APHC010384782007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3311]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

Monday, the sixteenth day of February Two thousand and Twenty Six Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1130 of 2007 and I.A.No.5 of 2007 (Cross Objections No.44169 of 2007)

Between:

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. ...Appellant and Veerappagari Raghu and others ...Respondents Counsel for the appellant:

1. A. Malathi Counsel for the respondents:

1. A. Chandraiah Naidu The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and the decree, dated 28.02.2007, in M.V.O.P.No.214 of 2003 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tirupathi.

2. Cross Objections No.44169 of 2007 were filed by the claimant /

cross objector seeking enhancement of the compensation.

3. The respondent No.1 is the claimant, the respondent No.2 is the respondent No.1 and the appellant is the respondent No.2 before the Tribunal.

4. The claimant filed petition seeking compensation of Rs.5,50,000/-

for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident.

5. The case of the claimant, is briefly, as follows:

On 27.07.2002 at about 3.30 p.m., while the petitioner was going on his motor cycle bearing No.TN 20 E 9063 on the Puttur to Narayanavanam main road, the mini lorry of the respondent No.1 bearing No.AP 03 T 6661 coming in the opposite direction, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motor cycle of the petitioner, as a result of which the petitioner sustained multiple injuries, including fracture of right thigh and left leg tibia. He was admitted in the Government hospital, Puttur. Later, he was shifted to S.V.R.R.G.G. Hospital, Tirupathi, and also to Apollo Hospital, Chennai. He suffered permanent disability and unable to attend his general occupation. The case was reported to Narayanavanam police who registered a case in Cr.No.33 of 2002 under section 338 of I.P.C.

The offending vehicle was insured with the respondent No.2.

6. The respondent No.1 remained ex parte.

7. The respondent No.2 filed a counter opposing the claim, mainly contending that the vehicle of the respondent No.1 was not involved in the accident, as per the complaint given by V.Lokanadham Reddy who is the brother of the petitioner. The accident occurred due to involvement of an unknown vehicle.

8. On behalf of the claimant, he got himself examined as PW.1, and also examined five more witnesses, i.e., PWs 2 to 6 PW.1 : Veerappagari Raghu PW.2 : K.Ramesh Babu PW.3 : Dr.Madan Mohan Reddy PW.4 : P.S.Arunkumar PW.5 : Dr.Dharmarajan PW.6 : T.Mohan Reddy The claimant filed documentary evidence under Ex.A1 to A9 and got marked the discharge summary as Ex.C1. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of F.I.R; Ex.A2 is the certified copy of wound certificate; Ex.A3 is the certified copy of charge sheet; Ex.A4 is the bunch of medical bills 95 in number worth Rs.3,30,725.82 paise; Ex.A5 is the travel bills 34 in number worth Rs.6,200/-; Ex.A6 is the discharge summary; Ex.A7 is the P.D. Certificate issued by Dr. S.Dharmarajan, Neuro Surgeon, Apollo Hospital, Chennai; Ex.A8 is the P.D. Certificate issued by Dr.Madan Mohan Reddy, Orthopaedic Surgeon, Apollo Hospital, Chennai; Ex.A9 is the bunch of investigations and prescriptions; and Ex.C1 is the discharge summary.

9. On behalf of the respondent No.2, G.Chinnanna was examined as RW1 and a copy of the policy of insurance was marked as Ex.B1.

10. After hearing both the parties and considering the evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the mini lorry of the respondent No.1 and awarded compensation of Rs.3,62,000/- payable with interest @ 7.5 % p.a., from the date of the petition till the date of realisation and the costs.

11. Aggrieved by the award and the decree, this appeal was fi