The court reaffirmed that just compensation in accident claims can exceed the claimed amount based on evidence, establishing principles for calculating damages for pain, suffering, and loss of income.

JUDGMENT

1. Shaik Mastan (hereinafter referred to as “the claimant”) who is the petitioner before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Eluru, West Godavari District (for short “the MACT”) in O.P.No.124 of 2004 feeling aggrieved by the Award and Decree dated 13.12.2006 filed the present appeal questioning the quantification of compensation done at Rs.58,000/- as against the claim made for Rs.1,50,000/-.

2. Respondent No.1 is the driver. Respondent No.2 is the owner of the lorry bearing No.AP 16 U 6348 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”).

Respondent No.3 is the insurance company. 3. Claim petition is filed contending that:

(i) the claimant was aged „35‟ years.

(ii) earning Rs.3,000/- per month by running mobile canteen at old Bus Stand, Eluru.

(iii) Met with an accident that occurred on 27.02.2003 at about 05:15 A.M, near Lakshmi Rice Mill, Eluru, within the limits of Traffic Police Station, Eluru, due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

(iv) Claimant suffered three grievous injuries.

(v) Expenditure of Rs.20,000/- incurred towards treatment / medicines and other incidental expenses and suffering disability.

(vi) Respondent No.2 being the owner and Respondent No.3 being the authorized insurer are liable to pay the compensation claimed.

4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 driver and owner of the offending vehicle remained ex parte.

5. Respondent No.3 insurance company contested the case putting the petitioner to strict proof of all the allegations including the occurrence of the accident, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, valid and effective driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle, age, occupation and income of the claimant and disability suffered, while attributing negligence to the claimant in crossing the road.

6. On the strength of pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial by the learned MACT:

1. Whether the accident, in which the petitioner sustained grievous injuries occurred on 27.02.2003 at about 05:15 A.M. near Lakshmi Rice Mill, Eluru only due to rash and negligence of the 1^st Respondent in driving the lorry AP 16 U 6348 as claimed by the petitioner or whether the petitioner himself was responsible for the said accident as claimed by the 3^rd Respondent Insurance Company.?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation from all the Respondents and if so, for how much amount?

3. To what relief?

7. During trial, the claimant was examined as PW.1. Doctor A.V.R. Mohan, who assessed the disability of the claimant was examined as P.W.2 and claimant has relied on copies of Ex.A1-FIR, Ex.A2-Wound Certificate and Ex.A3-charge sheet, Ex.A4-disability certificate, Ex.A5-medical bills worth for Rs.1,930.45 paisa. For the Respondent Insurance Company, no oral evidence is adduced, but, Ex.B1 insurance policy was marked on its behalf.

8. Learned MACT found that the accident and negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle are proved with the evidence of PW.1 having corroboration from Ex.A1-FIR, Ex.A3-charge sheet, particularly in the absence of rebuttal evidence from the Respondent Insurance Company. With regard to quantification of compensation observing that the claimant being injured and able to show the injuries with wound certificate, disability certificate and evidence of the doctor, learned MACT awarded a compensation of Rs.58,000/-. Details of compensation awarded by the learned MACT are as follows:

Arguments in the appeal:

For claimant / appellant:

9. The learned MACT erred in properly appreciating the dis