HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

JUDGMENT:

1. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum – The Court of Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, (hereinafter be referred as ‘the Tribunal’) in O.P.No.394 of 2013, dated 23.12.2017, the claim petitioner filed the present Appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The facts of the case in brief are that the claim petitioner filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in an accident that occurred on 24.11.2011. It is stated by the petitioner that on 24.11.2011, when the petitioner was proceeding on his Scooty bearing No.AP-9AB-2467 from Bowenpally towards open military ground and when reached at open military ground, Swarnadhamanagar, Bowenpally, at that time, one Maruthi Wagon- R VXI Car bearing No.AP-29-AQ-9947 came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the Scooty of the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner sustained multiple fractures and injuries all over the body and the Scooty was completely damaged. The said accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Car bearing No.AP- 29AQ-9947. The Police, Bowenpally Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.409 of 2011 under Section 337 IPC against the driver of the car. It is stated by the petitioner that he incurred more than a sum of Rs.50,000/- for his treatment. It is further stated by the petitioner that he is working as private employee and earning Rs.8,000/- per month and hence claimed compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- along with interest which is payable by both the respondents jointly and severally.

4. Respondent No.1 remained exparte. Respondent No.2- Insurance company filed its counter and denied all the material averments made in the claim petition including, manner of accident, involvement of crime vehicle, rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car, age, occupation and income of the petitioner, nature of injuries sustained and amount incurred by him and finally stated that the claim of compensation is excess and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the claim petition against it.

5. Based on the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal had framed the following issues:

1. Whether the pleaded accident had occurred resulting in injuries to the petitioner, A.Ganesh, due to the rasha dn negligent driving of the motor vehicle (Maruthi Wagon-R VXI Car bearing NO.AP 29AQ 9947) by its driver?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation and if so, at what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents?

3. To what relief?

6. In order to prove the above issues, the petitioner himself was examined as PW1 and got examined PWs 2 to 4 and got marked Exs.A1 to A14 and Exs.X1 and X2 on his behalf. None of the witnesses were examined on behalf of respondents. However, Ex.B1-Copy of insurance policy was marked on their behalf.

7. The learned Tribunal, after considering the entire evidence and documents marked on either sides, had partly allowed the claim petition filed by the petitioners by awarding compensation of Rs.5,76,800/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization which is payable by Respondent Nos.1 & 2. Being not satisfied with the compensation awarded, the petitioner in O.P. filed the present Appeal seeking for enhancement of the same.

8. Heard the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.2-Insurance company. Perused the material available on record. 9. The main contention of the learned counsel for Appellant is that the Tribunal ought to have considered the income of the appellant as Rs.8,000/- per month and ought to have considered loss of earning capacity @ 100%. He also contends that