HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY M.A.C.M.A.NO.76 OF 2015

JUDGMENT

Heard learned counsel Sri Azar Sravan Kumar for the appellant and Sri. B.Vivek Reddy learned counsel for insurance company for the respondent no.2.

2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant- claimant dissatisfied with the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge at Nizamabad, (for short, ‘MACT’) in M.V.O.P.No.287 of 2007, dated 24.10.2014 and thereby seeking for enhancement of compensation.

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

4. The appellant/claimant is a driver by profession. On 27.03.2005, while the appellant/claimant was proceeding towards Hyderabad by driving lorry bearing registration No.AP- 1-T-4888 and when the said lorry reached near Munjeth Singh Daba near Bibipoor Thanda, another lorry bearing registration No.AP-13-T-1631 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the appellant’s lorry. As a result, the driver who drove the crime lorry bearing No.AP-13-T-1631 fell down and died on the spot, and the appellant sustained fracture to nasal bone, fracture to upper lip, head injury and other parts of the body. The Police, Dichpally Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.57 of 2005 and investigated into the case.

5. The appellant filed the claim petition against the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.AP-1-T-4888, which he was driving and insurance company under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act before the MACT claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the accident.

6. The claimant claimed that he was aged about 25 years as on the date of accident, hale and healthy and working as driver, and was getting an income of Rs.5,000/- per month and due to this accident, he sustained permanent disability and is unable to work.

7. The respondent No.1, the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.AP-1-T-4888 remained ex-parte.

8. The 2^nd respondent-Insurance Company filed counter denying allegations made in the claim petition including the manner of accident, age, avocation, injuries sustained by the appellant and expenditure incurred towards treatment. It was contended that driver of the crime lorry was not having valid driving license and contended that accident occurred due to negligence on the part of driver of the lorry bearing No. AP-13-T- 1631, as such, the owner of the said lorry is liable to pay compensation and finally, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

9. Basing on the above pleadings, the MACT has framed the following issues:

i) Whether the accident arose out of involvement and use of lorry bearing No.AP-1-T-4888 ?

ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?

iii) To what relief ?

10. In order to substantiate the case, the claimant-injured himself was examined as P.W.1 and also examined P.W.2 and Exs.A1 & A2 were marked on behalf of claimant. On behalf of 2nd respondent-insurance company, no witness was examined, however, certified copy of insurance policy was marked as Ex.B1 on its behalf.

11. On issue no.1, the MACT, on due consideration of the material and evidence placed on record, held that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the crime lorry bearing No.AP-13-T-1631 and dashed the lorry bearing No.AP-1- T-4888, wherein the claimant was travelling and he sustained injuries on account of accident and decided the issue in favour of the claimant and awarded a sum of Rs.45,000/- towards compensation to the appellant along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The owner of the vehicle and the Insurance company i.e., respondent Nos.1 and 2 were held to be jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation.

12. During the course of hearing of the appeal, learned counsel for appellant submitted that the MACT ought to have granted Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation, and interest at the rate of 1