APHC010504922004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3311]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

Thursday, the Twenty sixth day of February, Two Thousand and Twenty Six Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2707 of 2004 Between:

1. Para Ramadas, S/o.Para Anjanaiah, age 61 years, cooly, resident of M.Joharapuram village, Aspari Mandal, Kurnool District.

...Appellant and

1. M.A.Subhan, S/o.M.A.Aziz, major H.No.2/300, Karpet, Adoni.

2. The New India Assurance Company Limited, represented by its Divisional Manager, Kurnool.

...Respondents Counsel for the appellant:

1. K Rathanga Pani Reddy Counsel for the respondents:

1. P.A.N.V. Ravi Teja The Court made the following JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 09.07.2001 in M.V.O.P.No.549 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II-Additional District Judge, Kurnool.

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

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

On 09.05.1997 at about 4.30 p.m, while he was going in a bus bearing No.AP 21 V 0689, the lorry bearing No.AAQ 2228, belonging to the respondent No.1 and insured by respondent No.2 driven in rash and negligent manner, as a result the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and finally suffered permanent disability. The case was registered by the police against the driver of the bus. Therefore, the petition is filed seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.

4. The 1^st respondent remained exparte. The 2^nd respondent filed counter opposing the petition and denying the case of the petitioner and further stating that the driver of the lorry was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of the accident.

5. On behalf of the appellant, he got himself examined as PW1, besides examining the doctor as PW2 and marked Exs.A1 to A6.

On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was adduced but Ex.B1 was marked.

P.W.1: Ramadas.

P.W.2: B.Chandranna.

Ex.A1: Certified copy of F.I.R.

Ex.A2: Certified copy of charge sheet.

Ex.A3: Certified copy of wound certificate.

Ex.A4: Bunch of Medical bills (6) in number worth Rs.1,809/-

Ex.A5: Bunch of prescriptions by Medical Officer (9) in number.

Ex.A6: X-Ray.

Ex.B1: Copy of policy marked with consent.

6. After hearing both the parties, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition awarding compensation of Rs.13,800/- with interest therein @ 9% p.a., from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization and proportionate costs.

7. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal was filed stating that the Tribunal failed to grant adequate amount of compensation in respect of the permanent disability suffered by the petitioner and that the Tribunal failed to grant compensation for pain and suffering, medical expenses, attendant charges, extra nourishment etc., 8. Since the appeal was filed by the claimant challenging the quantum of compensation, the scope of appeal was restricted to the same.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted as in the grounds of appeal stressing the inadequacy of the amount of compensation awarded, particularly with reference to the alleged permanent disability.

10. The notice sent to the respondent No.1 was returned unserved as refused. In fact, the respondent No.1 did not contest the matter before the Tribunal.

11. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that the Tribunal rightly decided the quantum of compensation, since there was no proof of the alleged disability. He drew the attention of this Court to the observation for the Tribunal in paragraph No.6 of its order wherein the evidence of P.W.2, the doctor who was examined to prove the case of the claimant, was discussed in detail.

12. The claimant sought compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-, whereas the Tribunal awarded Rs.13,800/-, which includes compensation of Rs.1,000/- for each of the six simple injuries and Rs.5,000/- for one grievous injury,