HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA M.A.C.M.A.NO.275 OF 2021

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the claimant aggrieved by the order and Decree dated 07.02.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.622 of 2016 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-Principal District Judge, Nizamabad (for short “the Tribunal”).

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the petitioner is that on 24.08.2015 at about 9.00 P.M. near Saraswathinagar while the petitioner was travelling as pillion rider on motor cycle bearing No.AP-25-AG6-724 from Nizamabad towards Bhainsa, one Mahindra Bolero Max Pickup Goods Van bearing No.TS-04-UA-2159 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed dashed against the motor cycle in opposite direction, due to which the petitioner, his brother Mohammed Sohail and one pedestrian sustained multiple and grievous injuries. Immediately the petitioner was shifted to Government Area Hospital, Bhainsa and from there he went to GHH, Nizamabad for further treatment and he was treated as inpatient from 24.08.2015 to 21.09.2015. The petitioner incurred huge medical expenditure for his treatment. The petitioner was a student and doing labour work and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. The petitioner sought a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.

4. Respondent No.1 remained ex-parte. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed its counter denying the occurance of the accident, age, income of the injured and also contended that the rider of the motor bike was not wearing helmet and has not taken proper precautions to avoid the accident and that he was negligent and caused the accident.

5. Based on the rival pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for trial:

1) Whether the petitioner received injuries in the motor accident due to rash and negligent driving of Mahindra Bolero Max pickup Goods Van bearing No.TS01UA2159 by its driver causing death of Mohammed Sohail?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and from what? 3) To what relief and costs?

6. To prove their case, the petitioner got examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. On behalf of the respondent RW1 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked.

7. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.88,000/- as against the claim of Rs.9,00,000/. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement.

8. Heard Sri S.Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri N.S.Bhaskar Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has awarded very meager amount of Rs.88,000/- towards compensation as against the claim of Rs.2,00,000/-. He further submitted that the Tribunal failed to consider the grievous injuries sustained by the petitioner and the medical expenses incurred by him and that the petitioner is still suffering from the impact of accident and therefore, he prayed to enhance the compensation.

10. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted that the Tribunal has granted just compensation and that there is no need to interfere with the same. Therefore, he prayed to dismiss the appeal.

11. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the following points for determination:

a) Whether the claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation as prayed for? If so to what extent?

b) Whether the order and decree of the Tribunal need any interference?

c) To what relief?

12. POINT NO.1:

a). PW.1 before the trial Court has reiterated the contents of the petition in his Chief examination. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner sustained grievous injuries, fractures and underwent treatment at Government Hospital, Bhainsa and also at Government Hospital, Nizamabad. Ex.A3 is the injury certificate.

b). A perusal of the said Ex.A3 issued by Civil Assistant Surgeon at Government Hospital, Nizamabad, r