JUDGMENT

Heard learned counsel Sri N.Mukunda Reddy for the appellant/petitioner and Sri A.Agastya Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No.2-insurance company.

2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-petitioner dissatisfied with the award passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Addl.District Judge, Nalgonda (for short, ‘Tribunal’) in O.P.No.704 of 2009, dated 03.04.2013 and thereby seeking for enhancement of compensation.

3. The appellant herein is the petitioner, respondent No.1 herein is respondent no.1-owner of the crime vehicle and respondent no.2 herein is respondent no.2-insurance company before the Tribunal. For convenience, the parties have been referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

4. The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is as under.

4.1. On 23.07.2007, while the petitioner was travelling in Auto bearing registration No.AP-27-W-1063 (hereinafter referred to crime vehicle) from Thungaturthy to Nakrekal and when they reached the outskirts of Korlapahad, the driver of the auto drove the auto in rash and negligent manner and lost control over it and the auto turned turtle and as a result, petitioner sustained serious injuries along with other inmates. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Area Hospital, Nakrekal and later, shifted to Headquarters Hospital, Nalgonda. Thereafter, petitioner took treatment in NIMS and Yashoda Hospital and again in Government Hospital, where his left leg ankle was amputated. Later, in a private hospital at Suryapet, the doctors amputated his leg upto knee due to serious injuries sustained in the accident.

4.2. The Police registered a case against the driver of the crime vehicle and later filed charge sheet vide CC No.452 of 2007 on the file of JFCM, Nakrekal.

4.3. It is contended that petitioner was aged 21 years, hale and health, and was earning Rs.4,000/- per month as Male Nurse on contract basis in Government Hospital Area Hospital, Nakrepal and contributing the same to his family; that he incurred an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards treatment, that due to accident, he was permanently disabled and he is unable to do any work and lost his source of income for the remaining part of the life.

4.4. It is further contended that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of crime vehicle and therefore, the petitioner sought compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- along with interest against the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

5. The respondent No.1-owner of the crime vehicle remained ex parte. The respondent No.2-insurance company filed counter denying the narration of the petitioner with respect to the manner of occurrence of accident, the age, income and avocation of the petitioner and further contended that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of crime vehicle, and that driver of the auto was not having valid driving license and therefore, Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation and finally, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

6. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues:

1) Whether the claimant sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of auto bearing No.AP-27- W-1063 ?

2) Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom ?

3) To what relief?

7. In order to substantiate the case, on behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no witness was examined, however, copy of insurance policy was marked as Ex.B1.

8. The Tribunal, on due consideration of the material and evidence placed on record, came to conclusion that the accident took place only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle and awarded a sum of