JUDGMENT:-

Challenge in this MACMA is to the award, dated 20.04.2009 in Original Petition No.423 of 2007, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram (“Tribunal” for short), whereunder the Tribunal dealing with a claim for compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- made by the petitioner on account of injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident, which was occurred on 24.02.2007, awarded a sum of Rs.67,250/-.

2) The parties to this MACMA will hereinafter be referred to as described before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

3) The petitioner laid a claim before the tribunal for “no fault liability” under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that on 24.02.2007 the petitioner boarded the auto bearing No.A.P.35-T-5661 (hereinafter will be referred to as “offending vehicle”) to go to his village along with some other passengers. When the auto reached near Chukkapeta junction at about 4-00 p.m., the driver drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and applied sudden brakes when a bullock cart came across the road. Consequently, the auto turned turtle and the petitioner sustained grievous injuries to his left leg. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Vizianagaram. The doctors took X-rays and found fracture to his left leg. After discharge from the Government Hospital, the petitioner was admitted in Sai Vamsi Nursing Home, Vizianagaram. The doctors conducted surgery and inserted implants in his left leg. The petitioner suffered lot of pain. The doctors suggested the petitioner to take bed rest for a period of two months. The petitioner was working as labourer and earning Rs.3,000/- per month prior to the accident. The police of Gurla registered a case in Cr.No.14/2007 under Sections 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code against the auto driver. The first respondent is owner of the offending vehicle whereas the second respondent is its insurer. Hence, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

4) The first respondent remained exparte.

5) The second respondent got filed a counter putting burden on the petitioner to prove the manner of accident, age and income of the petitioner and the insurance coverage to the auto and contending in substance that the auto driver had no valid driving license as on the date of accident. The first respondent being the driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle knows well that he has no valid and subsisting driving license at the time of accident. Hence, their company has no liability to pay any compensation. The claim of the petitioner is highly excessive.

Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the petition.

6) On the basis of the above pleadings, the tribunal settled the following issues for trail:

(1) Whether the pleaded accident was occurred resulting in injuries to the petitioner, due to his involvement in a motor vehicle accident involving the auto bearing No.A.P.35-T-5661 when it was used in a public place?

(2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation and, if so, at what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents?

(3) To what relief?

7) During the course of enquiry, the petitioner examined himself as P.W.1 and examined P.W.2, the doctor, who issued disability certificate and got marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.9. Further Ex.X.1 to Ex.X.4 were marked. On behalf of the second respondent, R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and Ex.B.1 and Ex.B.2 were marked.

8) The tribunal on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence held that the accident occurred was due to involvement of offending vehicle and further awarded a sum of Rs.67,250/- towards compensation. The petitioner felt aggrieved that the compensation so awarded is not just and reasonable, filed the present MACMA.

9) Now, in deciding the present MACMA, the point for determination is whether the award, dated 20.04.2009 in Original Petition No.423 of 2007, on