HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO M.A.C.M.A.NO.534 OF 2022

JUDGMENT

This appeal is directed against the order and decree dated

26.07.2022 in M.V.O.P.No.550 of 2015, passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV-Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nizamabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’), wherein the claim of appellant was allowed-in-part, awarding compensation of Rs.62,000/- with interest at

7.5% per annum from the date of petition.

2. Heard Mr.S.Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Ch.Venkata Narayana, learned counsel for respondent No.2-

insurance company. Perused the material on record.

3. The appellant/claimant filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by her in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 05.03.2010. According to the appellant-claimant, on that fateful day while she was traveling along with other labours in DCM Van bearing registration No.AP-28-T-6157 (hereinafter referred to as ‘crime vehicle’) from Nizamabad towards Mudhole, and when they reached Nagepur village limits, the driver of the crime vehicle drove the same in rash and negligent manner and lost control over it, due to which, the crime vehicle went off the road and turned turtle, as a result, the appellant/claimant and other inmates of the said vehicle sustained multiple fracture and grievous injuries all over the body.

4. That the claimant sustained multiple fractures to her left hand, fracture of right thigh, fracture of left jaw, teeth are loosened, multiple and grievous injuries on chest. Immediately, appellant was shifted to Government Hospital, Nizamabad and later, she was admitted in Amrutha Laxmi Multispecialty Hospital, Nizamabad, where she was treated as inpatient from 05.03.2010 to 07.03.2010 and underwent major operations. The appellant contends that she has incurred expenditure of Rs.1,00,000/- towards treatment, medical and extra nourishment. As seen from the record, a case in Crime No.38 of 2010 was registered by Navipet Police against the driver of the crime vehicle under Sections 304-A and 337 of IPC and the investigation was taken upon.

5. The respondent No.1-owner of the crime vehicle has remained ex parte. The respondent No.2-the insurer of the crime vehicle filed counter- affidavit opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation.

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

i) Whether the petitioner met with accident caused by DCM Van bearing NO.AP-28-T-6157 ?

ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as claimed for and from whom ?

iii) To what relief ?

7. During enquiry, appellant/claimant herself was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked on her behalf. On behalf of the respondent No.2-insurance company, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B1-

copy of insurance policy was marked.

8. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by its driver. The said finding has become final, as no appeal is filed by the insurer i.e., 2nd respondent.

9. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.40,000/- towards pain and suffering and an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards transportation, Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment and Rs.12,000/- towards loss of earnings and thus, awarded total compensation amount of Rs.62,000/-. The appellant/claimant being not satisfied with the award, preferred the present Appeal, seeking enhancement of compensation.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant/claimant sustained multiple fractures and grievous injuries in a road accident caused by rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle and incurred substantial expenditure towards medical treatment. However, the Tribunal, without properly considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant, erred in awarding a meager am