The court held that compensation for injuries must adequately reflect the extent of injury and economic loss, enhancing the award based on re-evaluation of disability and medical expenses.

JUDGMENT:

This M.A.C.M.A is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellant/petitioner aggrieved by the Award and decree dated 02.01.2020 passed in M.V.O.P.No.884 of 2015 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- with interest @ 24% per annum for the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 25.01.2015.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant/petitioner filed M.V.O.P.No.884 of 2015 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him, in the accident that occurred on 25.01.2015, while he was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing No.AP-28-BL-3858 from Medchal towards Majeedpur side slowly on the extreme left side of the road, when he reached the Village limits of Kistapur and at that time the DCM Van bearing No.AP-23-T- 7479 driven by its driver in high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motorcycle of the petitioner, due to which, the petitioner fell down and sustained fracture of head, Grade-II/III Compound comminuted fracture of both bones M/3^rd shaft of right leg, fracture of right hand, fracture head and neck of 2nd metacarpal comminuted fracture of right hand, fracture dislocation subluxation of 3^rd, 4^th and 5^th metacarpal, fracture of right frontal sinus, fracture of left sphenoid sinus and other injuries all over his body and immediately, he was admitted in R.R.Hospital, Medchal and after first-aid, he was shifted to BBR Super Speciality Hospital, Balanagar, Secunderabad and thereafter, he was treated as in-patient from 26.01.2015 to 04.02.2015 and he underwent surgery on 30.01.2015 and undergoing periodical check-ups. The police registered a case in Cr.No.28 of 2015 under Section 337 of IPC against the driver of the crime vehicle bearing No.AP-23-T-7479.

3. The contention of the petitioner before the learned Tribunal was that he became permanently disabled due to fractures sustained by him and that he was a private employee working as delivery boy in Express BC Courier Services and he used to earn Rs.18,000/- per month and he got bright future and in all, he claimed an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- towards compensation with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of accident till the date of realization.

4. Before the learned Tribunal, Respondent No.1/owner – cum-driver of the DCM van bearing No.AP-23-T-7479 remained ex-parte. The respondent No.2 – The Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, filed their counter- affidavit, denying all the averments made in the claim petition, including the manner in which the accident took place, age, avocation and income of the petitioner and further contended that the accident took place due to the negligent driving of the petitioner and the petitioner has to prove that he got valid driving license to drive the motorcycle and further contended that the owner of the motorcycle bearing No.AP-28- BL-3858 is also necessary party to the petition and further contended that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is excessive and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

5. Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the counsels, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues, which reads as under:

“i) Whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of DCM Van bearing No.AP-23-T-7479 causing injuries to the petitioner?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? if so, to what extent and from whom?

3. To what relief?”

6. After perusing the oral and documentary evidence and g