THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’) by the appellant/claimant aggrieved by the Award and decree dated 26.11.2019 passed in M.V.O.P.No.1623 of 2015 by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’).

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) from the respondents for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident. It is stated that on 07.12.2014, the petitioner along with his nephew were proceeding on his motorcycle from Illandu to Palvancha of Khammam District; while so, at about 9:30 A.M., a Tata Magic Motor Cab bearing No. AP-24-TV-0136 was proceeding to Illandu in opposite direction, which was being driven by respondent No.3 in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the motorcycle of the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injury to head, fracture of left leg, fracture of hip bones, pubic bones and multiple injuries all over the body. Immediately, the petitioner was shifted to Sai Sudha Nursing Home, Palvancha and from there, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Kothagudem of Khammam District to make it as M.L.C; where he underwent treatment as inpatient from 08.12.2014 to 22.12.2014 and again from 12.01.2015 to 28.01.2015, during which the petitioner underwent surgery on 25.01.2015 and incurred huge medical expenses.

3. Based on a complaint, the Police, Tekulapally P.S, Khammam District registered a case in Crime No.240 of 2014 under Section 337 of IPC against the driver of crime vehicle and after thorough investigation, filed Charge Sheet under Section

338 of IPC.

4. It is further stated that at the time of accident, the petitioner was hale and healthy and was aged about 58 years and was running General Provision Store and Hotel business and used to earn Rs.20,000/- per month. Due to the said accident, the petitioner sustained grievous injury to head, fracture of left leg, fracture of hip bones, pubic bones and multiple injuries on various parts of the body and suffered

100% permanent disability. Due to the said accident, the petitioner lost his earnings during the period he was undergoing treatment. It is further stated that the petitioner had also spent more than Rs.10,00,000/- for treatment and other medical expenses for the grievous injuries sustained and was under bed rest for 3 years.

5. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1-owner of the crime vehicle, respondent No.2 insurance policy holder and respondent No.3 driver of the crime vehicle remained ex parte. Respondent No.4 Insurance Company filed a counter denying the age, income and avocation of the petitioner, averments of the claim petition and contended that the alleged accident had not occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the crime vehicle. Further, contended that the driver of the crime vehicle i.e., respondent No.3 was not having valid and subsisting driving license and the crime vehicle was not roadworthy to ply, on the date of accident. It is further contended that compensation claimed is excessive, exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

6. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:

1) Whether the petitioner sustained injuries due to negligent driving of respondent No.3 while driving Acer Motor Cab bearing No.AP-24-TV-0136 on

07.12.2014?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation?

If so, what is quantum and from whom?

3) To what relief?

7. During trial, on behalf of the petitioner, he himself got examined as P.W.1 and also got examined the doctor as P.W.2 and Exs.A-1 to A-10 were marked. On behalf of the respondent No.4, none were examined, however, Ex.B-1 was marked.

8. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on