2.The Court made the following:

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

M.A.C.M.A.No.85 of 2013

JUDGMENT:

Introductory:

1. This appeal is directed against the order and decree dated 24.09.2012 passed in M.V.O.P.No.540 of 2007 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Srikakulam (for short “the MACT”). The petitioner before the learned MACT is the appellant herein.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation of Rs.35,000/- awarded as against a claim made for Rs.4,00,000/-, the present appeal is filed.

3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein are the owner and the insurer of the TATA Sumo Car bearing Registration No.AP 31 M 2257 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”).

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as the claimant and the respondents as and how they are arrayed before the learned MACT.

Case of the claimant/ appellant:

5

(i). On 29.04.2007, at about 03:00 PM, the claimant was proceeding on his motor cycle and reached near Prince Showroom, Palakonda, Srikakulam district, with his friend K. Bullibabu as a pillion rider. The offending vehicle, driven by respondent No.1, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motor cycle from the opposite direction. As a result, the claimant sustained grievous injuries to his right leg due to fracture.

(ii). Immediately after the accident, the claimant was admitted in the Area Hospital, Palakonda, for about 20 days, and later shifted to private hospitals in Visakhapatnam for 30 days as an inpatient, incurring medical expenses of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.10,000/- towards travelling and extra nourishment.

(iii). As on the date of the accident, the claimant was aged about 34 years, hale and healthy, running iron and cement business in Palakonda and used to earn a profit of Rs.15,000/- per month. The claimant is permanently disabled due to fracture of the right leg and suffers mental agony, pain and suffering.

(iv). A case in Crime No.36 of 2007 was registered at Palakonda Police Station under Sections 337 and 338 IPC, and a charge sheet was filed vide C.C.No.77 of2007 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Palakonda.

(v). Both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

6. Respondent No.1, the owner of the offending vehicle, remained ex parte before the learned MACT.

Case of respondent No.2 / Insurance Company:

7

(i). Age, occupation and income of the claimant and the nature and effect of injuries, cost of treatment and disability particularly contributing to the loss of income to the claimant shall be strictly proved.

(ii). The driver of the motor cycle had no valid driving licence, and the accident occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner.

(iii). It is also the case of the respondent Insurance Company that since the claimant was negligent, he is not entitled for compensation and respondent No.2 Insurance Company is not liable.

8. On the strength of pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial by the learned MACT:

(i). Whether the petitioner Voon Venkata Sai Kumar, son of Bhaskara Rao, sustained injuries in the motor vehicle accident that took place on 29.04.2007 at about 03.00 PM, opposite to Prince Show room, Palakonda town, Srikakulam District? If so, whether the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Tata Sumo bearing No.AP 31 M 2257 by its driver or due to that of the petitioner himself in riding his motor cycle or both of them?

(ii). Whether the petitioner is entitled to receive any compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?

(iii). To what relief?

Additional issue:(i). Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim enhanced compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident?

Evidence before the learned MACT:

9

(i). The claimant was examined as P.W.1 and Dr. M. Chandrasekhar Naidu (through Advocate-Commissioner) wa