad side and another person by name Sayed Mazhar Hashmi was driving the said motorcycle on the side of the road cautiously, when they reached in front of Taj Dhaba Hotel, Arsapally Sivar, Nizamabad on Bodhan to Nizamabad road, at the same time a tempo trax bearing No.AP-28-C-9590 drove by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed came from opposite direction and dashed the motorcycle. Due to the impact appellant - petitioner and the driver of the motorcycle fell down and the front wheel of the tempo trax jeep ran over on the appellant – petitioner. Appellant - petitioner received Right femur fracture, head injury, right leg fracture at two places, both side chest bones fractured, both hands injured and other parts of the body also received injuries. Appellant - petitioner was first admitted at Government Hospital, Nizamabad, where he was treated by Dr.Dhoom Singh, Orthopaedic surgeon, his right leg was operated and rod is inserted. Thereafter he was referred to Hyderabad, but he took treatment at Gurugovind Singh Hospital, Nanded.

4.2 Appellant - petitioner has incurred Rs.1,50,000/- towards hospital expenditure and the motorcycle is completely damaged. The appellant – petitioner was aged about 30 years, doing cloth business and earning Rs.10,000/- per month as on the date of accident i.e., 01.08.2001.

5. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex-parte before the Tribunal.

6. The learned Tribunal has framed the following points for consideration:

1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Tempo Trax Bearing No.AP-28-C-9590 by its driver?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation. If so, to what amount and against which of the respondents?

3. To what relief?

7. Appellant - petitioner is examined as PW1, examined PW2 -Dr.Dhoom Singh and got marked Exs.A1 to A10.

8. The learned Tribunal after going through the evidence adduced by the appellant – petitioner coupled with the documents marked thereon has awarded an amount of Rs.40,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit holding that the respondents Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant – petitioner submits that the Tribunal did not properly consider the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and the exhibits marked thereon. The Tribunal ought to have seen that the appellant – petitioner has become 60% disabled, which is deposed by PW2 and the Tribunal also erred in not considering the disability certificate on the ground that the disability certificate has to be issued only by the District Medical Board. The Tribunal ought to have seen that the appellant - petitioner had received grievous injuries all over the body, lacerated wounds and fracture shaft of right femur. The Tribunal failed to see that the appellant - petitioner has taken treatment in the hospital for five days as in-patient. The Tribunal ought to have granted a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as prayed for by the appellant – petitioner and interest prevailing on the