Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Court against the judgment and decree passed in O.P.No.98/2014 dt.19-09-2014 on the file of the court of the MACT-cum-Family Court cum VI Addl Dist Judge, Kadapa Kadapa Dist.

Counsel for the Appellant:

1.D KODANDARAMI REDDY

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.V HEMANTH KUMAR

2.

The Court made the following:

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

M.A.C.M.A.No.06 of 2015

JUDGMENT:

Introductory:

The Claimant in M.V.O.P.No.98 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Family Court-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa [for short „the learned MACT”], feeling dissatisfied with the award and decree dated 19.09.2014 passed therein, where under the claim against the 1st respondent alone was allowed while dismissing the same against the 2nd respondent and a compensation of Rs.93,400/- only was granted as against the claim made for Rs.2,00,000/-, filed the present appeal, disputing the exoneration of the 2nd respondent from the liability and the quantum of compensation awarded as inadequate.

1st respondent is owner of the vehicle bearing No.AP 04 W 6793 [hereinafter referred as „the offending vehicle‟] and the 2nd respondent is the Insurance Company, with which the offending vehicle was insured.

For the sake of convenience, parties will be herein after referred as the claimant/petitioner and the respondents as and how they are arrayed before the learned MACT.

Case of the claimant/petitioner:-

[i] On 18.03.2013 while the claimant/petitioner was proceeding in his auto, near Nallavanka situated on Kamalapuram to Ayyavaripalli main road, the offending vehicle, owned by the 1st respondent came in an opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the said auto, with the result petitioner and others sustained injuries.

[ii] The injured including the petitioner were shifted to Government Hospital, Proddatur. Fracture of right femur and other injuries were noted on the body of the petitioner. He has undergone surgery and three rods were inserted and he stayed in the hospital for (16) days. Thereafter, taken treatment in a private hospital at Kadapa under the supervision of orthopedic surgeon. He was advised to take treatment and medicines. He has spent Rs.20,000/- towards medicines, treatment, transport, attendant and extra nourishment, etc.. He lost grip, strength and unable to walk independently, sit and squat properly, suffering permanent physical and functional disability.

[iii] Petitioner was attending coolie works and feeding his family. But due to the accident, he became disabled. Since the driver of the Tipper is responsible for the accident, the 1st respondent being the owner and the 2nd respondent, with whom the offending vehicle was insured, are liable to pay just compensation.

The 1st respondent, owner remained ex parte.

Case of the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company:-

[i] Negligence of the driver of the auto is the cause for the accident and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle.

[ii] Compliance of the conditions of the Policy, manner of the accident, age, occupation, income and disability shall be properly proved.

[iii] The driver of the auto did not possess valid driving licence.

[iv] There was overload in the auto and the same has contributed to lose control and the auto turned turtle. The auto alone was involved in the accident. There was no negligence on the part of the driver of the Tipper/offending vehicle.

[v] The petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.

Evidence:-

[i] The petitioner was examined as PW.1. One Dr.C.Sanjevaiah, who treated the petitioner was examined as PW.2.

[ii] Petitioner relied on the documents, Ex.A1-FIR, Ex.A2- wound certificate, Ex.A3 -charge sheet, Ex.A4-disability certificate issued by RIMS Hospital, Kadapa.

[iii] Respondent relied on the evidence of RW1-J. Vijaykumar. RW2- M. Mallikarjuna and Ex.B1- Insurance