THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY MACMA No.429 of 2019

JUDGMENT:

This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is preferred by the appellant-insurance company assailing the judgment and decree dated 27.09.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.12 of 2013, whereby the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,28,066/- with interest at 7% p.a. in favour of the claimant (respondent No.1 herein) for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 14.09.2012 at about 14.00 hours the claimant-respondent No.1 herein was going along with his friend Kondal Rao in car bearing No. AP 11 AE 5850 from Pillaipally Village to Hayathnagar and when the car reached Bandaravirala Village, Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District, one lorry bearing No.AP-29-TA-0401 coming from Hayathnagar to Pillaipally Village driven in rash and negligent manner with high speed dashed the car in opposite direction, resulting in multiple grievous injuries to the claimant, including blunt injury to chest, right orbital injury, dislocation of lens and dislocation of the right temporo- mandibular joint. Treatment was taken at Omni Hospital and at Max Mission Hospital. Stating that the claimant was hale and healthy before accident but got permanently disabled due to injuries suffered in the accident and that he was aged 49 years and earning Rs.50,000/- per month on manufacture of water and waste water treatment plant, he filed the aforesaid claim petition before the Tribunal, seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- against the owner and insurer of the crime lorry.

3. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 i.e., the owner of the lorry remained ex parte and respondent No.2 i.e., the Insurance Company filed counter denying the averments of the claim petition and contended that the amount claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

4. The Tribunal, after conducting full-fledged trial and on appreciation both oral and documentary evidence, held that the appellant suffered injuries in the accident occurred due to negligent driving of the said lorry and awarded compensation of Rs.3,28,066/- under various heads with interest at 7% per annum in favour of the claimant. The appellant-insurance company challenges the said award in this appeal.

5. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is, whether the Tribunal was justified in awarding compensation of Rs.3,28,066/- and whether any interference is warranted?

7. As regards proof of manner of accident, the record reveals that the claimant (PW1) clearly explained the accident. Ex.A1-FIR, Ex.A2-charge sheet and the 161 Cr.P.C. statements of Kondal Rao and Sugunakar Reddy (Exs.A4 & A5) corroborated the occurrence of accident and fixed negligence on the lorry driver. The insurer did not lead any evidence to rebut this material. Thus, the Tribunal rightly accepted negligence.

8. As regards discrepancy in vehicle number, it is evident that though the FIR initially mentioned the lorry number as AP-29-PA-0401, the eye- witness statements (Exs.A4 & A5), and the evidence of RW1established that the lorry actually involved in the accident is AP-29-TA-0401, which was insured with the appellant. The Tribunal correctly held that the error in the FIR was a clerical mistake and not fatal.

9. Insofar as nature of injuries and assessment is concerned, the record discloses that according to Ex.A8 (MLC record),the claimant suffered grievous blunt injury to chest, orbital injury, dislocation of lens and dislocation of the temporo-mandibular joint. The discharge summaries support the same. The absence of a doctor’s oral evidence is not fatal in an injury case when documentary medical evidence is clear and unchallenged, as held in several precedents. As such, the amounts awarded by the Tribunal i.e., Rs.1,50,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.50,000/- towards inconvenience, Rs.25