JUDGMENT:-

Challenge in this M.A.C.M.A. is to the award, dated

26.11.2018, in M.V.O.P.No.155 of 2016, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – cum – II Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru (‘Tribunal’ for short), whereunder the Tribunal dealing with a claim for compensation made by the claimant, to a tune of Rs.20,00,000/-, with regard to the injuries received by him in a motor vehicle accident, which was occurred on 27.10.2015, at 01.00 p.m., awarded a sum of Rs.22,10,600/-, towards the compensation and permitted the petitioner on deposit to withdraw Rs.12,00,000/- with interest and costs and that the remaining amount has to be kept in fixed deposit for a period of two years. Appellant herein is the unsuccessful respondent No.3, who felt aggrieved of the award of the Tribunal, filed the present M.A.C.M.A. 2. The parties to this M.A.C.M.A. will hereinafter be referred to as described before the learned Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

3. The case of the claimant before the Tribunal, in brief, according to the averments set out in the Motor Vehicle accident claim, is that:

(i) On 27.10.2015 at about 01.00 p.m., the petitioner left his house to go to Gundugolanu Village centre on his personal work by riding his motorcycle. When the petitioner reached near Gundugolanu Village centre, one car bearing No. TS 07 EK 3004 (‘offending vehicle’ for short), being driven by the driver in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn, dashed against the motorcycle of the petitioner. On account of the said hit, the petitioner sustained multiple and grievous injuries all over his body. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Head Quarters Hospital, Eluru, in 108 ambulance and from there to Padmavathi Hospital, Gudiwada. In the aforesaid hospital, the petitioner was operated for his injuries. He spent lot of money for medical expenses. On account of the accident, the petitioner sustained the disability. (ii) The Station House Officer, Dendulur police station of West Godavari District, registered a case in Crime No.160 of 2015, under section 338 of IPC. Respondent No.1 is the driver, the respondent No.2 is the owner and the respondent No.3 is the Insurance Company with which, the offending vehicle was insured at the time of accident. Hence, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. Hence, the petition.

4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained exparte. Respondent No.3 got filed counter denying the averments in the petition, resisting the claim of the petitioner and putting forth the burden on the claimant. According to the respondent No.3, the petitioner has to prove the manner of the accident, age and avocation of him. The compensation claimed under various heads is excessive. The petitioner has to prove the treatment particulars and the medical expenditure. There is no rash or negligent act on the part of the offending vehicle. The accident occurred was on account of the negligent riding of the motorcycle by the petitioner/claimant. The petitioner/claimant contributed to the accident. Respondent No.1 has no valid driving license to drive the offending vehicle. Policy conditions were violated by the owner of the offending vehicle. Compensation claimed is highly excessive. Hence, the claim is liable to be dismissed.

5. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal settled the following issue for trial:

(1) Whether Saidu Rajasekhar sustained injuries in a road accident that took place on 27.10.2015 at Gundugolanu Village Centre due to rash and negligent driving of Car bearing Number TS 07 EK 3004 being driven by the respondent No.1 or due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner/claimant?

(2) Whether the petition is not maintainable for non-joinder of owner and insurer of Motorcycle as contended in the written statement?

(3) Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

(4) To what relief?

6. During t