J U D G M E N T:

Heard Sri Chandra Sekhar Ilapakurti, learned Counsel for the appellant/claimant and Smt. Manimma Medida, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/

Insurance Company.

2. Challenging the Order dated 31.07.2009 passed in M.V.O.P.No.1107 of 2003 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, East Godavari District, Rajahmundry (hereinafter referred to ‘Tribunal’), the appellant, who is claimant in M.V.O.P. No.1107 of 2003 on the file of learned Tribunal, preferred the appeal.

3. The case of the appellant/claimant is that, while he was proceeding on his motorcycle, a tractor and trailer was parked in the middle of the road without any parking signals and as a result, the petitioner dashed the tractor and sustained injuries and he was shifted to the hospital, where he was treated for the fractures of the femur, incised wound below chin and other injuries and he was discharged on 20.05.2002; he was advised to take bed rest for a period of three (03) months and later, he filed the claim petition contending that he was working as an LIC agent at the time of accident, earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month and on account of the injuries, he suffered permanent partial disability at 30% and facing inconvenience while walking and taking food due to injuries sustained to his left leg and chin and he filed the claim petition claiming compensation for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-.

4. The contention of the respondent No.1/driver-cum- owner of the tractor is that he stopped the tractor on the left side of the road and switched on the parking light and went to bring petrol and later, he came to know that the appellant/claimant dashed the tractor due to rash and negligent driving.

5. The respondent No.2/Insurance Company contended that the appellant/claimant drove the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident and the driver of the tractor is not responsible for the accident and therefore, the respondent No.2/Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the respondent No.1/owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle and the respondent No.2 is not liable to pay any compensation.

6. The Tribunal, basing on the rival contentions, framed the following issues for trial:

1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in accident occurred on 28.04.2002 at 7.00 PM at Veerabhadrapuram, Mandapeta due to the negligent parking of the Tractor-cum-Trailor ABW 7252 and AEW 989 by the 1st respondent?

2. Whether the petitioner sustained any permanent disability due to the injuries received in the accident and is entitled to the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest thereon from all the respondents with joint and several liability?

3. To what relief?

7. Before the learned Tribunal, on behalf of the appellant/claimant, P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined and through their evidence, Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.12 and Ex.X.1 were marked. On behalf of respondent No.1/owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle and respondent No.2/Insurance Company, none were examined, but the respondent No.2/ Insurance Company filed Ex.B.1 Policy pertaining to the offending vehicle.

8. The learned Tribunal, on considering the evidence placed before it, ‘partly allowed’ the claim petition awarding a sum of Rs.1,68,080/- with interest at 7.5% per annum towards compensation.

9. The appellant/claimant filed the present appeal challenging the Order and Decree of the learned Tribunal on the ground that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence of Doctors (P.W.2 and P.W.3) in a proper perspective and awarded a minimal sum of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering and the Tribunal failed to consider the evidence of P.W.3 regarding loss of teeth and injuries suffered by the appellant/claimant in the accident and therefore, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is not a just compensation.

10. Sri Chandra Sekhar Ilapakurti, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant would contend that the appellant/ claimant has examined two (02) Doctors, P.W.2, who treated the