JUDGMENT :

A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J.

Introductory:

The respondent No.3 before the Court of the III Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kakinada (for short “the learned MACT”), in M.V.O.P.No.523 of 2004 filed the present appeal, questioning the liability imposed and quantum of compensation awarded under the decree and order dated 30.03.2007.

2. The 1^st respondent herein is the claimant/petitioner, (being minor represented by his father and next friend) before the learned MACT. The 2^nd respondent is the driver of the Tipper lorry bearing No. AP 16 V 3043 [hereinafter referred as 'the offending vehicle'] and the 3^rd respondent herein is the owner of the offending vehicle.

3. 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:-

4. [i] On the fateful day i.e., on 05.04.2004, the petitioner/injured (minor) while returning from the house of his grandfather situated at Ramakanchinagar and proceeding to Karapa village, met with an accident near Durgamma temple, where the offending vehicle, owned by the 2^nd respondent, driven by the 1^st respondent came from behind and hit him. Thereby, the petitioner sustained multiple injuries and he was shifted to Government General Hospital, Kakinada, undergone treatment for a period of (3) month, undergone surgery to his left thigh and skin grafting was done. Six months bed rest was advised.

[ii] A case in Crime No. 31 of 2004 under Section 338 of IPC was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle.

[iii] The petitioner incurred heavy expenditure for the treatment. The 1^st respondent being driver, the 2^nd respondent being owner of the offending vehicle and as the 3^rd respondent, with which the offending vehicle was insured, all the respondents are liable to pay the compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.

Case of the 2^nd respondent/Owner:-

5. Negligence of the petitioner is the cause for the accident and the respondents are not liable.

Case of the 3^rd respondent/Insurance Company:-

6. Contention of the 3^rd respondent is that the petitioner is not entitled for any compensation. In any event, the claim is excessive. Negligence of the petitioner is the cause for the accident.

Evidence:-

7. [i] During enquiry, father of the petitioner was examined as PW1. One Dr. P.V. Sudhakar, who treated the petitioner, was examined as PW2 and the eyewitness, one N.Venkata Subbaro, was examined as PW3.

[ii] The petitioner has relied on the documentary evidence Ex.A1-FIR, Ex.A2 - wound certificate, Ex.A3- bunch of medical bills for Rs.10,576/-, Ex.A4-Discharge Summary, Ex.A5 - Medical Certificate, Ex.A6- bunch of medical bills for Rs.1,479/-. Ex.X1 -case sheet with X-ray film of the injured and Ex.X2 -Discharge summary from Government General Hospital, Kakinada.

[iii] No evidence is adduced for the respondents.

Findings of the learned MACT:-

8. [i] Relying on the evidence of PW.1 and the eye witness- PW.3, learned MACT believed the accident, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and found that the respondents are liable to pay compensation.

[ii] By relying on the evidence of PW2, Doctor who treated the claim- petitioner and also nature of the injuries, period of treatment, medical expenditure evidenced by the bills- Ex.A3 and Ex.A6, considering nature of injuries and the treatment etc., awarded compensation of Rs.1,46,000/- in all, making the respondents 2 and 3 jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

9. Questioning the liability imposed and the compensation awarded, present appeal is filed by the 3^rd respondent.

Arguments in the appeal:

For the appellant/Insurance Company/3^rd respondent:-

10. [i] Learned MACT ought to have seen that there is no fracture injury and disability to the petitioner.

[ii] Learned MACT ought to have seen that the petitioner/injured himself was negligent.

[iii] Compensation awarded under various heads, particularly for