JUDGMENT:

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 14.05.2007 in M.V.O.P. No.467 of

2004 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Vizianagaram (for short 'the Tribunal'), the claimant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the compensation.

2. The parties will be referred to as arrayed in the M.V.O.P. for convenience.

3. The claimant filed a petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injuries and Disability sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 25.06.2003.

4. The claimant's case is that on 25.06.2003, he was going on his motorcycle from Boddam village to Yogesharam, Visinigiri, to see his parents. When he reached Sobha Memorial College, near Jami Village, the 1st respondent, the driver of a milk van bearing No.AP-35-T-5899 (hereinafter be referred to as 'the offending vehicle') came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner, without blowing the horn and dashed against the claimant's vehicle, due to which the claimant fell and sustained multiple injuries on his left leg knee and other simple and grievous injuries all over his body.

5. The 2nd respondent has remained ex parte.

6. Respondents 1 and 3 have filed written statements denying the pleas taken in the petition contending that the claimant is to establish the same strictly and specifically and setting out its defences with a request to dismiss the petition.

7. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal has formulated appropriate issues. On behalf of the claimant, PWs.1 and 2 got examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.5 and Ex.X.1. On behalf of the respondents, none were examined, but Ex.B.1-copy of the insurance policy was marked.

8. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle's driver, i.e., 1st respondent. The Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.30,500/- under various heads together with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization against respondents 2 and 3, making them jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

9. I have heard the learned counsel representing both parties.

10. In the grounds of appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal erred in awarding lesser compensation. The Tribunal erred in granting amount significantly less Rs.7,500/- under the head of permanent disability; after clinical examination of the claimant, PW.2- Dr.Shankararao has assessed the Disability at 20% partial and permanent disability; the Tribunal ought to have seen that the claimant is an engineering student.

11. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has supported the findings and observations of the Tribunal.

12. Now the point for determination is:

Is the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal just and reasonable and requires enhancement?

P O I N T:

13. The Tribunal's findings that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle's driver, i.e., 1st respondent and the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident as evident by Ex.A2-certified copy of the wound certificate are not disputed by the respondents in M.V.O.P. by filing a cross objection or appeal. The said findings attained finality.

14. The Tribunal’s finding that the 1st respondent was the driver and he had a valid driving licence at the time of the accident, the 2nd respondent was the owner, the 3rd respondent was the insurer of the offending vehicle in question, and the 3rd respondent issued valid insurance policy vide Ex.B1 for the offending vehicle, and it was in force as on the date of the accident are also not disputed.

15. The evidence of PW.1 coupled with Ex.A.2-wound certificate and the evidence of PW.2-Dr.Shankararao, concerning Ex.X.1, shows that PW.1 sustained the following injuries:

i. An abrasion of 4 x 3 cm on left forearm, ii. An abrasion of 3 x 1 cm below left