Compensation in motor vehicle accident cases must ensure claimants receive just and adequate recompense, reflecting the extent of their injuries and losses.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard both sides.

2. This appeal is filed against the award and decree dated 03.09.2013 passed in M.V.O.P.No.155 of 2008 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Srikakulam (for short “the MACT”).

3. Claimants before the learned MACT are the appellants herein. One Gudla Hymavathi was a original claimant before the MACT.

4. The claim petition was filed, invoking Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 455 of the A.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, by the original claimant (hereinafter referred to as “claimant No.1”) claiming a compensation of Rs.2,27,200/- for the injuries suffered by her in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 08.01.2007. During the pendency of proceedings before the learned MACT, she died, and her Legal Representatives were added as Claimant Nos.2 to 6 and they continued the proceedings.

5. Learned MACT awarded a compensation of Rs.40,300/- as against the claim made for Rs.2,27,200/- apportioned the compensation amount awarded equally among claimant Nos.2 to 6. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants filed the present appeal.

Case of claimants in brief:

6. On the fateful day i.e.08.1.2007, when the claimant No.1 was proceeding to photo studio at Palakonda Road, Srikakulam, a Hero Honda Splender Motorcycle bearing No.AP35D-6485 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) driven by Respondent No.1 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed her, whereby she sustained multiple injuries, including fracture. On a complaint, a case in Crime No.4 of 2007 was registered against the rider of the motorcycle and subsequently he was charge sheeted.

(i) Claimant No.1 has undergone operation at Government Headquarter’s Hospital and took treatment. She became disabled and the District Medical Board assessed her disability at 40%.

(ii). Claimant No.1 was earning Rs.3,000/- per month by attending petty kirana business and running a tea stall. But, due to the accident, she became permanently disabled, and her disability is assessed at 40% by the District Medical Board. The offending vehicle is owned by Respondent No.2 and insured with Respondent No.3. Negligence of Respondent No.1 was the cause of accident. Therefore, all the Respondents are liable to pay the compensation, and the valid and effective insurance policy was in force on the date of the accident.

7. Respondent No.1 filed counter. Respondent No.2 remained ex-parte.

Respondent No.3 insurance company contested the case.

Case of Respondent No.1:

8. There was no negligence on the part of Respondent No.1. Occupation, income and disability of claimant No.1 pleaded are incorrect and claimant No.1 is not liable to pay any compensation. In the event of any liability, Respondent No.3 is accountable.

Case of Respondent No.3:

9. The claimant shall prove the pleaded accident, negligence of the motorcyclist, injuries suffered by the claimant, treatment undergone, age, occupation, income, disability and driving licence particulars of the driver of the motorcycle with cogent evidence and in any event the quantum of compensation claimed is excessive.

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

i) Whether the injured Gudla Hymavathi sustained injuries in the Motor Vehicle accident that took place on 08.01.2007 at about 1.45 PM on Palakonda Road in Srikakulam town and District? If so, whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving the Hero Honda splendor motorcycle bearing No.AP35D 6485 by its driver?

ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim any compensation for the injuries sustained by the injured Gudla Hymavathi in the accident? If so, to what amount and from whom?

iii) To what relief?

11. Evidence before the learned MACT: