APHC010273972005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3311]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

Saturday, the seventh day of March two thousand and twenty six Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.3629 of 2005 Between:

Patnana Appanna ...Appellant and Shaik Masthan Pyarejan and others ...Respondents Counsel for the appellant:

1. Aravala Rama Rao Counsel for the respondents:

1. B. Nalin Kumar

2. V. Veerabhadra Chary The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and the decree, dated 11.05.2005, in M.V.O.P.No.457 of 2000 before the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Srikakulam.

2. The appellant is the claimant and the respondents are the respondents before the Tribunal.

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

On 06.03.2000, at about 7 P.M., after loading casuarina timber poles, the claimant boarded a lorry bearing No.AP 30/T 5533 of the respondent No.1 at Akulamulagam village for unloading the timber at Vizianagaram. On 07.03.2000 at about 2 A.M., near Girivanipalem road junction, the driver of the lorry drove in a rash and negligent manner with high speed. As a result, the lorry turned turtle. The claimant sustained multiple fracture injuries to his left leg and other parts of the body. The claimant fell unconscious. The S.H.O. of J.R.Puram P.S., registered a case in Crime No.20 of 2000 against the driver of the lorry. It is registered as C.C.No.226 of 2000 by the Court of I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Srikakulam. He was shifted to the Government Headquarters Hospital, Srikakulam. Later, he was shifted to the King George Hospital, Visakhapatnam, where he was treated as inpatient for about two months. He underwent two major operations. Implants were inserted to his left leg. Even after discharge from the hospital, he continued to take treatment from Dr.Ambedkar, M.S. (Ortho) and in the other clinics in Visakhapatnam. He had to engage attendants. He spent Rs.50,000/- for medical and travelling expenses; Rs.5,000/- for extra nourishment and Rs.10,000/- for attendant charges.

The claimant became permanently disabled due to which he cannot attend labour work. The claimant sought compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- against the respondent No.1 who is the owner of the lorry and the respondent No.2 who is the insurer of the lorry. 4. The respondent No.1 remained ex parte.

5. The respondent No.2 filed a written statement denying the allegations and putting the claimant to strictly prove the averments made by him. It is also denied that the crime vehicle was insured by this respondent.

6. On behalf of the claimant, P.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and exhibits A1 to A11 were marked. Ex.A1 is the certified photostat copy of F.I.R. in Crime No.20 of 2000 of J.R.Puram police station; Ex.A2 is the certified photostat copy of M.V.I report; Ex.A3 is the certified photostat copy of wound certificate; Ex.A4 is the certified photostat copy of charge sheet in C.C.No.226 of 2000 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Srikakulam; Ex.A5 is the bunch of medical prescriptions (3 in number); Ex.A6 is the bunch of medical bills (17 in number); Ex.A7 is the letter written by Dr.M.Ambedkar; Ex.A8 is the bunch of x-ray films (8 in number); Ex.A9 is O.P. discharge book given by K.G. Hospital, Visakhapatnam; Ex.A10 is the receipt, dated 10.09.2000, for Rs.10,000/- towards attendant charges issued by Kambapu Papayya of Vizianagaram; Ex.A11 is the physically handicapped certificate, dated 23.04.2001, relating to the claimant. On behalf of the respondents, neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced. Ex.C1 and C2 were marked. Ex.C1 is the physically handicapped certificate, dated 02.01.2005, relating to the claimant and Ex.C2 is the case sheet relating to the claimant maintained in King George Hospital, Visakhapatnam.

7. After hearing both the parti