JUDGEMENT:

The appellant is the Claimant in M.V.O.P.No.238 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge, Kadapa and the respondents are the respondents in the said case.

2. Both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in claim application.

3. The claimant filed a Claim Petition under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act against the respondents praying the Tribunal to award an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- towards compensation to the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a Motor Vehicle Accident occurred on

27.12.2012 at about 4.30 p.m.

4. The case of the claimant is that on 27.12.2012 at about 4.30 p.m. while the petitioner proceeding to Kadapa from his native village Atlur, on his motor cycle and when reached near bypass road situated on Kadapa-Rajampet main road, the driver of mini lorry bearing No.AP 04 Y 9189 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed against the motor cycle of the claimant, resulting which, the claimant sustained multiple grievous injuries and the petitioner claimed an amount of Rs.12,00,000/-

towards compensation.

5. The first respondent remained exparte. The second respondent filed counter denying the claim application and contended that the claimant is not entitled any compensation and the second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the injuries sustained by the petitioner.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

i. Whether the accident took place on 27.12.2012 at

4.30 p.m. near burial ground bypass road on Kadapa-Rajampet main road due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of mini lorry bearing No.AP 04 Y 9189 resulting injuries to the claimant by name B.Chinnapu Reddy?

ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation, if so, to what extent and from which of the respondents? iii. To what relief?

7. On behalf of the petitioner, PW1 to PW5 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A22 and Ex.X1 to Ex.X4 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of second respondent.

8. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal has given a finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of offending vehicle and the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.2,45,000/- to the claimant towards compensation.

9. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant filed the present appeal by claiming the remaining balance of compensation amount.

10. Now, the points for consideration are:

I. Whether the Order of Tribunal needs any interference?

II. Whether the claim petitioner in MVOP No.238 of 2013 is entitled the relief of enhancement of claim as prayed for?

11. POINTS 1 and 2 :-

The case of the petitioner is that on 27.12.2012, the claimant left the village and was proceeding to Kadapa on his employment work and when reached near bypass road situated on Kadapa- Rajampet main road at about 4.30 p.m. at that time, mini lorry bearing No.AP 04Y 9189 came from behind being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed against the motor cycle of the claimant, as a result, he fell down from the motor cycle and sustained multiple grievous injuries and police registered a case against the driver of the crime vehicle mini lorry.

12. The petitioner further pleaded that after the accident, he was shifted to RIMS hospital in 108 ambulance and later he was shifted to Sri Venkateswara Orthopaedic and Trauma Care and Maternity hospital, Kadapa city and on 27.12.2012 he underwent an operation to his right hand and he also sustained injury to right kidney in the same accident.

13. The second respondent/ Insurance Company pleaded that the claimant is not entitled the compensation and accident did not took place due to rash and negligent driving of the mini lorry driven by its driver.

14. In order to prove the case of the claimant, the claimant himself was examined as PW1. He is the best person to speak about the manner of the accident and abou